themadkat Posted December 9, 2008 Report Share Posted December 9, 2008 I too have had more trouble with women than men, especially as I have gotten older (back in elementary school boys would give me problems but fighting was also acceptable then so that was that...). I guess I ended up becoming an "untouchable", as you described. In a way I have an advantage because it was understood that I was never part of the female social hierarchy, I never even tried. I more or less blurred the lines of gender to my advantage, not that I actively tried to look male or anything but certainly in my manner I was "one of the guys" and was largely successful at getting both guys and girls to treat me as such. The only disadvantage of that was that sometimes guys I had some interest in were a bit scared off by me, but that's never been a problem with my current fella. So yeah, I got around the nasty girls by basically, well, not being a girl. I'd rather get in a fistfight than have to put up with someone's social mischief. Tangentially, my mom is being bullied at work (by women). It makes me sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) I guess I ended up becoming an "untouchable", as you described. In a way I have an advantage because it was understood that I was never part of the female social hierarchy, I never even tried. We should start a club. Being outside of the "sistahood" has its benefits and disadvantages, I guess, but considering what you have to do to be included I'm happy where I am! I, too, have always been "one of the guys". It's somewhat odd to me that independent women don't usually get along that well even with other independent women--from what I've seen we're all independent in different ways which makes it look dysfunctional to be independent. We can be friendly, but relations are generally cool and somewhat aloof. Edited December 10, 2008 by JMeganSnow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 We should start a club. Being outside of the "sistahood" has its benefits and disadvantages, I guess, but considering what you have to do to be included I'm happy where I am! I, too, have always been "one of the guys". It's somewhat odd to me that independent women don't usually get along that well even with other independent women--from what I've seen we're all independent in different ways which makes it look dysfunctional to be independent. We can be friendly, but relations are generally cool and somewhat aloof. We SHOULD start a club! I feel like I've gotten along well, for the most part, with other independent women, but it was usually in a social or college environment instead of a workplace one, so maybe there wasn't that element of competition. Even at the office there were other independent women who were my peers that I didn't see eye-to-eye with but still got along with and respected. Maybe I just got lucky. My problem seems to be that, aside from bullying, I develop a close friendship with a girl that ends up blowing up in my face and creating ridiculous amounts of drama. This has happened twice now. My only consolation is that the first time around, I got a going-on-8-year relationship out of the deal with the guy that used to be hers. The second time was such a mess that it's too soon to tell how this wasn't a complete disaster. This person introduced me into what I guess you could consider a new form of bullying...I call it "epistemological terrorism". Basically you constantly question the person's every interpretation of how things are and in doing so undercut their ability to perceive reality as it is, therefore throwing them into a sort of uncertainty hell and eroding their self-respect. Everything is your fault, everything has to do with you not understanding, you missing something, you being wrong. This form of warfare is particularly effective when the perpetrator "deeply cares about" you. My father also seems rather good at it, which is why I don't talk to him now either. He's almost as bad as a freakin' Mrs. Rearden (the elder, not the wife) at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 This person introduced me into what I guess you could consider a new form of bullying...I call it "epistemological terrorism". Basically you constantly question the person's every interpretation of how things are and in doing so undercut their ability to perceive reality as it is, therefore throwing them into a sort of uncertainty hell and eroding their self-respect. I believe Miss Rand referred to this as psychologizing. It takes place when you are honestly trying to go through the effort to understand someone, but they keep saying, "You just don't understand!" without giving any facts to help you understand them. I find this to be especially true of certain types of women (though men probably do it as well), where you have supposedly hurt their feelings, but don't know what you did, and they won't explain it. Usually the relationship will end with them asserting that you did something to them, without them giving you a clue as to how your were crass or uncaring. Women giving men the silent treatment, I think, is a form of psychologizing; and it only works so far anyhow. Unless the man doesn't want any intelligence in her, then her shutting up when hurt will simply lead a rational man to say forget it and move on. A rational man will want to resolve conflicts in a romantic relationship, but if she isn't going to give him a clue, then it usually ain't worth it. On the flip side, there are those who do try to undermine one's self-confidence in understanding existence; but usually they are skeptics who are trying to get you to become a skeptic as well. And there are some who do use that as a weapon against you. I find that doesn't work on me, but that is because I am so integrated that I can answer most of the questions thrown at me, including on this board. Coming up with the answers really floors them, especially if you can show that they are being evasive; which undercuts their self-confidence (if they had any by being a skeptic in the first place). However, I do agree with the observation that bullies won't mess with you much if you are really independent -- and perhaps a little strange. I would not advise becoming strange so you are not bothered, but the truly independent person is more or less immune from the social metaphysics involved in bullying. That is, if you don't care that you are not a jock, then being bullied about not being able to lift 200 lbs doesn't mean much to you. And if you are willing to face the world all by yourself, most bullies don't know what to make of that because