International I Hate Sports Club

In recent years in this country, there has been a heightened public concern about the problem of bullying in the schools. There's actually a debate on the subject of what is to be done, if anything, about this problem. I've been amazed to learn that there are a substantial number of adults who condone bullying in the schools, where students who want to excel academically should be allowed to do so without being harassed. After all, they're just kids, not soldiers in boot camp. One of the lines I've heard from pro-bullying people is that the kids should just be left alone and be forced to settle their disputes among themselves. (Oh, sure. That's really equitable.) Well, here is a case where that bit of bright logic just didn't work. There should have been an intervention by adults who cared about kids. I've posted a link to the webpage that features this story; and I've also copied and pasted the text below (correcting typos in the original, of course). Since no adult intervention took place in this instance, two young lives were irreparably ruined. Very, very sad ...

http://www.wggb.com/global/story.asp?s=12501549

Bully survivor shares his story to help stop other bullies
Posted: May 18, 2010 12:57 PM CDT

By WGGB Staff

SOUTH HADLEY, Mass. (WGGB) -- The suicide death of Phoebe Prince and the alleged bullying that preceded it have resulted in a lot of talk from a lot of different people about the affects of bullying, but one New England man knows about bullying because he was a bully and paid a heavy price.

Steve Bernard, of Bristol, R.I., was a high school football player who said he commanded respect with the way he carried himself in the halls of his high school. For one student, though, Steve said he was a nightmare. He said he would push the schoolmate into lockers and even threw a few punches. He said he didn't really understand what he was doing.

However, that changed in 1988 when that student Steve said he had bullied shot him in the head. Steve said friends had to tell him what had happened. He said they watched as the student confronted him, pulled the trigger and watched as he collapsed.

The shooting left Steve paralyzed on the left side of his body. That was 20 years before the death of Phoebe Prince. Steve said he followed the story through the media and learned how the 15-year-old South Hadley High School freshman from Ireland was allegedly tormented in school and over the Internet. Prince was found hanging in her family's home after allegedly being bullied throughout the school day Jan. 14.

Several students have been indicted on a variety of adult and juvenile charges in connection with Prince's death.

Her death also brought about a national discussion on the taboo subject of childhood bullying.

John Reice, a former Providence, R.I., police officer, head up the non-profit group P.A.V.E. The group teaches violence prevention. Reice said he doesn't think the students who allegedly bullied Prince thought she would have killed herself.

People like Reice and Bernard have become vocal about teaching children the consequences of their actions before they bully someone.

Earl wrote:One of the lines I've heard from pro-bullying people is that the kids should just be left alone and be forced to settle their disputes among themselves. (Oh, sure. That's really equitable.)

Applied to kids, that's definitely a terrible idea. There is no reason that a brilliant boy with tons of academic potential should grow up weak and submissive with low self-esteem just because he got his growth spurt after the other boys. Someone with the intelligence, the moral rectitude and the savoir-faire to point society towards success, who grew up slower than the others physically, has no more business shying away from groups of people than an idiot who grew up faster than the other boys has at the centre of those groups. In other words, when you allow kids to govern themselves, the finished product twenty years later consists of some adults with unearned self-confidence and others who skulk about when they should be the ones with swagger. Society is on its head, with the smelly feet doing the thinking, and the brains doing all the menial supporting work. Basically you get people who are intellectually misplaced and emotionally maladjusted at all levels of society. Bullying doesn't work.

I mean, parents don't let kids figure out through trial and error whether to drink while driving or whether to engage in prostitution. Why should they allow each generation to learn anew how to govern itself?

Those are excellent points, recovering_fan.

Well, at the risk of boring any long-time readers of this forum (Are there any?), I'm going to repeat myself. Anti-intellectualism has long been a component of American culture, going all the way back to colonial times with Washington Irving's "Legend of Sleepy Hollow." Intellectual men have long been negatively stereotyped as effete "eggheads." Masculinity has long been defined only and exclusively in terms of athletic prowess. (No, I'm not objecting to guys participating in sports. Not at all. I'm objecting to the negative stereotyping that nonathletic boys who have no interest in sports are subjected to, often starting before they've even reached their teens.) For generations in this country, nonathletic boys have been judged as being "effeminate" or "feminized" simply because they aren't interested in sports. But when I take a look at history, I don't see intellectual men as being cowards. Many of those who opposed the actions of totalitarian regimes were intellectuals, women as well as men. Such individuals certainly weren't "wimps." I think of the civil rights movement in this country when I was growing up. During the early 1960s before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, individual college students paticipated in civil rights marches in the Deep South. Since segregationists certainly were quite willing to engage in acts of physical violence, this particular instance of activism, indeed, required a lot of courage.

