I have no idea what the background to this is or who any of the people mentioned - and am probably stepping on a landmine - but one phrase jumped out at me - "typical female bully tactics". Those tactics that you listed are not exclusively female nor are men less inclined to use them. Politically they are employed all the time by both men and women. Are you suggesting that typical male bully tactics are physical and typcial female ones are psychological? I don't think the bully really discriminates; he or she uses whatever is most effective. Having watched the Republican Movement (mainly male) employ "character assassination, half-truthful accusations that cannot be easily answered, name-calling, ostracization" on a regular basis to silence their political opposition, I don't see those tactics as typically female. Anyway, that just jumped out at me as an odd thing to say. But I don't know what the whole post is about so I am probably missing the point!

You should read the book I mentioned.

Yes, I am absolutely saying that an old, old adage is true:

"Boys bully with their fists. Girls bully with their mouths."

Yes, of course, men sometimes use the tactics I describe as "typical female bullying." Women simply do them more often, whereas men are physically intimidating more often.

Pick up a book or two on child development, or the one I linked to ("Odd Girl Out.") I can't describe it perfectly but you read the book, and you'll get it--and you'll probably recognize it, since every woman I've talked to has.

No one ever said anything was "exclusively female." Men and women aren't completely alien from each other and we all have male and female tendencies, but that doesn't mean sex differences are nonexistant.

By the way, by the "Republican Movement," would I assume you mean the Irish Republican Movement? I seem to recall that you're from Northern Ireland.

Carrie, it jumped out at me, too. So much so that I kept going back to it.

Dean, can you please explain why you chose that phrasing? Do you think that men don't employ the same tactics? I mean, look at any election campaign...

I'll repeat: read this book. Or some reviews of it.

You know what's really delicious about this? Judy once attacked me for claiming that there was such a thing as female-bully patterns. Then I pointed this book out to her, which was written by a feminist. Then she came back at me and tried to tell me that no one realized these patterns existed until feminists discovered it!

But many of our grandmas had a saying: "Boys bully with their fists, girls bully with their mouths."

You want me to illustrate an example? Let me describe a typical example:

A group of girls get together, and one of them decides that she no longer likes one of the girls. While she's not present, she labels that other girl a "slut" (or something equally nasty), and gets the other girls to agree to no longer be her friend. As a group, they all begin to publicly refuse to speak to her (that whole frosty silence/"I'll never speak to you again!" thing is classic female behavior), shunning her, spreading rumors about her, and distorting things she's said and done. All out of a need to go on a power trip.

Boys do this much more rarely, and when they witness it they generally have little idea what the hell's going on. They tend to be much more direct, and quicker to physical violence, instead.

Boys generally grow out of their bullying phase quickly when they become men, or to learn the more subtle arts of bullying as they get older. Girls start to show these behaviors as young as 4th or 5th grade--and some never grow out of it at all.

Fascinating stuff in that interview--very Camille Paglia/Deborah Tannen. I had to reach for the AlkaSeltzer when I read the author's final comment, though:

"One of the ways we can do this is to modify harassment and anti-bullying policies to reflect the new research on girls. Most rules in use at schools deal with physical and direct aggression-the behaviors disproportionately engaged in by boys. We need to amend those rules to include acts of ganging up, sustained negative body language, rumor spreading, and so on."

Can't wait till they start meting out punishments for "sustained negative body language" on school property!

I will read the interview but I will also have to disagree with you. I live in Belfast (am American though) and have had more than my share of bullying from men who employ those very tactics. Whisper campaigns, ostracism, social exclusions, gossip, lies. All done by men. Let me turn your example into my reality:

A group of IRA men get together, and one of them (the leader) decides that he no longer likes one of the volunteers. While he's not present, she labels that other man a(n) "informer/British Agent" (or something equally nasty, a Real IRA sympathiser, a child molestor, an alcoholic, any number of labels), and gets the other men to agree to no longer be her friend. As a group, they all begin to publicly refuse to speak to him (that whole frosty silence/"I'll never speak to you again!" thing is classic behavior), shunning him, spreading rumors about him, and distorting things he's said and done. All out of a need to go on a power trip.