they must be the leader of the pack, and they just don't understand someone not wanting that or not wanting to be a member of the pack (more social metaphysics). I grew up in some very rough neighborhoods, and I wasn't very strong back then, but I wasn't bothered that much. They had an almost metaphysical fear of me. Not that I never got picked on, but given what was going on in the neighborhoods, I came out of them relatively unscathed physically. I had some emotional scarring, which I think is what bullies really want to inflict, but Objectivism helped me to overcome that -- it helped me to understand social metaphysics and how me not joining them led to them leaving me alone for the most part. Fear of being an outsider never really moved me, but it did move them; and I guess them being an outsider to me got to them somehow. Kind of like that scene in The Fountainhead where I think it was the dean that said that Roark was dangerous I still recommend not putting up with it, from any bully, since there is no value in them being in your life at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I still recommend not putting up with it, from any bully, since there is no value in them being in your life at all. It puts quite a wrinkle in it when you badly want to believe that somehow this person still cares about you. That's how the epistemological terrorism comes in. You see the contradiction but are unable to resolve it because you can't accept that the correct premise is wrong, you keep wanting the other premises to be wrong but that's what you perceive and there's no getting around that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted December 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 (edited) Oh, I definitely agree that if someone you love or like is involved in bullying you that this makes it harder to deal with. At some point, one has to decide that enough is enough and either get them to stop or get them out of your life. On a related note of not being able to ignore them if it goes on long enough, there is an interesting story about how the military uses loud music to torture terror suspects. If you can't get away from the onslaught of bullying, it has a similar effect -- one can't think for oneself because those rants and raves are in your head and it takes time to recover. I think the bullies understand this, which is why they keep at it. They love to torture your psycho-epistemology and refuse you the necessity of thinking for yourself. For dealing with the terrorists, I'm all for this; in that I don't mind the military breaking terror suspects until they give up the information needed to protect this country. But when bullies do this to one, it is evil to the core, because they do want to disrupt your thinking as a means of breaking you to follow their ends. Edited to add this quote from Ayn Rand, because it is the same principle at work in bullying: It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men's spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear.--Ayn Rand Edited December 10, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted December 10, 2008 Report Share Posted December 10, 2008 I believe Miss Rand referred to this as psychologizing. Not quite--people who won't introspect or even attempt to explain their actions are trying to force *you* to psychologize, so you're constantly trying to guess what's going on inside their head instead of reacting to their actual actions. The solution, of course, is to judge them based on what you can actually observe--what they do or say--and not try to diagnose their imagined mental dysfunctions. Some people will psychologize you and ascribe various mental disorders *to you* as a means of undercutting your reliance on your mind and your ability to introspect, as though you're incapable of understanding or controlling what's actually going on inside your own head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted December 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Not quite--people who won't introspect or even attempt to explain their actions are trying to force *you* to psychologize, so you're constantly trying to guess what's going on inside their head instead of reacting to their actual actions. Technically, I think you are correct; though psychologizing usually tends to be a projection of what is going on in the other person's subconscious without factual evidence, and that the subconscious is controlling the other person. That is, if one concludes that her silence was brought about due to a psychological problem, with no evidence presented, that would definitely be psychologizing. I was going to present a story more in tune with the title of the thread, but evidently it is no longer available at my usual sources. But there is a very high priced and high profile woman's boarding school that is being sued for permitting bullying. A girl there has attention deficit disorder, and she was being harassed day and night about this condition, making things much worse for her. In a sense, this story combines both bullying and psychologizing, since harassing someone about a psychological problem is evil because it is not something one has direct control over; and besides, attention deficit disorder may be neurological and not psychological anyhow. However, instead of going after the girls who tormented her, she and her lawyers are going after the school. I agree the school holds a lot of responsibility for letting it go on, especially if they knew about it, but I don't think those bullying girls ought to get off scott free about their bullying. Maybe the school is the target because it has deeper pockets, I don't know, but the story was up for less than a day and was then pulled so maybe they are settling out of court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted December 13, 2008 Report Share Posted December 13, 2008 Actually, going after the school makes sense because it is the *responsible* party in the situation. Children aren't held responsible for their actions under the law because it's known that children haven't yet developed knowledge and control of their rational capacity yet. That's not to say that the children don't share responsibility, but the school *was* responsible for handling the situation once it got started and should be liable if it defaulted on that responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted December 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2008 Speaking of bullies, someone yelled at me outside my apartment last night. I didn't catch everything he said because I was