sequel to "sports wound"

[Earl]

The link that I posted in my topic that I entitled "'sports wound'" accessed a webpage that featured a post that a clincial psychologist named Dr. William Van Ornum had written on the problems that nonathletic boys who have no interest in sports face as the grow up in our sports-saturated culture. He referred to these problems collectively as the "sports wound."

Clicking on "Dr. William Van Ornum" accessed another webpage that provided his e-mail address. I sent him an e-mail to thank him for calling this problem that some boys face to the attention of his readers. In the second e-mail that he sent to me in response to mine, he asked me if I would be willing to write a series of e-mails describing pertinent childhood experiences of my own. He indicated that he wanted to quote from them for a blog that he was going to set up at another website. Of course, my name would not be revealed. I said that I would be delighted to do that, because I thought that I would be helping boys who have this problem today. I spent several hours composing six lengthy e-mails that I sent to him over a period of a week or two.

Yesterday morning I noticed that the blog had been set up, but that there were not any responses yet. I did not expect to see much of a response at all. But when I checked the blog last night, I saw otherwise. Several of the respondents' comments were dismaying or even quite disgusting. I'm amazed that even some people who claim to be Christians defend the bullying of children in the schools, which is extremely hypocritical (needless to say). I would hate to be one of them on Judgment Day. I posted a pointed response of my own under the username "Darin." I intend to post again at that blog.

For anyone who is interested in reading it, I've provided a link to that blog as follows:

http://americamagazine.org/blog/entry.c ... ry_id=3263

[i_like_1981]

A powerful article. Sadly, it did not seem to have the desired effect. The first comment posted in response to it did not bother to express any sympathy whatsoever for the young people who've had to suffer in the name of mandatory PE and he just went to shift the blame onto other forms of emotional "wounds", such as a "fat wound", for example. How hard is it to convince some of these people that sports have had an incredibly strong negative impact on the self-esteem, confidence and overall faith in life of some students? Just because they had a great time in sports classes does not mean we all did. And yes, these people need to be made aware of the fact that sports DO encourage nasty behaviour and it's not just down to the old "kids will be kids" psychology. Sports encourage people to be physically adept and even aggressive at times to ensure success. And if underdeveloped, unathletic students are thrown into this sort of competition which is quite clearly aimed at those with greater physical strength, they are going to find it far less beneficial than their stronger ilk. Sports ARE the cause of a lot of this bullying, because it's where the less-intelligent, the bigheaded and the tougher tend to shine. And it's where the more academic but weaker students tend to feel the sharp pain of being the loser. This "sports wound" needs to be taken more seriously. Because it's blatantly obvious to see - the unpopular and tormented students are almost always the unathletic ones.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[The Imperialist]

Food for thought:

What is the point of 'helping' the weaker, when you can make them STRONG?

[Earl]

Hi, i_like_1981. If you can stand the mindless comments from the sports fans, you might want to check out that webpage again. I continued to post I don't know how many times. I lost count. I submitted my last post today around 5:13 PM (Central Standard Time). I was so riled up last night that I couldn't sleep. Dr. Van Ornum has encouraged me by e-mail to continue posting. He says there are hundreds of people who won't post, but agree with what I'm saying -- although I must say that I won't keep posting indefinitely. It gets tiring after a while. These sports fans (not all sports fans, of course) just don't "get it." Because of their own extreme bias, they'll never understand our point of view. I had already noticed many years ago that the term "anti-sports" is used in the same way that conservatives in the United States would call people in this country "anti-white" simply because they criticized discrimination of black Americans under Jim Crow laws. Considering how overwhelmingly dominant sports are in the popular culture, the reaction of many sports fans to those who even dare to make a critique of the culture that is associated with or the social institution that surrounds the sport (which, as I hope people would observe, is to be distinguished from the ball game itself) seems to be rather excessive, as if the sports fans are insecure. The moral equivalent in the animal kingdom would be an elephant trumpetting in mortal fear at the sight of a flea.

[Earl]

Food for thought:

What is the point of 'helping' the weaker, when you can make them STRONG?

