Bullies can be stopped, but it takes a village

> Some readers will now be eager to share stirring success stories that prove standing up to a bully really does work

This is inconsistent with my personal experience. I would like to know how the author drew this conclusion. Granted I might be a special case. For my size (small) I have always been quite strong/athletic. For my general demeanor (sweet/calm) I have always had the capacity for fearless action and rage even when provoked. And despite being generally peaceful and nonviolent I had martial-arts training from a very young age. I also knew I'd never get into trouble with my parents for "finising" a fight. (Though starting one would be a different matter.) (I've never started a physical fight in my entire life.)

In my experience a bully would start by pushing or shoving or punching the shoulder. Nothing particularly vicious. But a vicious response (bloody or broken nose, black eye) solved the problem quite fast.

These tactics worked well in the urban scruff in and around Boston where I grew up in the 80s and 90s. Fights were always one-on-one matters (relative to a gang attack, multiple-on-one). I don't know if this works in a gang-type situation.

The author pre-discounts my data-point. Which I think is a bogus tactic. I'd like to see his data. I admit mine is anecdotal. I bet his is too.

If making bullying a legal case is the only way left to proceed, any parent should just go ahead, and take it as far as necessary. Sometimes it's just the school administration who need a kick in their collective ass to actually do something about it. At the far end, it's the bully himself who is in need of that kick.

You are assuming that somebody wants to make things out of proportion. Is it out of proportion, for example, to call police if your kid has been beaten or robbed on the way home? You can't be seriously claiming that to protect the fragile worldview of the thugs/thieves you should sacrifice the one of the victim?

The typical situation is a group of people led by a smaller sub-group acting against an individual in pretty obvious ways. The victim is sidelined and ridiculed openly so everybody knows. Teachers always know.

The authors describe the bully as some kind of genius who always selects the right victims and always chooses occasions wisely. That's complete nonsense.

People who become victims are completely random. Take any closed situation where people can't leave at will, like schools, military camps, prisons, the workplace, and anyone can be made a victim. No need for the bullies to choose wisely.

There's just no way anyone can defend himself against a socially dominant group who decides to bully them. The only right way to react is to leave instantly. Victims can be harmed for life if left in a situation like that. That's what I learned from someone very close to me who was a victim of bullying and researched the whole thing extensively later.

If you have kids who are being bullied, just take them away from the bullies immediately!

One hallmark of a bully is a sophisticated ability to pick victims who won't put up a fight. When you urge your child to stand up to a bully, you're asking him to do something that the bully already figured out he was unlikely to do. That's why the bully picked him in the first place. Bullies tend to choose victims who are socially withdrawn, seem anxious or fearful, are nervous in new situations, or have some physical characteristic that might make them more vulnerable.

What makes me angry is that the author is essentially arguing that the kid should continue to be vulnerable and passive, rather than stand up for themselves.

If bullies tend to pick on people who are unlikely to fight back, you should fight back so they'll move on to an easier target.

Analogy: this is like saying that you shouldn't advise someone whose website just got hacked to secure their app, because they got hacked because they didn't follow proper security protocol, and are therefore unlikely to follow your advice.