Certainly a lot more courage than the rudeness displayed by keyboard commandos who personally insult those whom they've never met (and probably never will meet) in person. I'm thinking particularly of individuals such as Cycloptichorn at able2know. Cycloptichorn, who shows great courage by sitting behind his computer and announcing to the entire world (wow) that anyone who doesn't support same-sex marriage is either a bigot or a "religious fanatic." (Yes, I'm sure that those who participated in the civil rights movement and are still around today would be quite impressed by such "courage." Yes, I am being sarcastic.) Cycloptichorn, who just recently showed how sensitive he is to the use of the word "gay" to mean lame, stupid, or bad, but had no compunction at all about calling critics of the sports culture (such as i_like_1981) "pathetic f---ing losers." (Wow. What sensitivity and consideration for the feelings of others. Again, I'm being sarcastic.) But, you see, i_like_1981 committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to put athletes on a pedestal, regardless of how they treat others off the playing field. This particular issue never has been of much relevance in Cycloptichorn's mind. (Mind you, I respect the dedication of athletes to their sport because I believe strongly in the principle of respecting others, which doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to call certain individuals to account.)

Many of the white college men who participated in the marches and other forms of civil rights activism during the 1960s were men who were labelled as "sissies" or "queers" simply because they didn't like sports. (I really should keep up to date. Today nonathletic boys are routinely called "fags" instead of sissies or queers. Keeping up with the times is important, you know.) How many college football players participated in the civil rights marches? Were there any who did? I'd be sincerely delighted to hear of a single one. To the contrary, a childhood friend of mine who played football in high school in the second half of the decade of the 1960s told me that during the Presidential campaign of 1968, most of his teammates supported George Wallace, who was the third-party segregationist candidate in that election. Machismo has no regard for empathy and kindness and denigrates any concern for the rights of others, not even when such concern is manifested in acts of great courage.

Would Esquire magazine, whose writers and publishers declare themselves to be the authorities on what supposedly constitutes masculinity, ever feature an article extolling the great courage of someone like the late Dr. Andrei Sakharov or Raoul Wallenberg? Nah, they'd more likely have an article about Joe Willie Namath, quarterback for the New York Jets during the late 1960s who once announced on Johnny Carson's late-night TV show that "Women are only good for sex." (Incidentally, no one in the audience protested Namath's outrageous comment, which is an insult to every decent man or woman who happens to be the parent of one or more daughters.) After all, we all know that Joe Namath is more of a man than Sakharov or Wallenberg ever were, right?

As I've also said before, I'm sick and tired of nonathletic boys being accused of having homosexual tendencies simply because they don't like sports. There is absolutely no correlation between homosexuality and athleticism or the lack thereof; yet this view is still very commonly held by many teenage boys today (not to mention possibly a few idiots in the profession of psychology), despite much evidence to the contrary. When nonathletic boys internalize the false message that they are inferior because they aren't good at sports, deep hurt can result. I know personally whereof I speak.

Well, I guess I should make a particular obligatory statement so I won't be misunderstood. I'm not saying that the majority of school bullies are athletes or that the majority of student athletes are bullies. Some girls are bullies. But I will say this: Although I know that there are some who do, I don't believe that the majority of high-school football coaches in this country are morally opposed to any of their players bullying physically weaker boys at their schools. I honor the coaches who do, but I don't think they constitute the majority. Call me prejudiced, but I need to see evidence. I'm truly sorry that I feel this way, but I would have to lie to myself to believe otherwise. I've actually done that before, and it just didn't work.

