Anyone else disturbed by the latest surge in teen suicide/ bullying? - Page 2

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by Dingletwitz

Recently there's been a lot more press, but there have been situations like Columbine for decades--just not as much publicity. .

Just to reiterate - Columbine was not a case of bullying. The one shooter was a sociopath. He was NOT bullied.

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by ChetMC

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I haven't had the chance to read through the whole thread yet.

This topic is addressed to some extent in Hold on to Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld. Neufeld proposes (and I'm inclined to agree) that the issue is rooted in kids being inappropriately attached to their peers instead of their parents (and other adults able to provide positive influences and connections).

Kids have always been bullied. The difference is that today kids don't have the secure attachment to a support network of family and adult community like they used to. When kids are rejected by their peers they have nowhere to go. Their peers are all they think they have.

The book is about the peer orientation in general, and talks about all sorts of problems that stem from that it - two of them being how peer oriented kids are more likely to become bullies or how peer oriented kids are far less resilient to bullying.

The book is on the academic side as far as parenting books go, but it's absolutely worth reading.

I'm reading this book right now and really enjoying it.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by frugalmum

It has always been there, it's just getting more media attention now, and the cases involving cyber bullying get press because they are more sensational. But the bullying has always been there, the suicides have always been there. Schools create toxic cultures, some far worse than others, and some kids targeted far more than others, but grouping same age peers in an artificial social environment is a pitri dish for cruelty.

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree

At the same time that bullying in schools became a hot topic and zero tolerance policies were implemented, it seems like bullying in the adult sphere has taken off. It's the norm now in the media, both in news and political coverage and entertainment. It's a core ingredient of much of what is produced in print, radio, television and internet today.

Watch any comedy or drama - you'll spot bullying behaviour. Watch any reality show - bullying is the core essence of these shows. News shows, newspapers and magazines and internet journalists pride themselves on bullying ("hard hitting") in the pursuit of so-called investigative journalism - most of it really just sensational ratings grabs while often missing most of the real story.

We call it "painful honesty" about people, situations and life, but it's gone way beyond the kind of "warts and all" scrutiny that once was celebrated. It's become a brutal intolerance and persecution to score easy points.

While schools struggle to find an effective response to the problem, it's become endemic in our culture.

I don't disagree with any of this - but there are 2 key differences in bullying in schools versus bullying in the adult or media world.

In the world of TV the bullying is fictional. Real people are not being hurt. In the world of reality TV, the people signed up for the show. They trade off being bullied in exchange for whatever they are getting out of it. It is also worth pointing out the number of people actually on reality TV shows is tiny compared to the number of kids bullied.

We watch a lot of stuff on TV we do not allow in real life - violence and bullying included. Whether or not this makes us less sensitive to these issues and more likely to indulge in them in real life is a raging debate.

The biggest difference is key: adults, for the most part do have choice in whether or not they are continued victums of bullying. They can choose who they relate to, and in the case of jobs - transfer, quit, complain, etc. Kids do not always have that choice. I was bullied as a child as there was not a darn thing I kid do about it. I have been bullied a tiny bit as an adult - and while figuring out what to do about it has never been easy - I have never felt that there was "not a darn thing I could do about it".

[ChetMC]

Originally Posted by lach

"Used to" when?

How does he reconcile his ideas with all the research about how parents spend more time with their kids than ever before, and that parents and children on on the same page about just about anything surveyed about (from politics to clothing) than at any previous time in the past century? Anecdotally and according to all the research, kids and parents are tighter than they've probably ever been before. I fail to see how his book stands up to all of the conventional wisdom and clearly documented trends about child rearing in the US. There is no way on earth that anyone can claim that kids today are less attached to their parents than they were in the 1970s.

It's a whole book. I can't summarize it in a single post. Read it and decide if you agree with it. Even if you disagree with everything proposed, it's still an interesting read. Though, it's very pro attachment parenting, so I'd expect most people on MDC would find that they agree with at least some of what the author has to say.

The general thesis is that over the course of the twentieth century the transmission of culture has moved from vertical to lateral. And as kids and teens have become oriented more and more strongly toward their peers and toward peer culture the "issues" of youth have worsened. The author correlates the cultural shift with trends in bullying, teen sex, suicide, education, emotional maturity, influence of peer pressure, etc.

