Why Geeks Get Bullied (It's Not Necessarily for Being Geeks)(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Why Geeks Get Bullied (It's Not Necessarily for Being Geeks)
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-geeks-get-bullied-its-not-necessarily-for-being-geeks/272723/
77 comments
[deleted]
>>innate quality of geekiness
Very well put. The problem is most geek/nerd kids don't realize they are geeks/nerds until some point in their teenage.
In my case, I always wondered 'Why I was so different from others?'. It was only until a time in teenage that I realized this was actually a positive quality. Over time I saw geeks/nerds do far better than life than others, especially bullies.
Most bullies I know have only gone downwards in their lives, even the rich ones have only gone down with time.
Very well put. The problem is most geek/nerd kids don't realize they are geeks/nerds until some point in their teenage.
In my case, I always wondered 'Why I was so different from others?'. It was only until a time in teenage that I realized this was actually a positive quality. Over time I saw geeks/nerds do far better than life than others, especially bullies.
Most bullies I know have only gone downwards in their lives, even the rich ones have only gone down with time.
> Most bullies I know have only gone downwards in their lives, even the rich ones have only gone down with time.
^ this. I was bullied by some kid, took me years later (and processing an experience at his house) to realize he was probably beat up by his mom.
Short straw went to him, imho.
^ this. I was bullied by some kid, took me years later (and processing an experience at his house) to realize he was probably beat up by his mom.
Short straw went to him, imho.
Actually I parsed this differently. I parsed it as "the intersection between class and (intellectualism —or geekishness, if you prefer—) can be especially invisible".
I.e. "geekishness = intellectualism", which I think the case could be made for. He is right about Americans having trouble seeing class, since there is so much propaganda against seeing it (e.g. as soon as anyone anywhere mentions class, some republican is going to start screaming "class war").
I.e. "geekishness = intellectualism", which I think the case could be made for. He is right about Americans having trouble seeing class, since there is so much propaganda against seeing it (e.g. as soon as anyone anywhere mentions class, some republican is going to start screaming "class war").
I believe his "—or geekishness, if you prefer—" is referring only to "intellectualism", a way of broadening the scope rather than redefining "geek".
Honestly, all you need to do to avoid bullying is have the balls to fire back at anyone who makes fun of you. If you just sit back and take it, you make yourself a target. By if you immediately fire back with a response, effectively "bullying the bully," he'll eventually stop targeting you. This is such a basic male social concept that I would expect "geeks" (btw, why even self label yourself? Seems to set yourself up for failure) of all people to understand it.
I think a lot of what people see as "bullying" is actually a just half of this male social pattern of "giving each other shit." It's just what guys do. If you can handle it and fire back, you don't call it bullying. It's only when you refuse to participate that it becomes bullying. Obviously, that line of logic has some inherent victim blaming, and I am not defending bullying at all. I think it's despicable. But at some point you just need to accept the status quo and learn to defend yourself instead of lamenting about it. And if you're truly smarter than the person bullying you, it should be no problem to come up with a quick witted response.
Come on people. Get some confidence.
I think a lot of what people see as "bullying" is actually a just half of this male social pattern of "giving each other shit." It's just what guys do. If you can handle it and fire back, you don't call it bullying. It's only when you refuse to participate that it becomes bullying. Obviously, that line of logic has some inherent victim blaming, and I am not defending bullying at all. I think it's despicable. But at some point you just need to accept the status quo and learn to defend yourself instead of lamenting about it. And if you're truly smarter than the person bullying you, it should be no problem to come up with a quick witted response.
Come on people. Get some confidence.
TFA says: "I wasn't being bullied because I was sensitive, in other words. I was being bullied because I was privileged" and that his refusal to accept this was "but simply an excuse to perpetuate" the "system of power."
What the fuck, man. I guess all those ~privileged~ gay kids who killed themselves deserved it for not checking their privilege. Ridiculous.
As a GLBT, and in addition to that, a smart and geeky one, I got bullied a lot in high school. There were some occasions where I couldn't (and still can't) understand the reasons why, but there were at least a few times where it was pretty clear whether I was being targeted for being GLBT or being targeted for being smart. This author is full of shit.
What the fuck, man. I guess all those ~privileged~ gay kids who killed themselves deserved it for not checking their privilege. Ridiculous.
As a GLBT, and in addition to that, a smart and geeky one, I got bullied a lot in high school. There were some occasions where I couldn't (and still can't) understand the reasons why, but there were at least a few times where it was pretty clear whether I was being targeted for being GLBT or being targeted for being smart. This author is full of shit.
I suggest that a simpler hypothesis is that children mature at different rates. Empathy and moral self-control emerge at different times in different children. The overlap between adorable sociopaths who can talk and adorable intellectuals who can feel lasts for quite a while.
To make it worse, children are placed together in a deliberately infantilising environment with very few role models who aren't basically wardens as well as educators.
To make it worse, children are placed together in a deliberately infantilising environment with very few role models who aren't basically wardens as well as educators.
And yet, I'd argue that placing people at different stages of development - smart kids & dumb kids, apprentice and senior developers, etc - is a good thing. Putting kids that show increased intellect will give them a skewed perception of reality, i.e. that the average person is smart, instead of realizing diversity in people and dealing with it.
Primary lesson there: You are not special.
Primary lesson there: You are not special.
An Australian longitudinal study was recently linked from HN showing that streaming intelligent kids makes them happier, more successful and better adjusted. Throughout school and afterwards.
There is a difference between an apprenticeship and simply being forced to mix with children who literally don't yet have the same neurological architecture as you.
edit: here's the link -- http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10489.aspx
There is a difference between an apprenticeship and simply being forced to mix with children who literally don't yet have the same neurological architecture as you.
edit: here's the link -- http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10489.aspx
There are many reasons why kids get bullied. There is no unified theory of bullying that explains it all.