Concerning the former high-school player who is the subject of the online article to which I've provided a link and have copied and pasted the text thereof in this post, I'm fascinated that he did not know why he had been bullying that other boy at his high school. I'd be interested to know why he was bullying someone without reason. I'd expect sports psychologists to have studied this phenomenon; but they seem to have been unwilling to do so, as if the subject were verboten.

Sounds bitter, doesn't it?

P.S. I thought I was through, but I just came back from visiting the able2know website. I know that what I'm about to say has no relation to this topic, but I just have to speak my mind.

First, I must identify a certain member of the able2know forum whose username is kuvasz. He's a middle-aged man who was an athlete in high school and today has absolutely no respect for anyone who doesn't put all athletes on a pedestal. As he indicated in the able2know Sports Board topic entitled "Welcome Sports Haters!" (which, yes, has to do with our website), he once coached high-school football for five years. He saw no difference between a nonathletic boy being humiliated and bullied in a mandatory sports-centered P.E. class and a high-school football player struggling with, say, trigonometry. He says that a nonathletic boy who throws a baseball poorly "throws like a girl." (Notice the denigration of girls and, by implication, women.) Well, we've already shown how inferior nonathletic boys are, anyway, haven't we?

Kuvasz is also a "progressive." Before I continue, I must say that I'm not making a political statement here. (As a matter of fact, I have no ideological affiliation at this point in my life because I've given up on politics because of several compelling reasons.) I'm simply identifying him. Anyway, kuvasz is a staunch "progressive" whose litmus test for liberals includes support for same-sex marriage. In his view, those who don't support same-sex marriage are ignorant, heartless reactionaries.

I just love kuvasz' avatar -- which is a picture of a kuvasz, of course (a particular breed of dog, for those of you who don't already know). I really do. The dog in the color photo looks like he's laughing, as his owner personally insults virtually anyone and everyone online who even dares to express an opinion that he (kuvasz) doesn't happen to share. Perhaps he's laughing at kuvasz himself. Now, that's a thought.

I've quoted his latest post below, in which he insults a politically conservative member (H2O MAN, whom he refers to as "waterboy").

kuvasz wrote:I believe the CBO report a lot more than one promoted by a racist cock sucker like King.

but then again I hear you cock suckers hang together, don't you waterboy?

Here is kuvasz, who in his profile describes himself as being "Liberal as they come," using the homosexual label (i.e., "cock suckers") as a way to insult a political conservative -- never mind that he (kuvasz) claims to be completely tolerant of gays. Doesn't this sound rather hypocritical to you? It certainly does to me.

Good Evening Earl,

Earl wrote:Those are excellent points, recovering_fan.

Thanks for the compliment about the points I brought up. I thought they might be useful to you all in arguments with the pro-bullying crowd. Here's how: every time you claim that bullying is unacceptable because it ruins lives, they respond that it is necessary because "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" or something like that, right? In other words, bullying--like the free market--is one of those social phenomena that "lifts all boats but sinks a few." But the problem is, bullying does NOT "lift all boats." As my argument above shows, and as I have shown elsewhere in the thread about nerds, bullying is holding young men back in the world! The omelette that bullying provides us with tastes like crap and lacks any and all nutritional value.

I have a few comments about what you've said below:

1. athleticism, masculinity and courage

Earl wrote:Masculinity has long been defined only and exclusively in terms of athletic prowess....For generations in this country, nonathletic boys have been judged as being "effeminate" or "feminized" simply because they aren't interested in sports. But when I take a look at history, I don't see intellectual men as being cowards. Many of those who opposed the actions of totalitarian regimes were intellectuals, women as well as men. Such individuals certainly weren't "wimps." I think of the civil rights movement in this country when I was growing up. During the early 1960s before the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, individual college students paticipated in civil rights marches in the Deep South. Since segregationists certainly were quite willing to engage in acts of physical violence, this particular instance of activism, indeed, required a lot of courage.

I am glad you distinguish between athleticism on the one hand and masculinity and courage on the other. However, I also think it's important to note that a guy can be feminine in some ways and still be courageous. These days success in social movements comes from engagement and compromise as well from conflict and aggression. I would consider consensus-building a more feminine approach to solving problems, but there is no reason we males have to confine our activities to war and confrontation, rather than participating in building consensus. I can understand why the people who stood up the Soviet Union felt they had no other choice, and, yes, it was courageous. Yet I do not think that everyone who collaborated with the Soviets was a "coward." They just differed from the dissenters in their opinion on how to make the world a better place.