I'm only surmising here. It's been awhile since I read the book, I don't have a copy in front of me, and I'm not familiar with the specific details of the research you're referring to, however, if I were to guess I would say that :

- while research may indicate that kids and parents have more leisure time together today, I don't think it indicates that children spend more time in the presence (or vicinity) of their parents where they still have influence. And when parents aren't available, in the presence of other trusted adults who have a long-standing role in the lives of the children (like grandparents, aunts and uncles, and community members who really know the child on a personal level). Today children spend more time in the company of unrelated peers (not siblings or close cousins) and the adults are more disconnected. Adults tend to supervise, enforce rules and policies, give time outs, and do not work to develop strong personal relationships with the children.

- this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, and becoming more pronounced with each generation. The generation of parents today is more peer oriented than their parents were. As today's parents are part of the trend, the overall movement is not going to be particularly visible when you only compare today's parents and today's children.

- youth culture is the culture transmitted through the mainstream media, so recent generations would be inclined toward similar tastes in clothing, similar views with regard to politics, etc because of the heavy media influence. The author does discuss the role of the media in the book.

Even if parents and kids are more similar in their tastes, and have more free time together then they did generations ago, the key element of the author's argument is that peers matter more and more with each generation. Moreover, peer influence is dangerous as peers lack the maturity and selflessness that parents (and other adults bonded to the child) naturally offer. As a result, peer oriented children are at greater risk for all sorts of things, including becoming bullies, and also damage by being bullied. While kids have always been bullied, a strongly peer oriented child is more likely to be crushed by bullying and to come to school with a gun, or to commit suicide than a child who has a world outside of their peers that they are strongly attached and connected to.

[lach]

Originally Posted by ChetMC

It's a whole book. I can't summarize it in a single post. Read it and decide if you agree with it. Even if you disagree with everything proposed, it's still an interesting read. Though, it's very pro attachment parenting, so I'd expect most people on MDC would find that they agree with at least some of what the author has to say.

The general thesis is that over the course of the twentieth century the transmission of culture has moved from vertical to lateral. And as kids and teens have become oriented more and more strongly toward their peers and toward peer culture the "issues" of youth have worsened. The author correlates the cultural shift with trends in bullying, teen sex, suicide, education, emotional maturity, influence of peer pressure, etc.

I'm only surmising here. It's been awhile since I read the book, I don't have a copy in front of me, and I'm not familiar with the specific details of the research you're referring to, however, if I were to guess I would say that :

- while research may indicate that kids and parents have more leisure time together today, I don't think it indicates that children spend more time in the presence (or vicinity) of their parents where they still have influence. And when parents aren't available, in the presence of other trusted adults who have a long-standing role in the lives of the children (like grandparents, aunts and uncles, and community members who really know the child on a personal level). Today children spend more time in the company of unrelated peers (not siblings or close cousins) and the adults are more disconnected. Adults tend to supervise, enforce rules and policies, give time outs, and do not work to develop strong personal relationships with the children.

- this is a trend that has been happening for a long time, and becoming more pronounced with each generation. The generation of parents today is more peer oriented than their parents were. As today's parents are part of the trend, the overall movement is not going to be particularly visible when you only compare today's parents and today's children.

- youth culture is the culture transmitted through the mainstream media, so recent generations would be inclined toward similar tastes in clothing, similar views with regard to politics, etc because of the heavy media influence. The author does discuss the role of the media in the book.

Even if parents and kids are more similar in their tastes, and have more free time together then they did generations ago, the key element of the author's argument is that peers matter more and more with each generation. Moreover, peer influence is dangerous as peers lack the maturity and selflessness that parents (and other adults bonded to the child) naturally offer. As a result, peer oriented children are at greater risk for all sorts of things, including becoming bullies, and also damage by being bullied. While kids have always been bullied, a strongly peer oriented child is more likely to be crushed by bullying and to come to school with a gun, or to commit suicide than a child who has a world outside of their peers that they are strongly attached and connected to.

You're right in that I haven't read the book, but I have read an awful lot about it. And I have to say that not a single thing I've read about his "research" rings true. I think it's totally bizarre to claim that kids and adults used to spend more time together. My generation was the first in, like, EVER where kids weren't sent out to play with other kids all day every day while their parents got some work done! My parents barely saw their parents... and that was the halcyon "family centered" post-war years.

I don't mean to get off on a tangent, I just disagree that bullying is worse than it was in past years, and that it has anything to do with peer relationships being more important that adult/child relationships.

[ChetMC]

Originally Posted by lach

You're right in that I haven't read the book, but I have read an awful lot about it. And I have to say that not a single thing I've read about his "research" rings true. I think it's totally bizarre to claim that kids and adults used to spend more time together. My generation was the first in, like, EVER where kids weren't sent out to play with other kids all day every day while their parents got some work done! My parents barely saw their parents... and that was the halcyon "family centered" post-war years.

