News Why are we concentrating on gay specific bullying instead of all bullying?

[Pattonias]

I am wondering why the nation is gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?

I was bullied in middle school, and everyone just told me that was the way it was.

I hate that bullying of anyone goes on and wish that we could take a stand against all forms of bullying?

Is it still acceptable to make fun of someone as long as they are not in a ethnic or social minority?

 

[drankin]

I am wondering why the nation is gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?

I was bullied in middle school, and everyone just told me that was the way it was.

I hate that bullying of anyone goes on and wish that we could take a stand against all forms of bullying?

Is it still acceptable to make fun of someone as long as they are not in a ethnic or social minority?

You must be a white male. You're going to have to suck it up.

 

[Pattonias]

You must be a white male. You're going to have to suck it up.

Exactly, that is what I was told.

 

[Jack21222]

Why do we keep hearing so much about breast cancer? Does that mean all other forms of cancer are acceptable? Shouldn't we be taking a stand against all kinds of cancer?

If the above argument sounds absurd to you, you'll see how your argument sounds to me.

 

[robert80]

There should be a big difference if you are bullying someone because he is a member of minority or for his apperance only. This difference should in society exist... So let's first stop the bullying of minorities and later on we can concentrate on other forms. The gay issue is non compareable. We do not have the same rights as straight people have... You have the same rights in your country I hope as the same white straight male. So bullying is the only difference as I see it. But I have to tell you if you lived in my country we would not have the same legal rights.

 

[JaredJames]

There should be a big difference if you are bullying someone because he is a member of minority or for his apperance only. This difference should in society exist... So let's first stop the bullying of minorities and later on we can concentrate on other forms. The gay issue is non compareable. We do not have the same rights as straight people have... You have the same rights in your country I hope as the same white straight male. So bullying is the only difference as I see it. But I have to tell you if you lived in my country we would not have the same legal rights.

Which country are you from?

 

[robert80]

Slovenia EU. I ment marriage and adoption.

 

[russ_watters]

Why do we keep hearing so much about breast cancer? Does that mean all other forms of cancer are acceptable? Shouldn't we be taking a stand against all kinds of cancer?

If the above argument sounds absurd to you, you'll see how your argument sounds to me.

It doesn't sound absurd to me. Now what?

 

[Gokul43201]

I am wondering why the nation is gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?

Can you show first, that this is indeed true?

I searched Google News for "bullying", and of the 10 stories in the first page of results only 3 were related to anti-gay bullying, and that too somewhat obliquely. Most of the rest have absolutely no mention of the words gay, homosexual, etc.

This thread is meaningful ONLY if someone can substantiate the fundamental assertion that the nation is in fact "gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?" If not, the thread would be based entirely upon unsubstantiated speculation, which essentially calls for it to be locked or deleted.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Slovenia EU. I ment marriage and adoption.

Gay people in the US for example cannot marry or adopt in most states.

Also, breast cancer is overrated.

I assume the OP is referring to the college student who killed himself after he was video taped having sex, and the outpouring of media support that lasted a week or two afterwards. There definitely wasn't any long term initiative that was started because of that, it was just a media event

 

[WhoWee]

I am wondering why the nation is gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?

I was bullied in middle school, and everyone just told me that was the way it was.

I hate that bullying of anyone goes on and wish that we could take a stand against all forms of bullying?

Is it still acceptable to make fun of someone as long as they are not in a ethnic or social minority?

I guess you didn't have a spokesperson?
http://www.gaypolitics.com/2010/10/08/will-congress-consider-national-bullying-law/

 

[DaveC426913]

I am wondering why the nation is gathering under the flag of bullying in relation specifically to gays instead of attacking the issue of bullying in general?

Don't quote me on this because it needs facts but...

I think there's a difference in severity.

People have been killed for being gay.

Generic bullying, in school or example, is less targeted and, I think, generally less violent.

Basically, the label of gay is analagous with a red cape to a bull.

Unlike homophobic bullies, you don't really find "regular" bullies in the locker room talking about how they wish they could take a bat to all the ... "wimpy, easily-intimidated kids in the world".