True story, by the way, and done to dozens of (former) IRA volunteers, many of whom were once venerated as heroes but because they no longer supported the leadership and openly dissented, were marginalised using those very same tactics. In a community as tightly-knit and small town as West Belfast and other Republican areas are, these are extremely effective tactics of threat.

These are classic political tactics, classic bully-boy actions. This is reality here. Yes, I can see exactly how women employ those same tactics (after all I am a woman) but if you think men don't rule with those same actions you are in cloud cu-koo land, as they say here.

I think you have a point, just that it was poorly phrased. Those tactics are not 'typically female' - they are typically bully's. Period.

I missed a couple she's in the example above, they are all meant to be changed to he's and his, etc.

Also, I caught this: Boys generally grow out of their bullying phase quickly when they become men, or to learn the more subtle arts of bullying as they get older. Girls start to show these behaviors as young as 4th or 5th grade--and some never grow out of it at all.

What are the more subtle arts of bullying? Are the subtle arts the exact same sort of behavior you ascribe as 'typical female' bully tactics, that somehow become 'subtle' when employed by grown men?

I think rather than trying to ascribe masculine/feminine attributes to this behavior you should just call a spade a spade. It's bullying tactics, period.

Ok, I read the interview. What she's describing is bullying employed in group dymanics; conformity, power-trips. If you want to belong to a group, you must conform to its rules. In order to maintain control of the group and also power within the group, the leaders of the group employ the bullying tactics discussed to keep people in line. It's group-think, and the interview shows how it's played out by bullying girls. But it is not typical of girls or women alone; it's typcial of humans everywhere who want to belong to a group or who use the approval of others as a weapon, a sense of power and a means to control. Like most bullying tactics, it's used by people who are extremely insecure and who have a need to control others as a means to mask their own shortcomings.

An excellent resource on bullying, a site if you're interested in the topic you will spend a lot of time on: Bully Online

Dean, this is and has always been the most inside-pool aspect of your site. From the first moment you started going on about it, I've been utterly mystified as to what you're talking about. I read every posting on your site and have for some time. Did I miss a single one at the root of this spat?

[sigh] WHY do certain feminists HAVE to get defensive ANY time someone brings up gender differences in behavior?

Sorry to rant, but: No one is EVER 100% pigeonholed by gender, okay? Yes, there are exceptions to EVERYTHING. I'm a man, and I'm taller than most women because I'm a man. But there are women who are taller than me. That does NOT mean I am "stereotyping" when I say men are taller than women!

But the term "girl bullying" or "female bullying" is described now in the scientific literature. It's something that girls pick up at an earlier age than boys do, and it's something they do more often.

Of course men can learn these behaviors, and can learn to use them very effectively. Usually you'll find it in politics, or intensely political situations. Men who don't run in such circles, however, are generally oblivious to it.

Sorry if that makes me a sexist. I don't think it does, because I don't think it makes women inferior, it makes them difference. Lord knows there are enough negative male behaviors in the world.

Just go read the articles. They're good.

Brian:

1) The site exists for whatever interests me. You're here for the ride or you're elsewhere.

2) No, there's no single message, at this point the whole idiot thing spans several different blogs at once, and chat rooms, email, and comments spread everywhere. And frankly, I don't even care anymore who started it.

3) What I do care about is? Well for one thing I was subjected to a lot of character assassination last month, had an incredible number of nasty things said about me by a large number of webloggers, some of whom I never heard of until they started attacking me, distorting me, etc. Then another blogger I liked a lot got it as bad or worse. I've had enough and I'm going to speak about it.

You, of course, can just skip over it if it doesn't interest you.

Dean, I have no idea if you are a sexist or not, and am not calling you one. I am sorry you were subject to bullying - it's an awful experience. I applaud you for speaking out against it - that's really the only effective way to combat it, and it takes guts to do so. Fair play to you.

I have to respectfully disagree on the one point though, and say I just think you're barking up the wrong tree in restricting this sort of bullying to 'typically female'. I don't think it makes you sexist, I just think it makes you wrong. :-)

I read your links and it looks more to me like a bunch of women's studies academics suddenly discovered girls can be bullies, too. That may get more articles and books published but it doesn't change the fact that bullies come in both sexes and use whatever means of intimidation are effective for them. There's no 'typical female' or 'typical male' bully tactics. Take some time with that Bully Online site; I think you will get a lot out of it.