I agree completely. I'm increasing my strength right now at my local health club. Speaking as a nonviolent man, it's sad to say that most bullies (being the cowards they really are) will stop their nonsense if they are met with physical force. Many times I've read posts at various websites written by guys who were bullied in school until they physically struck back.

[The Imperialist]

Indeed. The biggest help for the 'weaker' people is to make them stronger, physically and mentally.

It seems that educational/emotional counselors do not seem to get this fact... this then means that the weaker people are left weak, and become very dependent upon the system, or something else. To break the cycle, the only way is to become strong and break one's weakness.

[i_like_1981]

Food for thought:

What is the point of 'helping' the weaker, when you can make them STRONG?

Well, offering a helping hand to somebody who is physically weak and socially unfortunate is just common decency. Nobody deserves to be victimised unless they've acted obnoxiously to people and have brought the heat upon themselves. Making a person "strong" is far easier said than done. What if they're used to being called a failure, a waste of space, a weakling, pathetic, that sort of harsh bullshit that is intended to damage a person's self-esteem? What if that person is mentally or physically disabled in some way and being picked on for that reason? You can't make everyone strong. The point of "helping the weak" is to show them that you have decency and you're not like the dickheads who pick on them and by doing so, you will improve their faith in people and give them some hope in their bad times. Nobody ever came to help me when I was getting harassed in school. Nobody showed me the nicer side of the human nature. If someone grows up thinking that all people are bad and nobody cares a bit for their suffering, they're going to end up embittered and unable to form meaningful relationships with people. That's the point of "helping the weaker" - they'll think better of the people around them that way, and that will mean a hell of a lot to them.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[The Imperialist]

Even disabled people can be strong. Give them something to excel in so they can look down upon their tormentors. If that fails, just give them scary looking blades attached to whatever contraptions they need to carry.

To 'help' is but a temporary thing. To solve the problem, they must become strong, and due to the system, they must realise that under their own initiative.

[Earl]

Both The Imperialist and i_like_1981 are right. I don't think they really disagree with each other.

When a young person has been bullied over a period of years, this can have a crippling effect, which is all the more reason why bullying should not be condoned but receive social approbation. Besides, bullying is cowardly.

It's also true that self-esteem cannot be given. It has to be developed over time by the person who lacks it. In the meantime, the child (or young adult) who is working on his self-esteem deserves all the encouragement he needs and then some.

Regarding The Imperialist's comments about counselors, I have a few observations to make, based on my own childhood experiences. I now refer specifically to psychologists. First of all, a psychologist should LISTEN to his young client and be careful NOT to make assumptions that may not be well-founded. If a child looks down on himself, the psychologist should take the time to make a thorough evaluation in order to find out WHY the child has low self-esteem (for example, in my case when I was a boy, low body self-image). Then the psychologist should recommend a course of action that will help the child feel better about himself (again, in my case, weightlifting, which was NOT even considered by my psychologist). (Increasing my physical strength and developing my physique would have given me a lot of self-confidence when I was a teenager, which would have enabled me to face bullies more confidently. And, by the way, I still would have had no interest in sports. ) You would think that every psychologist would follow common-sense rules; but you'd be surprised to find out that some of them disregard common sense, not to mention common decency (at times).

***********************************************************************************************************************************

My comments on the blog? I have mixed feelings about what transpired. I now regret that I referred to several of the respondents (and anyone else sharing their attitudes on bullying) as "pathetic jerks." Obviously, a strong argument can be made without name-calling. I simply lost my temper when I read the first replies because one or more of the respondents appeared to me to condone bullying, which is a hot-button issue to me. In fact, I was furious. I wish that I had calmed down. That way, I could have presented my case even more effectively.

On the other hand, some of the respondents did not even address the topic, which was any problems that nonathletic boys have because they aren't interested in sports. I wish I had told them that they were straying from the subject (which, indeed, they were). Instead of dealing with the issue, they started defending sports, which were not even at issue. The blog became a sports board. But in an e-mail that he sent to me, Dr. Van Ornum said he believed that my comments were an encouragement to others.