The 'gay' label is a lightning rod for violence and renders this particular type of bashing at risk of becoming institutionalized - i.e. a club.

Can you show first, that this is indeed true?

I searched Google News for "bullying", and of the 10 stories in the first page of results only 3 were related to anti-gay bullying, a

Try gay bashing. I think that is the more common term.

 

[Gokul43201]

Try gay bashing. I think that is the more common term.

It wouldn't help to compare the relative "concentration" on gay bullying as opposed to any generic bullying ... but nevertheless, I did try it. Of the 10 hits on the first page, only one was obliquely related to anti-gay bullying in a school. The rest were about anti-gay slurs and violence among adults and other institutions.

Moreover, it's the job of the OP to substantiate the claims upon which the thread is based. So far, this thread still has no good reason for existing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Moreover, it's the job of the OP to substantiate the claims upon which the thread is based. So far, this thread still has no good reason for existing.

Well, he's expressing a perception. I suppose the implicit question is: is his perception realistic?

 

[Evo]

I haven't seen any specific focus as the OP claims, but here is info on it.

Miami Herald. http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gays...eaths-of-tyler-clementi-and-other-youths.html

Google page on gay harrassment in schools.

http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLL_enUS339US339&q=gay+harassment+in+schools

 

[Gokul43201]

I haven't seen any specific focus as the OP claims, but here is info on it.

Miami Herald. http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gays...eaths-of-tyler-clementi-and-other-youths.html

Google page on gay harrassment in schools.

http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLL_enUS339US339&q=gay+harassment+in+schools

I don't doubt that some schools are concerned specifically about anti-gay harrassment, but that doesn't mean the schools, communities, ... the nation, is ignoring bullying in general. And the OP specifically implies this. That is still unsubstantiated. Worse, easily debunked:

San Jose: Nearly 250 attend meeting to address bullying in schools (Nov 17) - no mention of the word 'gay.'

http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-29/1289895680241110.xml&coll=1 - again, absolutely no mention of anti-gay bullying.

And it shouldn't be anyone else's job but Pattonias' to provide substantiation for the claims made in the OP.

 

[Jack21222]

It doesn't sound absurd to me. Now what?

Now I trust that most people can see the flaw in the argument, and you're just an exception.

 

[JaredJames]

I agree with Gokul on this. So far no evidence has been provided by the OP to back up the claims that gay bullying is taking priorty over any other form of bullying.

If they can't show any evidence it is based purely on the OP's view of things, a highly speculative one at that.

In all fairness, there have been threads locked for far less than this.

 

[WhoWee]

From my post above - (number 11) "National media coverage of the suicides of bullied gay teens may have presented LGBT advocates with a “teachable moment,” according to an Associated Press article, and that could translate to support for a national law aimed at protecting students from bullying.

“It’s when bigotry shows itself at its worst that people respond,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. Frank referenced film of police dogs attacking civil rights protesters in the 1960’s, saying the footage helped galvanize white support for black civil rights."

Let's not lose site of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discussion that is also in the new.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/18/131408858/vote-to-be-held-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell

 

[JaredJames]

Is this in support of the OP's hypothesis? Or are you just outlining that point?

I've just googled the OP's claim and haven't seen any supporting evidence.

 

[WhoWee]

At first I thought the OP was not valid, then I read Barney Frank's quote. Now I think it's possible there may be special interests wanting to keep the issue in the news?

 

[JaredJames]

If a bunch of people commit suicide, even if they are all completely unrelated, if they all are found to be gay the media will play on this. That's what they do.
It is common to see things such as race / sexuality and the like quoted in a news report, even when it has no bearing on the report itself.

I don't see any reasons such as "wanting to keep the issue in the news". Things remain in the news as long as they get readers or until something better comes along.

That report simply links the don't ask, don't tell issue with anti-bullying. The issue at hand in that report is not regarding bullying in itself and it certainly doesn't support the OP.

Again, from what you quoted it doesn't seem to support what the OP said. I want some specific evidence showing that gay bullying is being seen / treated as a priority.