Take it easy and hit the decaf!!! :-P

Is it just me, or is the blogosphere ( I hate that term) really starting to resemble a high school cafeteria at lunch time?

Dean,

I largely agree with your point that Meryl, et al, have sometimes gone too far in their criticism, choosing to attack, rather than convince. In the Easterbrook case, Meryl seemed to go straight to the execution, without waiting for a defense. (initially, anyway)

I can't seem to reach Meryl, so I posted an open criticism on my blog. It fits in with your ideas.

I know this is supposed to be a serious discussion, but all this talk of 'female bullying' reminds me of Seinfeld.

Jerry & George are talking about wedgies, and 'atomic' wedgies. Elaine overhears and remarks that boys are mean. George asks, 'What, girls never do this stuff?' Elaine responds, 'Naaah, we would just taunt someone until she got an eating disorder.'

Dean,

So, you find Al Sharpton attractive?

Not complaining, Dean, just asking. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Carrie,

By your logic, violence and aggression would not be considered a "typically male" behavior. The point is that girls use it much more commonly and much earlier in their development than boys.

Brian--Don't apologize dude. I was just being blunt, not angry.

Carrie--We will agree to disagree then. And yes, I'm sipping my decaf now.

James--Al Sharpton is my dreamboat!

Absolutely. Women can be (and are) just as violent and agressive as men. Where have you been? I remember being physically bullied by a girl in 4th grade, and she had the whole class terrified. I know of men who have been savagely beaten by their wives. I can introduce you to women here who would happily glass you if you looked at them the wrong way. I can also introduce you to men who would lie about talking to you to save face with the crowd they run with.

The point is people will intimidate others with whatever tactic is available to them, regardless of whether they are male or female or if one set of behavior is considered more one than the other. It just stood out to me in Dean's post because the majority of my recent experience with what he was describing has been at the hands of men, and not 'typically' female. Just typically bullys.

There are probably cultural factors involved in all that, too, Carrie. I'm imaginging Northern Ireland's a different place from southeast Michigan, where I live. Certainly some of the social researchers I pointed to did say that there were discernible differences culturally in the aspect and nature of female bullying.

By the way, bless you: you are one of the very few women I've ever come across who's willing to admit that women can be violent and abusive people. I had a few posts on that very subject last month. If you remind me I'll dig 'em out for you. Just like the ongoing crisis in boys' education here in the US that almost no one talks about, that's another phenomenon, here in the US, that almost no one talks about.

Brian,

Think back to Dean's posts about feminism and voting rights. He was largely confining himself to specific, verifiable observations of the history of the women's suffrage movement but he certainly added some flair - tweaking Meryl and others in what I at least originally took as a kidding tone.

He really got their hackles up, however, with the observation that men "gave" women the right to vote. On the face of it, this is absolute common sense: men held all the levers of power including the levers that had to be pulled to change the law so that women could vote. That they did decide to give up their exclusive dominion and share power is a testament to the power of the democratic ideal that, at times haltingly, has marched its way through our political institutions over the last two centuries. But it is also a testament to the *men* that broke with long tradition and cultural bias to implement this change.

But, it gets worse! Dean also pointed out historical examples of where women were not simply victims of the Eurocentric, white, male (you know the drill) patriarchy but were active participants in American culture and politics and (*gasp*) even opposed Women's suffrage.

Well, talk about loading a gun, pointing it at your head and giving a feminist the trigger! Not only does this undercut the feminist argument that men are morally inferior brutes for their unhinged opposition to equal rights (in fact, they didn't oppose it - but provided it), it introduces the possibility that women were not mere "victims" after all.

Meryl and others went ballistic, as far as I could tell, because this worldview not only struck them as horribly wrong, it threatened the very foundations on which feminist empowerment is built (whether they see it that way or not - perceptions of "threat" usually go deeper than rational thought penetrates).

Now, if Dean had just been an ignorant good ol' boy, Meryl would've simply ignored him. But he isn't: he's a feminist himself. Thus, a whole slew of people went on the attack. In their view, *none* of it was right. *All* of it was noxious. It was *obviously* done just for right-wing feminist-baiting.