If someone wants to change the world, like I want to, I think reticence and circumspection are just as important as courage. You have to choose your battles. And there also times when you will need to form alliances with people you don't like, when you and they share a political objective that outweighs how you happen to feel about one another. In my case, I am unlikely to attack ANYONE political who agrees with me that global warming is the greatest problem of our time, and that we are the cause of it. Even if that person is a complete a-hole, he and I can hopefully agree to put aside our mutual dislike for one another while we go about limiting carbon emissions in order to save the world.

Human beings waste so much time quarrelling with each other and holding grudges against each other. It is much better, I think, to learn to believe in a cause. True power and accomplishment come from reshaping the world into a better place, not from punishing bullies. I didn't attack you-know-who last week because I wanted to "punish" him, or because I was angry at him. (Again, I know I was brutal, and I feel horrible about it.) I was putting the site first and doing what I thought was necessary to defend it. I believe in this site and its goal of waking people up from their obsession with sports.

(It's because I'm so sceptical of picking fights, and because I care about the site, that I won't be talking about able2know. Trust me, our site really does want to have to deal with them any time soon! They would make past enemies look harmless. Let's agree to coexist? That's what I say. If you leave the two people you mentioned alone and agree to disagree with them, they will leave you alone as well. If they bother you, then you should put them on IGNORE.)

2. my opinion on why football coaches defend bullying

Earl wrote:I will say this: Although I know that there are some who do, I don't believe that the majority of high-school football coaches in this country are morally opposed to any of their players bullying physically weaker boys at their schools. I honour the coaches who do, but I don't think they constitute the majority. Call me prejudiced, but I need to see evidence. I'm truly sorry that I feel this way, but I would have to lie to myself to believe otherwise. I've actually done that before, and it just didn't work.

(Please, never quote me on this idea. If you use this argument, please put it into your own words, so that no one will recognise the style as mine.)

From the perspective of the average football coach, allowing players to bully students actually provides a huge advantage when it comes to wins and losses. Consider, first of all that we are talking about young men, who like to sort themselves into ranks--alphas, betas and gammas let's say. Alphas have the most confidence; betas have fair-to-middling confidence; gammas have next to none. If the coach isolates his players, and does not allow them to bully outsiders, they will sort themselves into the three levels of social status. The coach will then have to deal with gammas on his team who will be expected to attack and destroy the opponent week-in and week-out, and those gammas will fail miserably, because they are gammas and have no self-confidence. Wouldn't it be nice if the coach had some designated gammas of his very own in reserve, who would never see any action in a game? He does! He has the non-athletic boys who are not on the team. So the way it works is that the top players on the team become alphas; they look down on the second-tier players who become betas; and the betas harass and bully everyone who is not on the team--the gammas. The end result is a glorious cohesive football team of confident alphas and betas, with the gammas looking on from the stands. Basically, the football players succeed in stealing the self-confidence from those who are not on the team. Once they have all that confidence, they are able to win more games. Therefore, a coach has an incentive to allow bullying.

Note: this argument merely shows that an incentive exists for the average coach to allow bullying. That doesn't mean he WILL allow it. If a particular coach (Coach K?) insists that he personally did not allow bullying, I think we owe him the courtesy of taking him at his word.

Cheers,
RF

recovering_fan wrote:Good Evening Earl,

Earl wrote:Those are excellent points, recovering_fan.

Thanks for the compliment about the points I brought up. I thought they might be useful to you all in arguments with the pro-bullying crowd. Here's how: every time you claim that bullying is unacceptable because it ruins lives, they respond that it is necessary because "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" or something like that, right? In other words, bullying--like the free market--is one of those social phenomena that "lifts all boats but sinks a few." But the problem is, bullying does NOT "lift all boats." As my argument above shows, and as I have shown elsewhere in the thread about nerds, bullying is holding young men back in the world! The omelette that bullying provides us with tastes like crap and lacks any and all nutritional value.
Cheers,
RF

Yeah! That old cliché has been done to death.

We are human beings, not eggs!