For years I thought I was picked on because I was smarter than my peers. Looking back, it seems more likely that I was really kind of a brat about getting better scores on things. There were plenty of smart kids at my school who didn't get picked on.
For years I thought I was picked on because I was smarter than my peers. Looking back, it seems more likely that I was really kind of a brat about getting better scores on things. There were plenty of smart kids at my school who didn't get picked on.
If I got set upon by fellow employees on the way home I would not be wondering what personal characteristic led them to choose me.
How about: "Kids are frequently bullied because they are placed in an stupid environment which does not adequately protect them."
How about: "Kids are frequently bullied because they are placed in an stupid environment which does not adequately protect them."
I'm pretty sure the people who bullied you were to blame for you being bullied! Continue to be a brat about those better scores, it encourages the rest of us and sometimes it puts a bigger brat in their place.
Class and gender roles? Where's the evidence? It's all just conjecture and anecdote.
If that's how we're going to do it, I would assume a simpler explanation. Kids, and often adults too, want to show to their peers, or themselves, that they're strong. So they pick on the weak to prove it.
If that's how we're going to do it, I would assume a simpler explanation. Kids, and often adults too, want to show to their peers, or themselves, that they're strong. So they pick on the weak to prove it.
Personally, I think class, gender and race are ultimately major factors; there's huge amounts of literature on their effects on society. But it's probably easier to look directly at schools and families; these are the most concrete relevant institutions.
Schools generally aren't enlightened places. Many of them, especially for the poor, are particularly clear about their prison-like nature: need for written permission to move ("hall pass"), threat of prison, etc. So you get some prison-like dynamics. But even many above-average ones impose hierarchy, rating individuals and setting them against each another using competition (competition is a well-known way to atomize and control people), obedience to authority figures no matter how ridiculous, etc. In any case, these places generally provide virtually nothing in the way of conflict resolution, like particularly nasty governments.
And most families aren't utopian institutions either. Parents often act like owners of their children, and take out their frustrations and psychological problems on them. Child abuse (even for conservative notions of "abuse") is rampant. Even when parents aren't overtly abusive, they may simply not be particularly competent at the skill of nurturing children's minds and bodies.
Schools generally aren't enlightened places. Many of them, especially for the poor, are particularly clear about their prison-like nature: need for written permission to move ("hall pass"), threat of prison, etc. So you get some prison-like dynamics. But even many above-average ones impose hierarchy, rating individuals and setting them against each another using competition (competition is a well-known way to atomize and control people), obedience to authority figures no matter how ridiculous, etc. In any case, these places generally provide virtually nothing in the way of conflict resolution, like particularly nasty governments.
And most families aren't utopian institutions either. Parents often act like owners of their children, and take out their frustrations and psychological problems on them. Child abuse (even for conservative notions of "abuse") is rampant. Even when parents aren't overtly abusive, they may simply not be particularly competent at the skill of nurturing children's minds and bodies.
My hypothesis on bullying is simple: human beings are animals and like to fight for dominant positions. The low intellectual and/or emotional development of some kids will lead them to try for overt dominance, instead of the more sophisticated and hypocritical adult versions. Geeks are targeted because they are weak -- either in physical strength or in alliances.
Or maybe just different. I always had to deal with people who felt insecure around me. School was easy and I got good grades without trying. Meanwhile, others were struggling. That made them hate me. Though the joke was on them when I started practicing martial arts. (:
I blame the parents!
The most important thing to teach your kid as soon as possible is self-reflection.
It's extremely common in the animal (incl. human) world to seek dominance. In cultures where physical domination is rewarded, you have violence to establish the dominance. In cultures where intellectual dominance is rewarded, you have more expressions of contempt for "stupid" people. When you have a diverse group, you have the strong beating up the weak and the smart verbally humiliating the dumb. It's not complicated. It's about public status and privately making yourself feel superior.
Blaming it on class and gender roles is one of those things that urban intellectuals do to maintain their status among urban intellectuals. Maybe he should analyze it from a Marxist-feminist perspective for good measure.
Blaming it on class and gender roles is one of those things that urban intellectuals do to maintain their status among urban intellectuals. Maybe he should analyze it from a Marxist-feminist perspective for good measure.
"Blaming it on class and gender roles is one of those things that urban intellectuals do to maintain their status among urban intellectuals. Maybe he should analyze it from a Marxist-feminist perspective for good measure."
I don't suppose the irony of this statement escaped you.
I don't suppose the irony of this statement escaped you.
It's escaping me. He said "for good measure". Where is the irony?
His comment exhibits anti-intellectual posturing.
It's actually anti-urban-intellectual posturing, suggesting that the comment author is on a higher level intellectually.
I had a good laugh at both the joke itself and that the telling of the joke is an act of "verbally humiliating the dumb".
I had a good laugh at both the joke itself and that the telling of the joke is an act of "verbally humiliating the dumb".
It's domination-posturing all the way down!
Oh, I think I saw a different irony to you -- I saw the comment as an act of verbal aggression towards the author of the article on the grounds that the author was being too academic.
The author of an article about geeks being bullied, not because they were too academic, but because they were seen as being of a different class.
I prefer your interpretation to be honest, but clearly there is enough irony for everyone.
The author of an article about geeks being bullied, not because they were too academic, but because they were seen as being of a different class.
I prefer your interpretation to be honest, but clearly there is enough irony for everyone.