Is this not always the way it is with people? We punish heretics more severely than apostates and apostates far more severely than opponents. If we permit the heretics to sew the seeds of doubt amongst our troops, we'll not have the dogmatic certainty needed to fight the good fight, to slay the forces of ignorance the oppose us!

Dean is interested in being factually correct.

Meryl is interested in being "right".

Is it any wonder they fight?

Hi Dean,

I checked out Jeff's blog today, and I must say that I was shocked at what “Yehudit” Weiss wrote. Even by her standards, it was a low blow. I have come to the conclusion that she’s simply batshit, and that she shouldn’t be taken seriously. As I said on Jeff’s, she’s said nasty personal things about me on several blogs.

She’s simply incapable of arguing rationally. Her typical method of argumentation is character assassination, and have you noticed that her favorite trope is "piles on."

She once attacked a pro-Palestinian activist on the grounds that this woman was once a Scientologist. Her point was that anyone who was once a Scientologist must be crazy. Now, I have no love for Scientologists, or radical pro-Palestinian activists. But what did that have to do with the issue at hand? Nothing. It’s particularly nutty in that Yehudit told me that she had once been a Wiccan. Does that give me the right to attack everything that she says now about feminism? No.

To clarify a point: I did not pull my blog because of her hounding, which I am told occurred on various comment lines in several blogs. I just didn’t have the time. I have a thin skin and I am definitely the oversensitive type, and I’m a hot reactor (can’t you tell?) but this had nothing to do with my pulling the blog.

But I do think your comments about female bullying are dead-on accurate. Of course, men engage in this, just as women engage to a certain extent in physical aggression, but for all the biological reasons dating back to the evolution of the human race that Yehudit and other radical feminists deny, men and women handle the issue of aggression very differently. Women sure are the experts at manipulation and social ostracism. But there is a certain amount of training involved: I grew up with two older brothers and it’s taken me a lifetime to learn the game.

About Meryl. She’s a totally different sort of person than Yehudit, much more grounded in reality, but as I said on Jeff’s blog, I have no further interest in her blog because I couldn’t care less about comics, kid’s literature, or ethnic grievance-mongering. And yeah, disagree with her and your on a Nixononian shitlist. Heresy! Hell, she ain't heard nothing yet.

I think that Easterbrook in effect rewarded her for Sharptonism by speaking with her. Easterbrook says he’s not mad. Well, maybe, but if there is a Mrs. Easterbrook, she probably wants to tear Ms. Yourish a new one. When the next mortgage payment comes, when the private school tuition bills for the little Easterbrooks hit that mailbox, you can be sure that Mrs. Easterbrook will miss those ESPN checks. Great job, guys!

Anyway, onto more important things. We have a war on terror to win, and people like Mahathir to vanquish.

Hiya Dean
Yes, likely there are cultural factors but to be honest I think it's (what you're describing) more group-think (and that is universal) than cultural. Saying that, Northern Ireland operates on intimidation on a number of levels; it's not a healthy society.

Of course women can be and are violent and abusive. Anything else is a myth.

Take it easy.

Today must be my official "getting things off my chest day".

Carrie, women are NOT as violent & physically aggressive as men. There is always anecdotal evidence of female physical aggression, but the overwhelming majority of violent crime & battering are done by men.

WildMonk, I never got involved in the “men gave women rights” yada yada, because at the time I thought it was so self-evidently true and Dean is quite capable of defending himself, but at the time I was thinking exactly what you are saying.

Dean, I should have said something, sorry I never piped up, but at the time I just was too leery of falling afoul of the Meryl/Yehudit/Lynn B axis.

Fact is--the whole concept of human rights was created by a small group of men, for other men like them, and gradually widened to include other races, religions, and women, in varying orders. The Axis of Female Bullies just went crazy because you struck a nerve. The truth has a weird way of doing that.

The point about heresy is quite right. Also manners. Frex: One of their points of faith is that Israel Must Not Be Criticized. Neither Meryl nor Yehudit has ever so much as visited the place. In fact I once tried halfheartedly to get a blogger visit to Israel together. I personally asked Meryl if she wanted to go. Her response was a polite, “Nah.” I guess no one ever taught her how to say, “Thank you for thinking of me. It's a good idea and a nice offer. But I can’t right now.” No one ever taught me either, but somewhere along the line I learned it.

