I think it's a prevailing attitude in society, period.  Kids do what kids see others doing.

Quote:

"More than half (52 percent) admit that within the past year they hit a person because they were angry."

Well, I don't know about you guys, when you were teens- but if they call this question the one that makes a difference between bully and no-bully- this leaves a lot of interpretation.

I mean, teens especially boys- are on eachother all the times. They don't talk, the make a joke and the other hops on his back and knocks him on the head for that, like a bunch of puppies. I would say among boys, this kind of behaviour is about 100%- unless you don't have a friend. They just are physical with eachother- and it has nothing to do with bullying. And I don't remember it being any different 35 years ago.

Girls- on the other hand, are more into the name calling and with texting and stuff this probably is now going further than it did before the time of cell phones.

But I still think, the majority of us outgrew it- and so will this generation. This doesn't take the responsability off the adults to teach empathy and resistance to peer pressure.

 But would those boys that you are describing, Mrs.Anteater, then willingly admit to bullying someone?

Mrs.Anteater, just a reminder, these were high school students, not prepubescent boys.  I would, indeed I did, expect my teenage son to not react physically in anger.

That being said, if one looks at the data, the responses to acts of bullying and in general fear of personal safety, have actually decreased since 2008.  This, I suspect, is a positive outcome of the anti-bullying campaigns.

LB

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.

     Martin Luther King, Jr.

Agnie- there was no question that asked if you bullied someone. It was asked if you have hit someone in anger in the past year, if you have taunted someone and if hitting someone could be justified in some cases.

I  find, depending on the definition of "hit", this is a common behaviour. If you would have asked that question to parents in the US (where the parents still has the right to hit the child for "parenting" reasons), you probably would have gotten similar/ or higher procentages.

My daughter was bullied in grade eight when she changed schools. When the problem was approached by me with the school principal, I was told there was nothing they could do if they haven't witnessed it. AND if the bullying takes place off of school property, which means just outside of the line, they are powerless.

Some of the bullying did take place within the school grounds but again each time I approached the principal they would do nothing. They suggested that I could call the police but that would "ostracize" my daughter from ever being able to make friends at her new school.

The other problem was that the leader of this "gang" was the student president and the teachers couldn't believe that this girl could EVER be part of this behaviour.

So, rather than be intimidated by the fact that my daughter would be "ostracized" I chose to protect her and called in the police before things escalated. (this "gang" had even invited her to meet them at the local arena "as friends", but the rumour was circulated that it was to beat her up)

After the police were brought in, these kids were suspended from school for a week and forced to take classes with the local police dept. on the repercussions of bullying (next call would mean being charged) etc......

The result? No more bullying, my daughter made good friends and other kids stepped up and said this was happening to them also.

I hate to say it but I think the school was avoiding the issue in order to not sully their reputation as a "good school", the teachers were content with their powerlessness as an avoidance to the issue, and they had been fooled by a little girl that had a glowing reputation in their school system (the leader of this gang). Some teachers are even afraid of the students in some schools because they are not allowed to enforce any strict policies. (and the kids know this)

I always have to remember that teachers themselves have never left school and they have always been subject to "a school mentality" that perpetuates an adolescent view for an unspoken "code" for survival within it's sytem.

From my experience, and others I've talked to, this IS becoming the norm. Not all kids will reveal it to their parents,  more children that were being bullied stepped forward AFTER the police were called in my daughters situation. The other interesting thing was that she had prior to this attended school in a larger city with no such incidences. It wasn't until we moved to a town of only 30,000 that this took place. Although it may have been partly due to her being the "new kid".

I guess it comes down to whether one believes this is the "norm" that our kids should just develop more skills to survive within and that it strengthens and toughens us for real life or if school should NOT be intimidating the same as an adult would expect within their workplace.

Oh, there is no question that bullying is happening and schools aren't handeling it well.

I am only  questioning the validity of this study.

 hmmmm.....the question actually reads - "bullied, teased or taunted".      That covers a pretty broad spectrum of behaviours.   I can't count the number of times my daughter has come home miffed at her friends because they were teasing her about something, (and she can dish it out pretty well, too) but I can honestly say she has never been bullied at high school.  So I wonder how she would answer the questions?     

To my mind, the wording of the questions does not support the headline of the article.

That one question was actually written as Been bullied teased or taunted in a way that seriously upset me.

Personally I interpret "seriously" as a  little more than miffed but one person's serious is another's trivial.

This is a pure statistical report and therefore it is wide open to interpretation, much like bullying is open to interpretation. 

Is the threat real or imagined?  Is the response to this threat appropriate or inappropriate?

The study reveals interesting results when reality and perceptions are compared.  29% of all students agreed they were prejudiced against certain groups, yet 51% agreed they used racial slurs or insults.  I would suspect that those who were the targets of slurs would say the person saying them was prejudiced.  It is a matter of interpretation.

Waterfalls' example is excellent in showing how a response to perceived bullying is effective.  If those in authority appear to ignore the situation it sends a message and it is the same message to both perpetrator and victim; the behaviour is acceptable.  By educating all involved the situation was resolved and it was not just Waterfalls' child who benefited but others as well.

As I noted I am more impressed by the numbers dropping from the 2008 study, particularly in the two markers I would interpret as signs of violence:  hitting another and carrying a weapon to school.  While 2 or 3 percent may not be significant to some, in a study of this size, it does translate into over a 1,000 individuals in the study alone, and that, I suspect, reflects the greater feeling of safety in the schools also expressed in the recent study.

It still concerns me that 57% of high school students, males and females, affirmed they have hit a person when angry.  It doesn't matter to me what another's interpretation of anger is or the level of pain inflicted by the response; it does matter to me that 21,500 young adults from a wide spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds responded in the affirmative. 

Again, if one agrees that statistical analysis can be transferred to the wider population, this study reveals that the idea that physical violence is an appropriate response to anger.  These young people are learning that lesson from somewhere and I think it would be beneficial for society as a whole if a different brand of education was on offer.

LB

How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder.... Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take?

     Adin Ballou, 1845

Beshpin, does it cause you pain?