I agree with your exact wording: applying Marxist theory to everything is exactly 'more academic' in the sense that it is an artifact of fashion in educational institutions. It isn't actually 'more intellectual' because it is content-free, being equally applicable to everything, and brings little or no insight to any topic outside of economics.
Taking this criticism as validation of Marxist analysis (or accusing the critic of bullying, etc.) is cheap and pointless, like Freudians answering criticism of a weak Freudian analysis by saying the critic is only criticizing due to reaction formation.
If we disallow this kind of criticism then we are validating every kind of posturing. Not everything anyone says can be correct and it isn't bullying or snobbery to say so. It's not even personal.
Taking this criticism as validation of Marxist analysis (or accusing the critic of bullying, etc.) is cheap and pointless, like Freudians answering criticism of a weak Freudian analysis by saying the critic is only criticizing due to reaction formation.
If we disallow this kind of criticism then we are validating every kind of posturing. Not everything anyone says can be correct and it isn't bullying or snobbery to say so. It's not even personal.
I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to, here, but I'm certainly not disallowing this kind of criticism or claiming that the top-level comment validates Marxist analysis because it's poorly thought-out.
I don't use Marxist analysis myself, at least not deliberately (I am not myself an academic), either.
I don't know what you mean by:
>content-free, being equally applicable to everything
and I think that:
>brings little or no insight to any topic outside of economics
ignores the fact that a large amount of history, culture and contemporary society has been profoundly shaped by economics.
>Not everything anyone says can be correct and it isn't bullying or snobbery to say so. It's not even personal.
Yes. There are a lot of things I agree with in your post, the problem is that they are "equally applicable to everything", so I feel like I've joined an argument halfway through, and I have no idea what you are responding to or why.
I don't use Marxist analysis myself, at least not deliberately (I am not myself an academic), either.
I don't know what you mean by:
>content-free, being equally applicable to everything
and I think that:
>brings little or no insight to any topic outside of economics
ignores the fact that a large amount of history, culture and contemporary society has been profoundly shaped by economics.
>Not everything anyone says can be correct and it isn't bullying or snobbery to say so. It's not even personal.
Yes. There are a lot of things I agree with in your post, the problem is that they are "equally applicable to everything", so I feel like I've joined an argument halfway through, and I have no idea what you are responding to or why.
I'm just waiting for him to give the atlantic a wedgie.
"When you have a diverse group, you have the strong beating up the weak and the smart verbally humiliating the dumb."
Anecdotal evidence, which I have not been able to disprove so far, is its more like in a diverse group, people who don't follow the "greek golden mean" tend to get pounded down for not being diverse. Lets rephrase the original article as "kid who hyperfocuses on art gets pounded by kids who do some sport, some TV, some movies, some socializing, etc". For another anecdote no surprise I did a heck of a lot of computer "stuff", but also did weightlifting and long distance bicycling and also hung out with the kids who joined the .mil (at least back then, we all hung out together in later high school years), I also hung out with the geeks and the heavy metal kids (who were actually pretty cool), no problemo with bullying for me... I'd see kids who did nothing but ace math all day have a rough time of it. Or kids who did nothing but pick their nose all day have a rough time. The correlation seems to be if only one word description fits, gonna have a rough time.
Anecdotal evidence, which I have not been able to disprove so far, is its more like in a diverse group, people who don't follow the "greek golden mean" tend to get pounded down for not being diverse. Lets rephrase the original article as "kid who hyperfocuses on art gets pounded by kids who do some sport, some TV, some movies, some socializing, etc". For another anecdote no surprise I did a heck of a lot of computer "stuff", but also did weightlifting and long distance bicycling and also hung out with the kids who joined the .mil (at least back then, we all hung out together in later high school years), I also hung out with the geeks and the heavy metal kids (who were actually pretty cool), no problemo with bullying for me... I'd see kids who did nothing but ace math all day have a rough time of it. Or kids who did nothing but pick their nose all day have a rough time. The correlation seems to be if only one word description fits, gonna have a rough time.
That sounds like it might have to do with the bullies taking the rejection of the things they care about as unimportant as a personal attack. Which makes sense: anyone who came here and said, "who cares about start ups? I work at a huge conglomerate corporation and we do just fine!" would get piled on pretty quick.
Those who interact with people as though their interests were worth being interested in are possibly less likely to provoke retaliation. People who are single-minded may not realize that the connotation to the people around them is insulting, but it doesn't mean it's not.
Those who interact with people as though their interests were worth being interested in are possibly less likely to provoke retaliation. People who are single-minded may not realize that the connotation to the people around them is insulting, but it doesn't mean it's not.
You did weightlifting? So you were a pretty big kid? That, probably more than anything else, helped you to not be bullied.
Not huge, big for a non-athlete, kinda on the wimpy scale of athletes, at least until after .mil. More like basic training prep, which was physically pretty easy after proper preparation (other than the sleep deprivation).
Not unusual at all for the biggest bully to be kinda wimpy compared to even an average kid, I think there's a bit of a compensation reaction.
I will admit the "helped not be bullied" bit IS true solely WRT my point of diversity although I think you have the reaction mechanism wrong. I did not hang out with the football players much but we did commiserate about leg days (everyone hates leg days, lets just say the soreness the day after is probably the most painful thing anyone intentionally does as an inherent part of any sport) and I did not hang out with the mountain biker kids but we could talk about favorite trails and stuff. I don't think it matters that I was big-ish, even as a scrawny little long distance runner I could have at least talked with track and field kids about blisters or something even if I never joined the track and field team. The point being that it gave me the diversity to communicate with kids other than my classmates who took calculus and "intro to o-chem" their senior year. In retrospect, solely looking at bullying oriented outcome it probably is a heck of a lot easier to listen to some heavy metal than to doing squats in the weight room, for the identical quantity "X" of not being bullied, if that makes any sense. The other problem with weightlifting is it leads to ... enhanced caloric intake, which becomes a problem later on in life if you drift away from lifting but continue to eat entire roasted (small) chickens in one sitting, for example. I'm still kinda fat even now.