I don't mean to get off on a tangent, I just disagree that bullying is worse than it was in past years, and that it has anything to do with peer relationships being more important that adult/child relationships.

I agree this is off the topic of the original thread. I would encourage anyone to take a look at the actual book though. I was very skeptical when I started reading it, but I ultimately agreed with most of what the author had to say.

The amount that children actually saw or interacted with their parents in particular generations is not central to the thesis of the book. The key element is the increasing influence of peers and peer culture (through actual peers or as presented by the media) on the values, self-worth, choices, and direction that kids and teens take. The central point is that culture and values are no longer being transmitted vertically not that parents and kids don't spend enough time playing board games together. The book is very Lord of the Flies in it's message.

As per kids spending hours playing with other kids, the book argues that kids could do that when they had strong connections with parents and adults, and when they were simply playing with the other children. The issue is that kids are now looking to other children for emotional support, values, social norms, messages about their self worth, etc. His argument is simply that it isn't normal for peers to have some much influence, and there can be horrible consequences when they do.

The book basically suggests that peer pressure and influences are increasing, natural counter forces against peer pressure are decreasing, and many of the social problems we see in kids are the result of these two phenomena working together.

[lach]

Originally Posted by ChetMC

I agree this is off the topic of the original thread. I would encourage anyone to take a look at the actual book though. I was very skeptical when I started reading it, but I ultimately agreed with most of what the author had to say.

The amount that children actually saw or interacted with their parents in particular generations is not central to the thesis of the book. The key element is the increasing influence of peers and peer culture (through actual peers or as presented by the media) on the values, self-worth, choices, and direction that kids and teens take. The central point is that culture and values are no longer being transmitted vertically not that parents and kids don't spend enough time playing board games together. The book is very Lord of the Flies in it's message.

As per kids spending hours playing with other kids, the book argues that kids could do that when they had strong connections with parents and adults, and when they were simply playing with the other children. The issue is that kids are now looking to other children for emotional support, values, social norms, messages about their self worth, etc. His argument is simply that it isn't normal for peers to have some much influence, and there can be horrible consequences when they do.

The book basically suggests that peer pressure and influences are increasing, natural counter forces against peer pressure are decreasing, and many of the social problems we see in kids are the result of these two phenomena working together.

I think that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I see absolutely nothing in social history which supports that thesis.

[Lisa1970]

Bullying is way worse than it used to be. The schools know too. I see a lot in parents (around here anyway) where they never want to discipline their children, or even have expectations. I see a lot of children that have no rules and are just given everything. Then when these same children pick on other kids, the parents and staff turn a blind eye.

I was bullied when I was growing up, but it was all in the form of teasing. It never turned sexual. Now days, kids are being beaten so horribly in school that they end up at the doctors office and torn clothes and such. Girls are being so heavily sexually harassed and mistreated and administrators know and turn a blind eye. I know with my daughter, I was told "boys will be boys" and "she just needs to learn to deal with it." The boy was claiming she was a prostitute and he had been having sex with her and she only cost $10 and had made graphic descriptions of everything. He was saying this stuff in class, to the entire class, and in front of the teacher. I complained many times to administration. I know there have been stories of rapes at some of the local schools, but then the staff will refuse to call the police for the girl or get her proper medical attention and the parents don't find out for days or weeks because, I think, the school makes her feel so bad and at fault that the girl gets afraid to tell her parents what happened. There have been rapes where the girl went straight home and told her parents and she was seen at the doctor, but we are at the whim and will of the local police, who have been known to refuse to even take reports on this stuff. They just claim that this is all just kids stuff and they refuse to get involved. It was even in the news that the Mayor's son brought a gun to school and also had heroin on him at the time but that the police chose to make no arrest. The principal was quoted in the news as "out of respect to our mayor......" Seriously, I do not feel safe. Our schools here are exemplary and some parents who must never read the news or speak to their children think the schools are great. It really really bothers me.

Schools and police alike need to step up to the plate. Also, legistatures need to also. They need to make laws giving these children and their parents other avenues to pursue to protect their children. There should be a government agency that will deal with these issues when the schools refuse. Our only options were to endanger our daughter by leaving her at the local schools, or pull her out. We could have hired a lawyer at thousands of dollars for a lawsuit that could span a decade or more. What good would that have done our daughter? My son was already seriously retalliated against just because I breastfed at the school, in the back of a classroom, half hour after school let out, with only my own children and the teacher in the room. Just imagine what would happen if I started an actual lawsuit.

The bullying is definitely out of control and the parents of the bullies, the schools, the police, and the state laws are at fault. There simply are not protections for victims.