I fail to see how bullying is necessary. How in the flying Hell does bullying benefit society in any way, especially in high school, when some student's art project or science project has been destroyed by some low-life gutter-thug of a bully? Eh?

Somebody please explain that one to me! OK?

When I was in high school, one day as I entered the art class, I discovered that some of my oil paintings that I had been working on were destroyed. Someone had smeared brown paint all over my paintings setting me back about three months.

How about some student who plays the violin, and one day some bully slams the locker door on his hands and breaking some fingers, and he has to have his hands in a cast until they heal and he is unable to play his violin in an up coming concert, and then after the casts are removed, there is permanent damage to his hands and he'll never be able to play the violin ever again.

Or, how about a student getting thrown down a flight of stairs or through a plate glass window by some stupid moronic jock tard? These were a couple of incidents I had read about shortly after Columbine.

How is this beneficial to anybody? Eh? What purpose does it serve?

I'm sure I can think up even more examples. But I really don't want to go there!

NO! Bullying not only destroys individual lives, but it can also set back the progress of humanity.

I don't particularly like omelets. Scrambled eggs suck! I would much rather view a beautiful painting, or a science project being demonstrated, or listen to a concert.

Watching sports is like bubble gum for the mind or baby food for the brain!

NO! I hate sports! I much prefer to see paintings in an art gallery, or see some really cool science projects being demonstrated, or listen to a classical music concert.

I want the real meat and potatoes for the mind, and NOT have infantile sports pablum shoved down my throat!

And so, I say, send all these moronic bullies, these infantile ga ga goo goos back to Kindergarten where they belong!

No, on second thought, these cowards will only bully around the little kids who are much smaller.

Instead, put them in the zoo, put them in diapers, and put them in a cage with the monkeys!

There! Now I think that touches all bases! OK?

Oh my God! Somebody please kick my fat ass for using a stupid moronic sport euphemism!

I was thinking mainly of emotional bullying. But the examples you give clarify the issue. Sometimes irreparable physical damage is done, and it not only costs the victim, but it costs society dearly.

Fat Man wrote:There! Now I think that touches all bases! OK?

Oh my God! Somebody please kick my fat ass for using a stupid moronic sport euphemism!

Now, why would I ever want to do that?

Hi, recovering_fan. Wow. You truly are an asset to this forum. You make intelligent observations. If I weren't experiencing a loss of energy (this happens after I've had a workout session, which I did precisely that earlier this afternoon), I would blather on and on.

Don't worry. I have no intention to go gunning after Cycloptichorn and kuvasz at our Internet neighbor A2K. As Michael Jackson once said in an insipid song, "I'm a lover, not a fighter." (But, on the other hand, as the Village People would sing, "I want to be a MACHO man." That's why I work out with weights. I'm ramblin', folks. I also have mood swings sometimes.)

Edit: Earl is wrong. The aforementioned "insipid" song, indeed, is not insipid. It's a Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson duet; namely, "The Girl Is Mine." You know ... "The girl is mine, the doggone girl is mine." I forgot that I liked this song. I told you I was tired.

"MA-CHO, MA-CHO man. I want to be ... a MACHO man."

Earl wrote:"MA-CHO, MA-CHO man. I want to be ... a MACHO man."

*Throws Earl a couple packets of nachos*

There ya go!

...Wait. Did you say Nacho Man, or Macho Man? Ah, whatever. Enjoy!

Wow, that omelette metaphor that recovering_fan came up with is pretty effective, actually. Anything that can possibly arise from bullying is bound to be bad. Nothing good ever comes of it. The victims only become emotionally weaker and the bullies themselves continue to feel untouchable and superior to others. Anyone who condones this sort of behaviour seriously, as wibberley would have said, needs to get help. But I say this in full honesty here. Nobody deserves to be given a hard time unless they've done something to deserve it. I can understand a group of kids ganging up on and beating up another kid if he had, say, threatened to attack a girl or even killed another student, but if the student they're ganging up on is innocent and means absolutely no harm to anyone - it's definitely the worst side of people having its magnitude increased by the herd mentality which exists in a lot of young people. As the thread title says, bullying ruins lives, and it's an almost indisputable fact. Why the hell there would be some idiots who could find a positive side to it is beyond me. No wonder I don't post on able2know anymore given some of the stuff I've heard coming from them.