Not unusual at all for the biggest bully to be kinda wimpy compared to even an average kid, I think there's a bit of a compensation reaction.
I will admit the "helped not be bullied" bit IS true solely WRT my point of diversity although I think you have the reaction mechanism wrong. I did not hang out with the football players much but we did commiserate about leg days (everyone hates leg days, lets just say the soreness the day after is probably the most painful thing anyone intentionally does as an inherent part of any sport) and I did not hang out with the mountain biker kids but we could talk about favorite trails and stuff. I don't think it matters that I was big-ish, even as a scrawny little long distance runner I could have at least talked with track and field kids about blisters or something even if I never joined the track and field team. The point being that it gave me the diversity to communicate with kids other than my classmates who took calculus and "intro to o-chem" their senior year. In retrospect, solely looking at bullying oriented outcome it probably is a heck of a lot easier to listen to some heavy metal than to doing squats in the weight room, for the identical quantity "X" of not being bullied, if that makes any sense. The other problem with weightlifting is it leads to ... enhanced caloric intake, which becomes a problem later on in life if you drift away from lifting but continue to eat entire roasted (small) chickens in one sitting, for example. I'm still kinda fat even now.
I was a tall, strong, athletic teenager and I was certainly bullied. This is partly why I'm concerned about the strong vs weak/natural order talk going on here. I don't think it's that simple.
I'm not trying to make a point involving absolutes but I noticed, among my peer group anyway, that size and fitness is inversely proportional with the amount of attention a kid receives from bullies. Certainly there can be other factors -- I think bullying is primarily the result of social ostracism, which can have many causes -- but it's much easier to pick on people you do not perceive as a serious threat.
So after decades of arguing, finally getting close to a consensus that we stop blaming the victims and focus on the perpetrator with the crime of rape, we are now starting the same kind of discussion all over again with yet another kind of abuse? Well done, society.
Obviously picked on him because he's so smart and brilliant. Some birds aren't meant to be caged, their feathers are just too bright.
this is precisely the point the author is attacking; the problem of deciding that the bullying is the result of the fact that you're special, not part of a routine culture of violence.
But it isn't a routine culture of violence. It is a culture of shaming, violence and impunity against victims with very specific traits. Which actually do include things like intellectual ability, sensitivity or preference to be alone. It actually isn't equally applied to everyone.
I didn't mean it applied equally to everyone; I mean it applies to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, nerds and not.
victims with very specific traits - You're choosing to ignore a whole load of violence (including harassment) which undoubtedly occurs against members of all minorities (indeed, to all "diversity streams" - since women are in fact the majority.) You're arbitrarily filtering out all sorts of similar violence that happens to people who aren't nerds, which isn't valid (the author argues).
victims with very specific traits - You're choosing to ignore a whole load of violence (including harassment) which undoubtedly occurs against members of all minorities (indeed, to all "diversity streams" - since women are in fact the majority.) You're arbitrarily filtering out all sorts of similar violence that happens to people who aren't nerds, which isn't valid (the author argues).
Bullies pick on folks who don't really fit in i.e who other people in a group won't stand up for, and who don't hit back. It really isn't more complicated than that. Thinking it is is giving bullies waaaay too much credit.
Suggesting that people's behaviours are shaped by society's class structure is not giving them credit. The author wasn't claiming that the bullies were making a rational decision to beat him up based on the class difference.
It probably made it easier for them to rationalize though, if the bullies can think of themselves as vehicles of karmic justice.
I once heard it cruelly expressed as "If you look like food, you're going to get eaten."
No-one should be bullied, but if sometimes geeks could rein in their Fotherington-Thomas [1] aspects for their own good, they might have an easier time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotherington-Thomas
No-one should be bullied, but if sometimes geeks could rein in their Fotherington-Thomas [1] aspects for their own good, they might have an easier time.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotherington-Thomas
>>>I once heard it cruelly expressed as "If you look like food, you're going to get eaten."
I've never heard that before. That's an eye opener. Now I must think about how not to look like "food."
I've never heard that before. That's an eye opener. Now I must think about how not to look like "food."
Improve your social skills. Improve your awareness of your own behaviour and other people's reactions. All skills can be trained, you just have to give yourself achievable challenges.
The key word is "look," not act.
There are lots of peer reviewed papers that come to a completely different conclusion than this article (for example, that social skills and verbal skills are critical).
I recommend reading those instead of this article, which seems based on speculation.
I recommend reading those instead of this article, which seems based on speculation.
I feel like people are missing the point about the "fake geek" meme. If a bunch of football players were strutting around in batman costumes at conventions I feel like the same ire would be directed at them. Geeks are (or were) mostly outcasts. The geek world was their world. Now the popular kids are into geek culture since it's the in thing and they feel like they are losing their world. Being pushed to the perimeter of a world they built as a refuge. I understand the view, and I often feel wistful that if I see someone wearing a batman t-shirt there's a much smaller chance than before that he's friend material.
The correct response to the trauma that many geeks experienced growing up is to understand the pain and thus avoid inflicting it on others. When we were kids we would have loved for this stuff to be popular (hence why we talked about it to everyone), but now we are so traumatized that we don't want anyone without the same wounding to be allowed access? I refuse to become embittered and grudgeful to the point that I'm lashing out at people for showing merely a passing interest in one of my treasured hobbies (fake geeks on TV is another matter). We're not in high school anymore, most of the jocks grew up and so did most of the geeks. The ones from both camps who are stuck in a mentality formed years before reaching psychological and social maturity are living tragically stunted lives. Our goal should be transcendence; there are many who have suffered far greater abuse than geeks who have achieved it.