[Lisa1970]

Originally Posted by ChetMC

I agree this is off the topic of the original thread. I would encourage anyone to take a look at the actual book though. I was very skeptical when I started reading it, but I ultimately agreed with most of what the author had to say.

The amount that children actually saw or interacted with their parents in particular generations is not central to the thesis of the book. The key element is the increasing influence of peers and peer culture (through actual peers or as presented by the media) on the values, self-worth, choices, and direction that kids and teens take. The central point is that culture and values are no longer being transmitted vertically not that parents and kids don't spend enough time playing board games together. The book is very Lord of the Flies in it's message.

As per kids spending hours playing with other kids, the book argues that kids could do that when they had strong connections with parents and adults, and when they were simply playing with the other children. The issue is that kids are now looking to other children for emotional support, values, social norms, messages about their self worth, etc. His argument is simply that it isn't normal for peers to have some much influence, and there can be horrible consequences when they do.

The book basically suggests that peer pressure and influences are increasing, natural counter forces against peer pressure are decreasing, and many of the social problems we see in kids are the result of these two phenomena working together.

I agree with this. The bullies I have known of have little to no relationships with their parents. The parents will buy things to throw at their children to compensate for the lack of parenting. These parents often have too much pride in their children that they know nothing about "not my child, my child would not do that" even when presented with witnesses. I also suspect that some bullies are in abusive homes.

[lach]

Originally Posted by Lisa1970

I was bullied when I was growing up, but it was all in the form of teasing. It never turned sexual. Now days, kids are being beaten so horribly in school that they end up at the doctors office and torn clothes and such. Girls are being so heavily sexually harassed and mistreated and administrators know and turn a blind eye. I know with my daughter, I was told "boys will be boys" and "she just needs to learn to deal with it."

My sister was bullied sexually by a group of boys. The school knew and turned a blind eye. I don't think that this is a new thing.

[LauraLoo]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move

Having watched this play out, I dislike the idea that kids who are "peer oriented" are less resilient to bullying. Because all kids *should* be at least a little peer orientated. If they aren't, they have a whole other set of problems.

The following research would support at least some peer orientation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0928111126.htm
Excerpt:
Loners and antisocial kids who reject other children are often bullied at school -- an accepted form of punishment from peers as they establish social order. Such peer victimization may be an extreme group response to control renegades, according to a new study from Concordia University published in the Journal of Early Adolescence.

[Lisa1970]

Originally Posted by lach

My sister was bullied sexually by a group of boys. The school knew and turned a blind eye. I don't think that this is a new thing.

Maybe it is location or times? I graduated in 1988. Plus, one thing I did notice is, I grew up in Iowa. My parents moved to Texas after I graduated. I came and visited them and visited the high school my sister was at the very next year. I found the students to be quite out of control at the school down here. I was shocked and tried to talk to my sister about it, but she just laughed it off. This is how it always is and it must be fine because she is earning all A's.

I like to believe that the school does matter. I am not of the crowd that thinks that you cannot change things, you cannot make a difference, lay down and accept whatever is handed to you because it will always be like this. At our local high school, kids are doing heroin and ecstacy on campus. I know some schools take a hardline agains that, including bringing in drug dogs and expelling permanently any students that are caught with drugs. I know where I went to school in Iowa, if you were ever caught with drugs, you were kicked out for good. I never ever knew of anyone doing anything beyond pot. I still speak to my friends back there, including friends who would know (public school teachers and a couple friends who work at the hospital) and they have never seen heroin or ecstacy incidents. Plus, they did not even know what "cheese" was.

[joensally]

RE: NEUFELD

Neufeld's Canadian and I think is writing about the North American context relative to other places, rather than simply looking backward. When I saw him speak, he referenced going to a small community in Portugal or France or Italy (can't remember! ) and observing regularly occuring multi-generational interactions. This form of social structure has occured in different places of the world in different points in history, and likely does produce less bullying and better social order. Neufeld speaks to the notion of when you put children of similar social and emotional development together (ie same age), there is no natural order and so they create one (he uses chickens and pecking order as an analogy). I think he's talking about the ill-effects of too much time in the pecking order and too little time with more developed humans providing guidance. Those people can be parents, teachers, counsellors, youth workers, older siblings, members of your church, extended family, boys and girls clubs etc etc.

Many, many people romanticize the way it used to be. Here's some data:
http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/

Bronson's book Why Do I Love These People is a great read.