 

[loseyourname]

It shouldn't be a surprise that if someone just killed himself after being bullied for being gay, efforts to prevent people from being bullied for being gay will be in the news. That said, I hadn't even heard of this until I opened this thread right now and knew of no specific anti-bullying measures of any sort. It's hard to call this "the nation" rallying behind a cause to the exclusion of related causes.

 

[Pattonias]

Wow, "threads locked for less than this". I figured this topic was common knowledge, perhaps your high school was a place of tranquility. I in no way support any kind of bullying, regardless of who it is against, but I am wondering why the fervor was raised of bullying in relation to a gay person, and not for the countless other instances of bullying.

You'll have to to excuse me because I listen to NPR and receive a large amount of my news from this source.

Third hit on google. http://http://newsroom.hmoodle.com/?p=1182"

What I can see happening is some sort of rush legislation that makes it a "hate crime" to poke fun at someones sexuality, but a shrug to bullying in general.

And please quit with the tirades about the OPS responsibility to provide data, I'm not exactly pushing a new theory for the origin of the universe. I'm talking about the media's take on the issue of bullying as it stands today.

I think bullying should be dealt with harshly when it is directed at anyone for any reason. Regardless of whatever reason someone feels they have a right to demean another.

 

[Jack21222]

Show me where you're seeing a shrug to bullying in general.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am wondering why the fervor was raised of bullying in relation to a gay person, and not for the countless other instances of bullying.

You never seem to stop with your unjustified (and demonstrably false) assertions that bullying against other people has been acceptable, ignored, given the shrug, etc.

 

[JaredJames]

Third hit on google. http://http://newsroom.hmoodle.com/?p=1182"

All that article says is that there has been a rise in suicides which is being blamed on bullying, a number of which have been caused by the victims sexuality "or rumoured sexuality".
If you read the whole thing you will note that it doesn't focus solely on the gay issue. It talks about bullying in general.
There is no apparent stance by the media. They just gave the reason for some instances of bullying.

Third hit on google? Does that mean one and two didn't involve gay people? From that alone we can see that the "other forms of bullying" are more important (or at least requested / looked at more often).

And please quit with the tirades about the OPS responsibility to provide data, I'm not exactly pushing a new theory for the origin of the universe. I'm talking about the media's take on the issue of bullying as it stands today.

It is and always has been. You made a claim, one that clearly isn't holding up to even simple investigation. I have google numerous phrases regarding bullying and haven't seen any indication that there is a focus on gay people being bullied and ignorance to other forms.

 

[Jack21222]

Perhaps he's referring to the Trevor Project "It Gets Better" campaign. The point of my earlier post was just because a LGBT special interest group starts a project based on their special interest doesn't mean suddenly everything outside of their special interest doesn't matter.

The analogy I made is just because a breast cancer special interest group starts a breast cancer campaign doesn't mean they think all other forms of cancer are cool.

 

[DaveC426913]

The analogy I made is just because a breast cancer special interest group starts a breast cancer campaign doesn't mean they think all other forms of cancer are cool.

Ah now I see the point you were trying to make.

 

[Char. Limit]

Just remember what someone told me on Sodahead once.

"You're a white male. You're not allowed to talk."

 

[lisab]

Just remember what someone told me on Sodahead once.

"You're a white male. You're not allowed to talk."

Poor, pitiful white males...sigh!

It seems all the rage to wear the 'victim' cloak these days .

No one is stiffling white males from speaking. Just don't get so sensitive and defensive if your point of view is challenged.

 

[Char. Limit]

Poor, pitiful white males...sigh!

It seems all the rage to wear the 'victim' cloak these days .

No one is stiffling white males from speaking. Just don't get so sensitive and defensive if your point of view is challenged.

I didn't say I was wearing a victim cloak, or that I was being stifled from speaking. It's just something someone on Sodahead told me.

...I blocked him.

In the topic at hand, I would say that it's because gay bullying is more serious. However, you're mistaken if you believe that we don't concentrate on other forms of bullying as well. The only reason you don't hear about it as much is because it's not as controversial, and the media likes controversy.

 

[lisab]

I didn't say I was wearing a victim cloak, or that I was being stifled from speaking. It's just something someone on Sodahead told me.