I agree with the spirit of your post, and agree that that should be our aspiration. The reality of it can be far different. There have been cases where geeks are being discriminated against for their appearance and social habits in the community they built. Cosplay is a good example, costume quality will only carry you so far, when less conventionally attractive people no longer have a chance to compete the feel of the society starts to change. When the interests you have are shared by the people who discriminate against you and they're still discriminating against you a backlash is inevitable. I am not say it is right or fair, but I do understand it.
If you think this is "inflicting it on others" then maybe you do not understand the meaning of serious childhood bullying. I don't think that grown up geeks are getting friends together to beat fake-geeks into submission or brand them as fags. There's no parity here.
Wow, way to completely miss the point.
It's not about the acts themselves. First of all bullying can range from light to severe just like nerdrage can range from light to severe, so right away you're comparison is nonsensical in the general sense.
More importantly, the point is that when one experiences hurt, the healthy thing is to understand where those feelings come from and allow yourself to release the hatred rather than holding it into our core being and reflecting it back out to others in the future. I'm not saying this easy, it's not easy for anybody (and it's not just nerds that experience abuse btw), but if you don't do this it will rot and wither your soul and it will be you who ultimately suffers the most.
It's not about the acts themselves. First of all bullying can range from light to severe just like nerdrage can range from light to severe, so right away you're comparison is nonsensical in the general sense.
More importantly, the point is that when one experiences hurt, the healthy thing is to understand where those feelings come from and allow yourself to release the hatred rather than holding it into our core being and reflecting it back out to others in the future. I'm not saying this easy, it's not easy for anybody (and it's not just nerds that experience abuse btw), but if you don't do this it will rot and wither your soul and it will be you who ultimately suffers the most.
His anecdote is irrelevant. Plenty of poor children get bullied.
This article makes things worse, if anything.
This article makes things worse, if anything.
His anecdote is irrelevant to bullying, not to the bullying of geeks.
To both, because it is an anecdote. Plenty of poor geeks get bullied too.
Anecdotes and anecdata can be ignored from a statistical point of view, when determining the truth of a statement about a population, it's true, but people can still illustrate a point with an anecdote - and the anecdote is not central to his post's argument, it's just an illustration.
What he is suggesting is that both privilege and a lack of privilege (he mentions homosexuality as an example, poverty might be another example) are more important than "being a geek" to whether you get bullied.
When you are called a geek, consider what the aggressor means by that; is it that s/he considers you overly-effeminate? That you can't afford to take part in social activities, making you an outcast? Or perhaps that you have opportunities and a position in the mainstream which they can't have?
That is all the author is saying (I think, I may have mis-read or read selectively). They're not saying that poor geeks don't get bullied.
What he is suggesting is that both privilege and a lack of privilege (he mentions homosexuality as an example, poverty might be another example) are more important than "being a geek" to whether you get bullied.
When you are called a geek, consider what the aggressor means by that; is it that s/he considers you overly-effeminate? That you can't afford to take part in social activities, making you an outcast? Or perhaps that you have opportunities and a position in the mainstream which they can't have?
That is all the author is saying (I think, I may have mis-read or read selectively). They're not saying that poor geeks don't get bullied.
Sure, people are bullied for having qualities that are inherent to being a geek, or very strongly associated. But not for actually being a geek.
What? That's a meaningless distinction.
Of course bullies do not necessarily use the word 'geek,' that word is a product of people trying to carve out a measure of societal and self-respect by claiming the label (like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity).
It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'.
What? That's a meaningless distinction.
Of course bullies do not necessarily use the word 'geek,' that word is a product of people trying to carve out a measure of societal and self-respect by claiming the label (like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity).
It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'.
Why is that a meaningless distinction?
A quality can be necessary for being a 'geek' without being sufficient for it.
>It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'.
I agree.
However, those qualities can be found in many different populations, and as geek is roughly approximated to "X qualities + intelligence" the question I feel as though the author is asking is whether the "+ intelligence" part of the definition is useful.
>(like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity)
I agree very strongly with this.
A quality can be necessary for being a 'geek' without being sufficient for it.
>It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'.
I agree.
However, those qualities can be found in many different populations, and as geek is roughly approximated to "X qualities + intelligence" the question I feel as though the author is asking is whether the "+ intelligence" part of the definition is useful.
>(like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity)
I agree very strongly with this.
I read up to "gender roles" where "more into D&D than football" was mentioned. The I stopped, as author linked it to homophobia.
This thing is not a gender role difference. This thing is difference in force and fitness. Being fit allows you to both bully and stand for bullying. There nothing related to homophobia there.
I was bullied myself until some spring my "friends" found that I can pullup more than them. I wasn't bulied anymore. I was hated, but that's different story.
I also should mention that there are almost no gender roles in human society. Especially for males - they should be successful in finding food and a place to stay at night and that's all.
Thus I consider author dumb one. He sees things that do not exist.
This thing is not a gender role difference. This thing is difference in force and fitness. Being fit allows you to both bully and stand for bullying. There nothing related to homophobia there.
I was bullied myself until some spring my "friends" found that I can pullup more than them. I wasn't bulied anymore. I was hated, but that's different story.
I also should mention that there are almost no gender roles in human society. Especially for males - they should be successful in finding food and a place to stay at night and that's all.
Thus I consider author dumb one. He sees things that do not exist.