That's fine, Carrie. I can certainly see the merit in your argument that it is ultimately harmful to stereotype that way.

Actually, I wasn't even asking why you post it here. Lord knows you have the right to post your own stuff to your own blog. I was trying to ask what the F you're on about. That's all.

And, yes, it's becoming somewhat clearer.

In your honor, my next blog post will be completely personal in nature. Perhaps uncomfortably so.

Diana, I am not getting into a statistical pissing contest. Women can be and are just as violent as men. Whether it's 24 men to 10 women is beside the point. The point is to not stereotype behavior, or genderize it. Violent behavior is violent whether it's a woman or a man. Same goes for bullying.

Still stirrin the pot, eh Dean? You may have brass ones, too. (see Niagara Falls post).

Jump into that breach.

I am not getting into a statistical pissing contest

Neither am I. You are basically saying that you don't want to pay attention to the facts. If there are no agreed-upon facts then there is no communication. It is irrelevant whether an individual woman can be as violent as a man. Of course they can. A six-foot-tall woman is taller than a 5'10" man. What does that prove? That women are taller than men?

For those of you who DO care about the facts, physical aggression is largely a male art. It is not beside the point that 90% of all violent crime is perpetrated by males. (Young males.) Stereotypes are based upon what we can reasonably expect. Just as we expect a six-foot-tall person to be male (although it could be female) we can reasonably expect a violent criminal to be male.

I have yet to understand why some people are so dead set against generalizations(or stereotypes as they typically call them when attacking them). Generalizations are very useful when looking at large groups, and yes, of course, it is a mistake to hold to generalizations when looking at individuals(which is where bigotry and prejudice come it). One does not, however, require the other.

Physical intimidation appears to be the first form that most male bullies attempt(and physical resistance the first that most males see as the only way to refute it, some attempting and failing, some succeeding, and some taking the abuse seeing no other recourse).

Verbal/mental intimidation appears to be the first that most female bullies attempt with females seeing the same method as a counter.

Of course that doesn't hold true if every case. Men and women are both people who observe, learn and adapt. Some women learn that physical intimidation works better for them. Some men learn that verbal/mental works for them(actually I think this is more common because we have a lot of laws dealing with physical inimidation, but not nearly as many as with verbal and the ones that do are far less severe).

So really the statistics is the whole point. Weither it's 24 men to 10 women does matter because we are talking about large groups cases that are involving statistical models. That in no way means we ignore the effects of the individuals.

So what is the problem with generalizations? I guess I just don't get it.

My problem with feminist discourse (or, I should say the party-line of feminism - because not all feminist discourse goes this route) is its either/or or black/white approach. "If THIS is true, then this MUST NOT be true." Life seems to reside in the grey area. Women are capable of horrors. Anyone who ... lives in the freakin' world ... knows that. Playground subterfuge, silent treatments, being "shut out of the group"blah blah - all of that was part of my growing up, as it was part of my girlfriends' growing up - in the same way that getting into fist fights and rolling around in the dirt was part of my brother's growing up.

Women were against suffrage for very logical reasons. What ACTUALLY happened has always seemed more interesting to me than ... wishful thinking, or trying to re-interpret the past.

Women can be great. Women can be evil. Men can be great. Men can be evil. Sorry to be trite, but to me it comes down to that.

Oh, and every time women get into some kind of fight, it's not a "cat fight" - having been in some verbal fights, as well as actually physical brawls myself. It's anger coming out, or aggression, or trying to defend myself. Same as it is for men.

I don't believe in perpetrating stereotypes. That's where I am coming from. Yes I know every stereotype has a grain of truth in it, which is why it becomes a stereotype, but if we rely solely on stereotypes, i.e., only men are violent and only women bully by character assasination, we are perpetrating lies. Frankly, I'm not interested in doing that, which is why I pulled Dean about his 'typical female' comment.

Perhaps I am just turning my own personal experience into something bigger. I just do not believe that those behaviors are limited to or typically female. I know otherwise, and I disagree with genderizing them.