...I blocked him.

In the topic at hand, I would say that it's because gay bullying is more serious. However, you're mistaken if you believe that we don't concentrate on other forms of bullying as well. The only reason you don't hear about it as much is because it's not as controversial, and the media likes controversy.

I agree, all types of bullying are bad, but some are worse than others. Picking on someone because of their shirt is mean. But picking on someone because of their sexuality, race, or ethnicity is much worse, because those kind of things are often internalized as part of self-identity.

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, the more we discuss it, I think the Tea Party has been bullied just as much.

 

[Char. Limit]

Actually, the more we discuss it, I think the Tea Party has been bullied just as much.

Difference: You can choose to be a Tea Partier. You can't choose to be gay.

 

[WhoWee]

Difference: You can choose to be a Tea Partier. You can't choose to be gay.

But ironically, in both cases, until you make it public - nobody picks on you for that reason?

 

[fluxions]

But ironically, in both cases, until you make it public - nobody picks on you for that reason?

Some kids are bullied just for being perceived as gay.

 

[WhoWee]

Some kids are bullied just for being perceived as gay.

Perhaps some voters were bullied for showing up at town hall meetings - they didn't know they were Tea Party members until they were labeled as such?

 

[fluxions]

Perhaps some voters were bullied for showing up at town hall meetings - they didn't know they were Tea Party members until they were labeled as such?

Perhaps. I haven't looked into the matter.

In any case, it is evident that it is possible to be bullied for being a member of a group without publicly self-identifying as a member of that group. This is in contrast to your claim in post #36 wherein you essentially (at least this is how I interpreted it) said that publicly self-identifying as a member of a group is a precondition to being bullied for being a member of that group.

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps. I haven't looked into the matter.

In any case, it is evident that it is possible to be bullied for being a member of a group without publicly self-identifying as a member of that group. This is in contrast to your claim in post #36 wherein you essentially (at least this is how I interpreted it) said that publicly self-identifying as a member of a group is a precondition to being bullied for being a member of that group.

I don't have an axe to grind - I'm making an observation there are similarities to the way people in these groups are bullied. Obviously, the torment increases when someone is labeled as a member of the group.

It's also my observation (I have 4 kids) that people (especially kids) can be quite mean. Once someone is labeled as fat, short, ugly, dumb, smelly, slow, skinny, tall, clean, smart, neat, sloppy, (basically anything) then they are fair game for the bully process. Sometimes, it is with nervous laughter that some of the "bullies" participate - they're just glad it's not them being chastied.

Unfortunately, I think it's basic human behavior to single out someone and attack them as a group? Sometimes people who have been subject to such attacks are eager to join the group against other people (possibly for another reason).

 

[fluxions]

I don't have an axe to grind - I'm making an observation there are similarities to the way people in these groups are bullied. Obviously, the torment increases when someone is labeled as a member of the group.

It's also my observation (I have 4 kids) that people (especially kids) can be quite mean. Once someone is labeled as fat, short, ugly, dumb, smelly, slow, skinny, tall, clean, smart, neat, sloppy, (basically anything) then they are fair game for the bully process. Sometimes, it is with nervous laughter that some of the "bullies" participate - they're just glad it's not them being chastied.

Unfortunately, I think it's basic human behavior to single out someone and attack them as a group? Sometimes people who have been subject to such attacks are eager to join the group against other people (possibly for another reason).

Has a member of the Tea Party ever been bullied so relentlessly that their only (perceived) recourse was to commit suicide?

And yes, kids can be quite cruel; that is clearly not unique to kids though.

"Sometimes people who have been subject to such attacks are eager to join the group against other people (possibly for another reason).

I think this may be a perversion of the 'tit-for-tat' morality that a lot of people preach and sometimes practice. Specifically, "I've been titted, and now it's my turn to tat."

 

[WhoWee]

Has a member of the Tea Party ever been bullied so relentlessly that their only (perceived) recourse was to commit suicide?

And yes, kids can be quite cruel; that is clearly not unique to kids though.