talking on the phone, but at the end he said: "We don't care about you any more! Fuck you!" Well, whoopteedoo, why should I give a damn if some nameless hoodlum cares about me or not? And I have to tell you that it takes a tremendous amount of courage to yell at somebody in the middle of the night with a closed door between you and the guy you are accosting (enter sarcasm). I did call the police, since at a minimum, this is disturbing the peace, and I do seek to have you out of my life and thrown in jail. You and all of your cohorts (that means other members of your gang, since I don't expect you to be too literate). I will exercise my right of association, and the no trespassing status of the apartment complex, and my right not to be disturbed in my home, to have you thrown in jail. If you are trying to dissuade me from taking a rational stance, it isn't going to work -- you'll just wind up in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prosperity Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 A common problem with many such studies is the fact that they ignore people's ideas and how they influence how we process input. Philosophy: who needs it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewRyan Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Um, that's assuming you *can* avoid them. I bailed out on a (non-Objectivist) forum I used to belong to because there was a person who simply would not leave me alone, and I knew ignoring them would do no good. Not a bully but a pot-stirrer who pokes at people to get a reaction. So ignoring in that case just leads to escalation. Instead of being annoyed, you end up hopping up and down, so mad you are radiating in ultraviolet when they finally do something you cannot ignore. Having finally gotten sick and tired of being fuming mad at this person every two months or so, my *only* option in this case was to leave the forum, just like that. Fortunately I had the option. Like I said not a bully, but the dynamic was similar; a person you can't only ignore and have it be effective. Tactic 5, useable ONLY the first time is to respond in a very low key way in a way that implies that you could crush this bully like a bug if they really got your attention. I believe that's called a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Caya Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 I have been a victim of bullying, up until recent years. The summer after my Freshman year of high school I started body-building. About my senior year of high school I started keeping my hair really short. Today I am told that I resemble a skin-head. It intimidates a lot of people unintentionally, but anyone that really knows me knows that I am generally a friendly and amiable person. It's a nice little defense mechanism though, and I have had a good amount of fun with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted January 5, 2009 Report Share Posted January 5, 2009 Are you also covered with tattoos and dress exclusively in boots, camo pants, and wife-beaters? I know at least a few muscular fellows with next to no hair, and that "skinhead" appellation wouldn't occur to me unless they, you know, were really trying for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Caya Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Yeah, I don't really know what's behind it. I don't dress normally for someone at my school, but it definitely isn't anything that smacks of white supremacist. I just chalk it up to most people being incredibly irrational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 My son was harassed and verbally abused in the park by a gang of older kids while I was there, how should I help him deal with these situations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 My son was harassed and verbally abused in the park by a gang of older kids while I was there, how should I help him deal with these situations? The best thing for you to have done would have been to have called the police while it was happening, to show him that he doesn't have to put up with it. However, since the bullying occurred, you can teach him that some people love to pick on those weaker than them, and you can (depending on his age and physical fitness), send him to self-defense classes. In the long run, he has to learn to stand up for himself, though I know this is difficult having been harassed as a child and even as an adult. But the police are there to protect you and your child, so call them when it is possible to ward off the bad guys. They are evil, and you don't have to put up with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 What was your reaction, Jill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 My dad and I had an interesting conversation along these lines last night. He's read Atlas Shrugged but he thinks the leaders of the strike just gave up and went and hid, in a sense, from the bullies of the world. He was in the US Navy for thirty years, and to him, passive resistance is futile, and he thinks there should have been an outright war between the producers and the looters. When it comes to bullies, he is never passive / resistant, and he thinks I should have stood up more for myself when I was being harassed. In a sense, I agree with him, that I should have stood my ground and should have called the police early on, which is one reason I am taking the stance that I do now that you don't have to put up with it. And sometimes running away from them simply encourages them to be more brutal to you, either psychologically or physically. So, with the help of the police, don't let the bullies of the world take over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) When it comes to bullies, he is never passive / resistant... You (and others) might enjoy this video that "Paul's Here" on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans posted earlier today on the thread, "Guns for self defense" See what happens when "Some hillbillies decided to pester the wrong guy!" Enjoy! [Edited to clarify -- the video wasn't posted by "Paul's Here"; he mentioned it and linked to it.] Edited June 28, 2009 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 See what happens when "Some hillbillies decided to pester the wrong guy!" That was an excellent video, in that those being harassed remained calm and in control the whole time, and it showed that harassment is the initiation of force. It wasn't until the hillbilly brought out the baseball bat that he really took the chance of being shot. It might be a legal gray area, but I think once the baseball bat came out, shooting