Best regards.
i_like_1981

I was wondering (and perhaps hoping) that someone (such as abitagirl) would have asked, "Earl, have you been on something?" I was just in a goofy mood following a workout session at my health club.

Skul wrote:

Earl wrote:"MA-CHO, MA-CHO man. I want to be ... a MACHO man."

*Throws Earl a couple packets of nachos*

There ya go!

...Wait. Did you say Nacho Man, or Macho Man? Ah, whatever. Enjoy!

Thank you, Skul. But since I have diabetes and I'm on a heart-healthy diet, I gave them to Mrs. Earl. Since you are nearly 30 years younger than I, I was wondering whether you knew that I was alluding to a rather outrageous song, a disco ... uh, classic from the late 1970s by the equally outrageous Village People. In other words, I was wondering if you got my joke. I have provided a link below to provide for your further cultural education. If this song were ever played on the intercom at my health club, hilarity would ensue; and I would be embarrassed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO43p2Wqc08

i_like_1981 wrote:Wow, that omelette metaphor that recovering_fan came up with is pretty effective, actually. Anything that can possibly arise from bullying is bound to be bad. Nothing good ever comes of it. The victims only become emotionally weaker and the bullies themselves continue to feel untouchable and superior to others. Anyone who condones this sort of behaviour seriously, as wibberley would have said, needs to get help. But I say this in full honesty here. Nobody deserves to be given a hard time unless they've done something to deserve it. I can understand a group of kids ganging up on and beating up another kid if he had, say, threatened to attack a girl or even killed another student, but if the student they're ganging up on is innocent and means absolutely no harm to anyone - it's definitely the worst side of people having its magnitude increased by the herd mentality which exists in a lot of young people. As the thread title says, bullying ruins lives, and it's an almost indisputable fact. Why the hell there would be some idiots who could find a positive side to it is beyond me. No wonder I don't post on able2know anymore given some of the stuff I've heard coming from them.

Best regards.
i_like_1981

Seriously, I sort of feel that I should apologize for appearing to mock the subject of my own topic. I have nothing but contempt for bullies. Bullying is a choice. No one is forced to bully. Most kids who are bullied are quiet (often shy) and mind their own business. I am amazed at the number of adults who defend bullying as supposedly being a part of life. Yeah, bullying is a part of life, just like spousal abuse and rape. (That was a sarcastic remark, folks.) I certainly agree that bullied kids should be taught how to be resilient, but those who defend bullying are morally vacuous. By the way, i_like_1981, hawkeye10 is rather unpopular at A2K because of his harsh attitudes on other subjects such as rape. (Well, when you think about it, rape is a form of bullying.) Many of his views seem to be predicated upon self-centeredness and selfishness.

Earl wrote:Seriously, I sort of feel that I should apologize for appearing to mock the subject of my own topic. I have nothing but contempt for bullies. Bullying is a choice. No one is forced to bully. Most kids who are bullied are quiet (often shy) and mind their own business. I am amazed at the number of adults who defend bullying as supposedly being a part of life. Yeah, bullying is a part of life, just like spousal abuse and rape. (That was a sarcastic remark, folks.) I certainly agree that bullied kids should be taught how to be resilient, but those who defend bullying are morally vacuous. By the way, i_like_1981, hawkeye10 is rather unpopular at A2K because of his harsh attitudes on other subjects such as rape. (Well, when you think about it, rape is a form of bullying.) Many of his views seem to be predicated upon self-centeredness and selfishness.

Good evening Earl:

Well, I for one will never go back to that Able2Know (Unable2KnowShit) forum, just as I don't go over to (4c h a n) because of all those low-life zoo-tramps over thare.

I'm not surprised the Hawkeye10 - AKA - Myopic Dodo Bird has become more unpopular over at Unable2KnowShit!

Of course, I think that my own posts over there, ripping him a new one, has also contributed to his becoming more unpopular.

I believe someday Myopic Dodo Bird is going to die a violent death.

He's going to choke to death on an old toilet plunger after someone has shoved it down his throat!

I hope!!!