I think this may be a perversion of the 'tit-for-tat' morality that a lot of people preach and sometimes practice. Specifically, "I've been titted, and now it's my turn to tat."

Have any gays been taunted in a public forum by members of the press and elected politicians?

 

[JaredJames]

Have any gays been taunted in a public forum by members of the press and elected politicians?

Wouldn't be able to comment on press and politicians, but virtually all religious groups do it all the time.

 

[WhoWee]

The attack on the Tea Party members actually included the gay male slang term "tea bagging" and was attributed to Anderson Cooper.

 

[JaredJames]

The attack on the Tea Party members actually included the gay male slang term "tea bagging" and was attributed to Anderson Cooper.

I can't comment on the Tea Party - my only experience of them has been a few clips shown on a comedy programme where you had one guy slating Obama (calling him Muslim and other rubbish like that) and another guy who was shouting "all commies should die" and how he would kill any commie he came across. He then proceeded to threaten the camera man, asking if he was a commie. (When the camera man said "no", his response was "well, that's ok then").

But if I was to form an opinion based on that, it wouldn't be a good one. As I'm sure you can understand.

"Tea bagging" isn't a "gay male slang term". It applies equally to a male:female relationship as it does male:male. You can't claim it is a "gay attack" on the tea party members as this simply isn't true. It applies equally to all members (excluding female:female couples).

To tea bag is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag_(sexual_act)

 

[Jack21222]

Perhaps some voters were bullied for showing up at town hall meetings - they didn't know they were Tea Party members until they were labeled as such?

By bullied, do you mean spit on and had gum placed in their hair? Do you mean pushed down into a mud puddle? Or do you mean laughed at?

Furthermore, are you talking about 12 year old kids, or are you talking about full-grown adults?

I'm not allowed to suggest that you're just trolling because I've got enough infractions as it is, but you're derailing the thread with completely unrelated banter. You're equating a political movement by adults being laughed at for their beliefs to children being physically attacked for who they are.

On what planet are those two even remotely similar?

 

[WhoWee]

By bullied, do you mean spit on and had gum placed in their hair? Do you mean pushed down into a mud puddle? Or do you mean laughed at?

Furthermore, are you talking about 12 year old kids, or are you talking about full-grown adults?

I'm not allowed to suggest that you're just trolling because I've got enough infractions as it is, but you're derailing the thread with completely unrelated banter. You're equating a political movement by adults being laughed at for their beliefs to children being physically attacked for who they are.

On what planet are those two even remotely similar?

A bully is a bully - whether it's a white 12 year old boy picking on a defenseless classmate or a powerful political figure (or newsperson) picking on a taxpayer.

If you read my post, I said "Actually, the more we discuss it, I think the Tea Party has been bullied just as much. "

For some reason people think it's ok to call concerned voters "tea baggers"?

 

[JaredJames]

For some reason people think it's ok to call concerned voters "tea baggers"?

Read my last post please. It is not a gay insult. It is a reference to a sex act, and not in any way offensive. I see no reason why a person would consider it offensive, unless they hold the same mis-understanding as yourself (and those shouting it). In which case, it still isn't offensive, they just don't understand it. They are offended by their own interpretation of the phrase, not it's actual meaning. People just make far more of it than is deserved and amplify this mis-understanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

A bully is a bully - whether it's a white 12 year old boy picking on a defenseless classmate or a powerful political figure (or newsperson) picking on a taxpayer.

No, that is not the same.

Tea partiers self-identify around a public stance; they step into the forum of disagreement. They should expect to be challenged, even if that challenge may be overdone.


A child or a gay person does not want anything except to be left alone - and are bullied anyway.

 

[WhoWee]

Read my last post please. It is not a gay insult. It is a reference to a sex act, and not in any way offensive. I see no reason why a person would consider it offensive, unless they hold the same mis-understanding as yourself (and those shouting it). In which case, it still isn't offensive, they just don't understand it. They are offended by their own interpretation of the phrase, not it's actual meaning. People just make far more of it than is deserved and amplify this mis-understanding.

Are you serious - using a reference to a sex act (to label a member of a group) is not offensive?