Sorry, but you are completely wrong about this and you are justifying bullying. No, bullies are not physically fit, many of them are obese children and a lot of the time the attacks are by a mob of kids and not just one strong, fit one.
This and homophobia are actually well related, as bullied victims are often shamed as "fags" and accused - by people like you - of meriting the treatment due to their weakness or effeminacy. And it is also of one piece with blaming rape victims for the way they dressed. It is all one role, that of the passive-receptive 'bottom' which society despises.
This and homophobia are actually well related, as bullied victims are often shamed as "fags" and accused - by people like you - of meriting the treatment due to their weakness or effeminacy. And it is also of one piece with blaming rape victims for the way they dressed. It is all one role, that of the passive-receptive 'bottom' which society despises.
Obese people are stronger than non-obese. I didn't mean fit, just more strong.
I am not justifying bullying, I was bullied in school. I am failing to see how you read my comment to infer this.
Gay people call themselves fags when swearing. Are they homophobic too? It seems to me that you (and author of original article) infer something big from small thing.
I am not justifying bullying, I was bullied in school. I am failing to see how you read my comment to infer this.
Gay people call themselves fags when swearing. Are they homophobic too? It seems to me that you (and author of original article) infer something big from small thing.
Did this author not watch _Revenge of the Nerds_? Were Booger, Gilbert, or Lewis of economically higher class than the Jocks?
I was bullied, I grew up poor. Neither of my parents were college educated. Mother raised 3 kids as a single parent while doing menial jobs. Living in a crime ridden neighborhood in Baltimore City where other kids were getting killed for their Nikes, books and computers were my only refuge, fantasy words of SciFi, even distopian ones, a better place to live than where I started. (BTW, when I got into a better school finally in the suburbs, I was made fun of by kids because my family was poor, not because of privilege)
My theory of why geeks are bullied is the same as why goths are bullied, or why fat people are bullied. When lions hunt buffalo on the plains, they look for those they get separated from the pack. Simply put, attacking an individual that is part of a smaller, less powerful, group is more likely to succeed without anyone coming to their defense.
If geeks, even as a small population, worked like the Crips, bullies wouldn't dare, knowing that an attack on one would invite tit-for-tat counter attacks. If a bully goes after someone who has lots of friends in the main group, they put themselves at bigger risk.
The more interesting question is why geeks don't have a mutual defense or strength in numbers, the answer there probably lurks in perhaps connections between seeking out things because you implicitly like them, and seeking out things because they are likely to strengthen the bonds within your social group ("fitting in", "bowing to peer pressure"). Most of the non-fake-geeks I know just can't stomach being in-authentic, of pretending to like stuff just to fit in, and so there may just be some core personality or emotional intelligence traits that are different in people end up at the fringes like this. If you subscribe to Meyers-Briggs, then it's people who are in categories like INTP.
I was bullied, I grew up poor. Neither of my parents were college educated. Mother raised 3 kids as a single parent while doing menial jobs. Living in a crime ridden neighborhood in Baltimore City where other kids were getting killed for their Nikes, books and computers were my only refuge, fantasy words of SciFi, even distopian ones, a better place to live than where I started. (BTW, when I got into a better school finally in the suburbs, I was made fun of by kids because my family was poor, not because of privilege)
My theory of why geeks are bullied is the same as why goths are bullied, or why fat people are bullied. When lions hunt buffalo on the plains, they look for those they get separated from the pack. Simply put, attacking an individual that is part of a smaller, less powerful, group is more likely to succeed without anyone coming to their defense.
If geeks, even as a small population, worked like the Crips, bullies wouldn't dare, knowing that an attack on one would invite tit-for-tat counter attacks. If a bully goes after someone who has lots of friends in the main group, they put themselves at bigger risk.
The more interesting question is why geeks don't have a mutual defense or strength in numbers, the answer there probably lurks in perhaps connections between seeking out things because you implicitly like them, and seeking out things because they are likely to strengthen the bonds within your social group ("fitting in", "bowing to peer pressure"). Most of the non-fake-geeks I know just can't stomach being in-authentic, of pretending to like stuff just to fit in, and so there may just be some core personality or emotional intelligence traits that are different in people end up at the fringes like this. If you subscribe to Meyers-Briggs, then it's people who are in categories like INTP.
> When lions hunt buffalo on the plains, they look for those they get separated from the pack. Simply put, attacking an individual that is part of a smaller, less powerful, group is more likely to succeed without anyone coming to their defense.
This was exactly my experience in school. I wasn't bullied in high school, I was bullied throughout elementary instead. I'm INTP, introverted, extremely geeky, but none of that was why I was bullied. I was bullied because I was fat and I didn't know how to fight back. I was an easy target, basically. I had friends, but none who were capable of physically standing up for me, so we all suffered the consequences.
The bullying stopped in 7th grade (13 years old) when I stabbed one of my bullies with a pen and was suspended. I also started weight lifting and made a name for myself on the JV football team. The bullying stopped, even though I had become no less the geek and didn't stop hanging out with my geek friends.
> The more interesting question is why geeks don't have a mutual defense or strength in numbers
In my experience, fear. In a typical school pecking order, if you're not capable of physically dominating others, then you live in constant fear of being physically dominated yourself. I certainly was.
This was exactly my experience in school. I wasn't bullied in high school, I was bullied throughout elementary instead. I'm INTP, introverted, extremely geeky, but none of that was why I was bullied. I was bullied because I was fat and I didn't know how to fight back. I was an easy target, basically. I had friends, but none who were capable of physically standing up for me, so we all suffered the consequences.
The bullying stopped in 7th grade (13 years old) when I stabbed one of my bullies with a pen and was suspended. I also started weight lifting and made a name for myself on the JV football team. The bullying stopped, even though I had become no less the geek and didn't stop hanging out with my geek friends.