him could have been done in self-defense. However, I have a friend who carries a concealed weapon, and even in Texas, one is supposed to ignore those harassing you and not take a pot-shot at them. But I think that is a more recent gun control law, because how else are you supposed to get rid of the harassers without force? Clearly, the hillbillies were not going to leave them alone, so what are you supposed to do in that situation on the moral rather than the legal level? That's why I take the position that using force to control them is fine, but within the limits of the circumstances -- i.e. force against force. However, one is risking going to jail by doing that, in the modern legal code of behavior for those carrying weapons of self-defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted June 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 That was an excellent video, in that those being harassed remained calm and in control the whole time, and it showed that harassment is the initiation of force. Here's something interesting about that movie -- you don't see who pulled the weapon first. The camera is focused on the hillbilly pulling the bat out of the truck, but you can't see if that was a response to the guy in the BMW pulling out his gun or not. So, for the moral perspective, it depends on if you think harassment is the initiation of force or not; if it is, then using counter-force is morally required, and it doesn't matter that the hillbilly only had a truck and a bat that was up against a loaded gun. The hillbillies were definitely morally wrong, but did they initiate force? That is the crucial moral question regarding the issue of individual rights. I'll say this, however, if it came to trial and I was on the jury, I would acquit the guy in the BMW. A man should only have to put up with so much harassment by attempting to get away from them, as the guy in the BMW tried to do. He didn't pull out a gun when the hillbillies were following him around; and the hillbillies, from their own camera evidence, where definitely going to rough him up on the dead end road. So, I would say it was self-defense. Of course, like the guy in the BMW, you may not know that they are planning to rough you up or not -- all you know is that they are following you around and harassing you, and you don't know if they intend to go further. So, especially after my experience, I would say telling them to back off is morally required, and one can use force if they do not comply. I should add, also, that when I was being harassed, I never once threatened them with force, but they wouldn't let up; and my harassment went on for months, not a mere six minutes. Because I knew the law, I felt morally trapped, as if I could defend myself and risk going to jail, or just try to put up with it and try to get away from them. I sent that tape and my reply off to a local Texas lawyer friend of mine, and I'm very curious as to what his response will be. If he permits me, I'll post it to this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 I sent that tape and my reply off to a local Texas lawyer friend of mine, and I'm very curious as to what his response will be. If he permits me, I'll post it to this thread. My bf pointed out that if in fact the video is real (which he doubts), the guy in the BMW did not do anything wrong until he took the camera. That would constitute theft regardless of the circumstances of the situation. He can only make them stand down, he can't use having them at gunpoint to take property from them. But he thinks the video was staged anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Here's something interesting about that movie -- you don't see who pulled the weapon first. The camera is focused on the hillbilly pulling the bat out of the truck, but you can't see if that was a response to the guy in the BMW pulling out his gun or not. So, for the moral perspective, it depends on if you think harassment is the initiation of force or not; if it is, then using counter-force is morally required, and it doesn't matter that the hillbilly only had a truck and a bat that was up against a loaded gun. The hillbillies were definitely morally wrong, but did they initiate force? That is the crucial moral question regarding the issue of individual rights. ... I sent that tape and my reply off to a local Texas lawyer friend of mine, and I'm very curious as to what his response will be. If he permits me, I'll post it to this thread. Assume that the incident wasn't staged (I doubt that it was staged, but perhaps it was.) Assume that the guy in the BMW was the first to brandish a weapon, his gun. Obviously, the guy in the BMW had a gun all along, so the significant assumption is that he had pulled it out and the driver of the truck, the guy who pulled the bat out, had seen him do so, and had sufficient reason (in the context) to believe that ultimately the guy would be holding the gun on him, threatening him with it, perhaps shooting him, perhaps killing him (as well as his buddy). Would the driver of the truck take the time to go to the back of his truck to search for a bat to use in self-defense against a guy with a gun? And if he thought that grabbing a bat to use in self-defense against someone with a gun was a good idea, then why didn't he follow though and use it once he was close enough to do so? I will be curious as to what your lawyer friend has to say. [Edited for spelling.] Edited June 29, 2009 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebor Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) My bf pointed out that if in fact the video is real (which he doubts), the guy in the BMW did not do anything wrong until he took the camera. That would constitute theft regardless of the circumstances of the situation. He can only make them stand down, he can't use having them at gunpoint to take property from them. But he thinks the video was staged anyhow. That implies that your boyfriend didn't see anything wrong prior to the taking of the camera, on the BMW driver's part, especially his use of his gun. If taking the camera was wrong, then so too was taking the keys even if they were left down the road. Assuming the incident wasn't staged, if pulling the gun was not wrong (in your boyfriend's view), what would have been the right thing to have done after the armed confrontation? What would you, or especially your boyfriend, have done were you the ones in the BMW, again, after the armed, gun vs. bat, confrontation? Edited for clarity. Edited June 29, 2009 by Trebor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.