RE: BULLYING

I think we need to pay attention to history, but we need to pay attention to what's happening for today's youth, which is fundamentally different than it was a generation or two ago. When I went to school, I went home and left any social challenges back at school. A teenager today is potentially bullied on her cell phone on the way home, then bullied on the computer all evening at home - the victim has far less opportunity for escape. The senders of these messages can hit send with no regard for their real impact on others, and are operating with under-developed prefrontal cortexes that limit their ability to consider choices and consequences - the bully has less external control exerted on their impulses because there is no authority present or aware of what's being typed. I think the ubiquitousness of bullying opportunities and no breaks for the victims makes bullying seem worse.

I think bullying/anti-social behaviours are absolutely exacerbated by media. Media doesn't cause bullying, but kids are awash in really rotten images and this has to influence their understanding of "normal."

I don't think we have a concrete ability to compare past to current incidence of bullying because reporting and counting practices have changed. And I don't know that it matters so much - their world order is fundamentally different from the one I grew up in, and we have an obligation to try to stop/minimize bullying whether it's worse or not than it was a couple of decades ago.

I think that we need to help today's children and youth develop productive, mannerly, pro-social methods of communication and interaction given the new ways they're communicating with one another.

[karne]

I am disturbed by the news reports because the issue is so very disturbing. I agree that the nature of bullying has changed because of social media, but then again, so much else has changed because of kid's access to social media. I think that the world of preteens and teens is complex in a way that my generation never experienced. I'm thinking about how many layers of social structure kids navigate these days. There are day to day relations with peers in school, peers on sports teams or outside activities, but then there can also be a layer of online "relationships" with the same kids. Facebook interactions, cell phone, text messaging....I am amazed, and troubled by this. Not to say I am romanticizing pre-social media interactions, but it just seems that there's a lot here requiring a good level of social "IQ".

I'm really conflicted about all of it-my preteen is not on Facebook, doesn't yet have a cell phone (will soon), doesn't text or IM, and gradually this is seeming to set her apart. I don't want to open the door yet on any of it because my experience, hearing from dd, is that this is where the negative social interactions get played out.

Editing to say, that in general I think it's better to teach kids how to deal with tough issues, rather than shelter them. My post is just reflecting my own angst about the situation.

[eepster]

Originally Posted by Lisa1970

I was bullied when I was growing up, but it was all in the form of teasing. It never turned sexual. Now days, kids are being beaten so horribly in school that they end up at the doctors office and torn clothes and such. Girls are being so heavily sexually harassed and mistreated and administrators know and turn a blind eye.

Sexual harassment bullying/rape are certainly not new either. We just have words for it now.

Did you ever read Catcher In The Rye? Near the beginning of the book, Holden describes the way his roommate persuades girls to have sex with him. It is rape by another name.

These are age old problems. Simply going back to the way things were in the olden days is not going to fix it.

[ChetMC]

Never Meant

Originally Posted by lach

I think that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I see absolutely nothing in social history which supports that thesis.

I never meant to suggest that you agree with me. I meant to suggest that your read the book and then decide how your feel about it. The author's research is cited.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by eepster

Sexual harassment bullying/rape are certainly not new either. We just have words for it now.

Did you ever read Catcher In The Rye? Near the beginning of the book, Holden describes the way his roommate persuades girls to have sex with him. It is rape by another name.

These are age old problems. Simply going back to the way things were in the olden days is not going to fix it.

so true. Date rape happened in the 50's, but if the girl got pregnant she went to stay with her granny and the baby was put up for adoption.

We are much more aware and honest with ourselves as a society now, but these problems are not new.

[Lisa1970]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move

so true. Date rape happened in the 50's, but if the girl got pregnant she went to stay with her granny and the baby was put up for adoption.

We are much more aware and honest with ourselves as a society now, but these problems are not new.

I do not think we are more aware and honest. I think we still blame the girl.

[Lisa1970]

I do think though that the sexual harassment has changed. Holden, in that book, was not having sex with those girls on school property and then bragging about it in front of teachers and getting away with it. Kids are very open with their bullying now and adults seem to turn the other way. That is what is different. When I was a child, the bullies wanted to be sneaky and not get caught. They were more like Eddie Haskel. Perfect to your face, nasty behind backs. Now, kids can sexually harass other kids and it is hidden. A girl can try to file an assault charge and it is ignored or never filed. That is what it is like today. Plus, there is something very different between having one kid call another kid a name, face to face, and one kid going online and spreading horrible nasty slander about another, for the world to see.

[accountclosed3]

naw, it was like that in my schools, though. bullies would bully in front of teachers, and sometimes even teachers joined in, and admin and parents turned a blind eye and blamed me for being "different" and "a loner" and "antisocial" when i was really just an introvert.

anyway, that's a whole other deal.