> The more interesting question is why geeks don't have a mutual defense or strength in numbers
In my experience, fear. In a typical school pecking order, if you're not capable of physically dominating others, then you live in constant fear of being physically dominated yourself. I certainly was.
Yeah, I'd take any of the comments on this post, save a few, over his thesis. It just doesn't work for many situations.
Geeks get ostracized because other kids are more or less forced to compete with them for grades in school, and resent the fact that they come up short. This is as opposed to, e.g. jocks who mostly compete with other folks who've voluntarily chosen the same arena of competition.
Geeks get bullied because it's easy for people who are prone to bullying to bully ostracized kids.
Geeks get bullied because it's easy for people who are prone to bullying to bully ostracized kids.
I tend to agree with the comments that this is probably way over-thinking the issue from a certain perspective, but the author makes a subtle point that I generally agree with. The general premise that bullies don't particularly single out geeks leads to some interesting implications that I think has not been commented upon very much. She acknowledges that:
> On the contrary, I think people get bullied for lots of reasons.
Which leads to the implication she touches upon near the end of the essay:
> ...violence is not special, but routine—and if you can't understand the violence directed against you, how can you stop it?
She's pointing out that geeks shouldn't necessarily think that they were bullied because they were smarter than the others, but because bullying is a common feature upon the dystopic educational landscape. And not recognizing this leads to a situation where bullying of victims who are not somehow especially outstanding in some way (smart being only one attribute of specialness), is not recognized as bullying. She cites that this sometimes emerges from previous victims of bullying themselves by mentioning how male geeks sometimes bully female geeks for not being "real geeks".
All this is well and good, but it unfortunately doesn't materially help the folks on the ground waking up today and dreading their daily bullying gauntlet. This perspective is where I think the article is possibly over-thinking the issue, by not providing actionable information. To be fair, I don't think that was her intent, but judging from the comments, there is a sub-group of people who seem to desire that kind of information with these articles that explore bullying.
At the risk of generalizing, and supplying actionable information that may be out of date, in my personal anecdotal experience bullies select victims that somehow respond in a manner that rewards the bullying. Thus the commonly-dispensed advice to "ignore them". But I think that advice often doesn't come with a helping of how to ignore them, and really should be dispensed as advice on using ignoring as a way to stand up for yourself. Ignoring taunts while showing on your face that the taunting shatters your confidence and self-worth tends to incite further bullying. Ignoring in a manner (which will not be easy to pull off) that fizzles out the "fun" of the bullying is a means of standing up for oneself. This may sometimes mean actually interacting with the bully, but not in a manner that they expect; the "ignoring" refers to ignoring the intended effect of the bullying, and figuring out what action takes the fun out of the bullying. I wish someone had told me this when I was first going through my daily gauntlet.
For males, and increasingly for females, physical bullying is sometimes the form. I was very fortunate that I grew up in a part of the world and time where just fighting back was sufficient to stop physical bullying. I got the snot beaten out of me sometimes, but the ringleaders I was up against uniformly did not like to get their hands dirty, so using the element of surprise to land in a hit that draws blood (visible bruising counts) helped me dissuade them from further bullying. These days, there are more nasty places where you can get murdered fighting back. Be safe, play it smart, and don't get yourself killed if you are stuck in that kind of situation; if you're in such a dangerous situation and the adults around you aren't helping, some anonymous forums can sometimes provide ideas from sympathetic adults who have been-there-done-that.
YMMV, and all that.
> On the contrary, I think people get bullied for lots of reasons.
Which leads to the implication she touches upon near the end of the essay:
> ...violence is not special, but routine—and if you can't understand the violence directed against you, how can you stop it?
She's pointing out that geeks shouldn't necessarily think that they were bullied because they were smarter than the others, but because bullying is a common feature upon the dystopic educational landscape. And not recognizing this leads to a situation where bullying of victims who are not somehow especially outstanding in some way (smart being only one attribute of specialness), is not recognized as bullying. She cites that this sometimes emerges from previous victims of bullying themselves by mentioning how male geeks sometimes bully female geeks for not being "real geeks".
All this is well and good, but it unfortunately doesn't materially help the folks on the ground waking up today and dreading their daily bullying gauntlet. This perspective is where I think the article is possibly over-thinking the issue, by not providing actionable information. To be fair, I don't think that was her intent, but judging from the comments, there is a sub-group of people who seem to desire that kind of information with these articles that explore bullying.
At the risk of generalizing, and supplying actionable information that may be out of date, in my personal anecdotal experience bullies select victims that somehow respond in a manner that rewards the bullying. Thus the commonly-dispensed advice to "ignore them". But I think that advice often doesn't come with a helping of how to ignore them, and really should be dispensed as advice on using ignoring as a way to stand up for yourself. Ignoring taunts while showing on your face that the taunting shatters your confidence and self-worth tends to incite further bullying. Ignoring in a manner (which will not be easy to pull off) that fizzles out the "fun" of the bullying is a means of standing up for oneself. This may sometimes mean actually interacting with the bully, but not in a manner that they expect; the "ignoring" refers to ignoring the intended effect of the bullying, and figuring out what action takes the fun out of the bullying. I wish someone had told me this when I was first going through my daily gauntlet.
For males, and increasingly for females, physical bullying is sometimes the form. I was very fortunate that I grew up in a part of the world and time where just fighting back was sufficient to stop physical bullying. I got the snot beaten out of me sometimes, but the ringleaders I was up against uniformly did not like to get their hands dirty, so using the element of surprise to land in a hit that draws blood (visible bruising counts) helped me dissuade them from further bullying. These days, there are more nasty places where you can get murdered fighting back. Be safe, play it smart, and don't get yourself killed if you are stuck in that kind of situation; if you're in such a dangerous situation and the adults around you aren't helping, some anonymous forums can sometimes provide ideas from sympathetic adults who have been-there-done-that.
YMMV, and all that.
> in my personal anecdotal experience bullies select victims that somehow respond in a manner that rewards the bullying.
And here we are again, blaming the victim. Substitute 'rape' for 'bully' and you get a readout of the same regressive mentality. The target of bullying or of rape gets the 'bottom' role; the kind of argument you are making is that they are more or less justly assigned that role for being inherently effeminate or oversensitive and that the solution is for them to toughen up. Because you didn't suffer that much, because you were so much better at dealing with the bullying. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are congratulating yourself for having it relatively easy.
And here we are again, blaming the victim. Substitute 'rape' for 'bully' and you get a readout of the same regressive mentality. The target of bullying or of rape gets the 'bottom' role; the kind of argument you are making is that they are more or less justly assigned that role for being inherently effeminate or oversensitive and that the solution is for them to toughen up. Because you didn't suffer that much, because you were so much better at dealing with the bullying. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are congratulating yourself for having it relatively easy.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough; I tried to point out there are lots of different kinds of bullies, and bullying situations. I never tried to set out that what I was saying was representative of bullying in general, as I've never made a study of the issue. I tried to put qualifiers around what I reported was based upon my limited, personal, anecdotal experience.
For the record, I do not blame the victim. I've done my speaking stint with a battered women's shelter in my area, I've seen and worked with victims aplenty and have a perspective that informs me better than to blame the victim. But victims need to know there are ways to stand up, get help, and get out of the situation. In some settings where bullying takes place in the US public school system (the context that I'm familiar with), there might actually be no help feasibly available. Facing the reality that one might have to fight back (and note that I first described it in a metaphorical sense of redirecting the bullying's energy in a judo-like manner), is to acknowledge this situation on the ground, and does not mean I desire to blame the victim or in any way stop advocating for more assistance infrastructure like what we have for battered women.
If you have a more studied perspective, or your own personal views that influence how you view the issue that can help the kids getting bullied today, then I encourage you to share it here. If you want to go down the "...congratulating yourself for having it relatively easy..." road, then we all here discussing about bullying could be guilty of the same characterization, because this is #firstworldproblems to an orphaned 6-year old girl on the streets of Mumbai. There is always someone, somewhere, somewhen that has it tougher. My position is I'd rather not devolve into that kind of meta-discussion, and instead put more energy into a discussion that can help those suffering at the moment. Or we can just agree to disagree.
For the record, I do not blame the victim. I've done my speaking stint with a battered women's shelter in my area, I've seen and worked with victims aplenty and have a perspective that informs me better than to blame the victim. But victims need to know there are ways to stand up, get help, and get out of the situation. In some settings where bullying takes place in the US public school system (the context that I'm familiar with), there might actually be no help feasibly available. Facing the reality that one might have to fight back (and note that I first described it in a metaphorical sense of redirecting the bullying's energy in a judo-like manner), is to acknowledge this situation on the ground, and does not mean I desire to blame the victim or in any way stop advocating for more assistance infrastructure like what we have for battered women.
If you have a more studied perspective, or your own personal views that influence how you view the issue that can help the kids getting bullied today, then I encourage you to share it here. If you want to go down the "...congratulating yourself for having it relatively easy..." road, then we all here discussing about bullying could be guilty of the same characterization, because this is #firstworldproblems to an orphaned 6-year old girl on the streets of Mumbai. There is always someone, somewhere, somewhen that has it tougher. My position is I'd rather not devolve into that kind of meta-discussion, and instead put more energy into a discussion that can help those suffering at the moment. Or we can just agree to disagree.
it's a he, not a she. I agree with your substantive points though.
Thank you for the correction, my bad.
Lots of people seem to be cross at a few of his incidental points (the article is not saying that social class is the root of all bullying) so I'll just emphasise the conclusion:
The problem is that this can lead you to a place where suffering, or persecution, only matters when, or because, the victim is special. This, in turn, can make it hard to see the ways in which violence is not special, but routine — and if you can't understand the violence directed against you, how can you stop it?
The point he's making is that anti-nerd violence is not unique, but part of the wider culture of violence for all sorts of reasons (and in all sorts of directions - up and down the social 'ladders').
I encourage you to read the disqus comments on the article itself, where the author responds to many of the objections raised here.
The problem is that this can lead you to a place where suffering, or persecution, only matters when, or because, the victim is special. This, in turn, can make it hard to see the ways in which violence is not special, but routine — and if you can't understand the violence directed against you, how can you stop it?
The point he's making is that anti-nerd violence is not unique, but part of the wider culture of violence for all sorts of reasons (and in all sorts of directions - up and down the social 'ladders').
I encourage you to read the disqus comments on the article itself, where the author responds to many of the objections raised here.
A social hierarchy based on insecurity will persecute anyone who is different: by socioeconomic status, by interests, by gender normativeness, by sexuality, and so on. We don't need to subsume one in another to make sense of the system.
> Americans have trouble seeing class, and the intersection between class and intellectualism—or geekishness, if you prefer—can be especially invisible.
"Geekishness" is an intersection of class and intellectualism? That's absolutely horseshit. There are no shortage of poor geeks and rich jocks. Being middle class definitely confers some advantages to pursuing those interests, but it has nothing to do with the innate quality of geekiness. Furthermore, geeky interests are not particularly intellectual per se, it's just we like to get involved in the details of them beyond what most people consider normal.