Last year we had a major flap over a feminist group who's taken bullying to the level of an artform. What they were doing was sucking people into their divorce support group on the pretense of offering "help," then finding out what other discussion groups they frequented. They'd join these groups, and then (this is where it gets really vicious) copy posts from their targeted individuals, and repost edited versions of these at their own group. These edited versions would be referred to as "proof" of some sort of wrongdoing (pedophilia was a favorite accusation) and threaten to use those posts against them in court. They caused some terrible harm to people that way.

They never took any kind of legal action against anyone, but their threats and bullying caused at least one guy I know to have a complete breakdown. And they say they're not a hate movement? HA!!!

Camille Paglia's long essay "No Law in the Arena", from her collection Vamps & Tramps, is a phenomenal skewering of this very brand of feminism. Great stuff.

I think Carrie has a point. By the time bullyboys get physical, boys already taunt each other verbally. The way I see it, the gender difference (generally speaking) is that they're just not very good at it – compared to the girls. Boys manifest their more aggressive natures with the tool they are hard-wired to employ: physicality. Girls manifest their aggression with the tool they are hard-wired to employ (as well as what’s acceptable in their cultures): language. As boys and men become more language-proficient they manifest aggression and competitiveness with language as well. I believe a loose quote of Christina Hoff Summers (How was she was missed in discussing gender communications differences and alternative feminism?) was that women look at language as the glue that binds people together and men see it as a tool for winning. If that’s true, it may be a more important difference than how that conception is manifested.

So, do blogs self-select more verbally aggressive women? Men?

Carrie,

I think what Diana is trying to say is that it is not sexist to point out general tendencies.

Let's set up a thought experiment. We will have a group of men, and a group of women. Let us assume that other various demographic factors for a particular country have been accounted for; I want to avoid any side issues.

Suppose that the study determines that 60% of the men, but only 35% of the women have performed a physically agressive act in the past 5 years (including grabbing or pushing someone, up to hitting them).

The result tends to indicate that men are more physically agressive than women. This is not a gender-based stereotype, but a verfiable determination. Do you see the distinction that some folks have been trying to draw?

Of course, the above is a purely theoretical example, but there are actual studies that do show similar tendencies.

Mind you, no one is sure why this is so; is is genetically determined, culturally, a mix of both, or are other factors involved? No one knows, yet. But there are determinable tendencies.

I wound up deleting a few comments here, not because anyone said anything nasty or illegal or anything like that, but because I was asked to by the commenter, and I had to remove several comments that responded to it even though they were from people who were making reasonable observations.

Nobody feel bad, someone just realized they didn't want to be part of the debate for the moment. I archived 'em although I don't plan on releasing them.

Dean,

Your obsession with this women is getting a little wierd.

I. Am. Tired. Of. This.

Scott,

I think you have it the other way around. I asked Dean to delete my last comment because I felt that it crossed a line, and that I don't want to sink to the provocateur's level.

I'll be writing a post about the whole Easterbrook affair, when things settle down, and when I have the time to treat it with the care that it deserves.

*Gets up to get another soda and some more popcorn...*

D

Well, People like Meryl and Judith can affort to attack people and demonise them, because they don have to suffer any consequences - in the sense that they post on either their own or other folks blogs, not on regular media outlets. Hence they can act as irresponsibly as they choose.
Now regarding trudy's comment about the Divorce group folks who intimidated and bullied and harassed men, boy, are they lucky that they picked on some men who were perhaps not of an aggressive nature. Anyone who did that to men like my friends and I would have to face up to consequences of such nasty character-assasination type of behavior.

Carrie,

I think you have a point, just that it was poorly phrased. Those tactics are not 'typically female' - they are typically bully's.

Women, typically (which is not at all the same as universally) default to bullying by verbal and emotional manipulation.

There is not a damned thing wrong with that statement.

Ara,

I. Am. Tired. Of. This.

Stop. Reading. It. Then.

First - I did not say Dean was sexist and I actually said that I was not calling him one.

Second - "typical female-bully tactics" is poorly phrased. In my experience men are just as (if not more so) prone to using the types of tactics Dean described ('character assassination, half-truthful accusations that cannot be easily answered, name-calling, mocking, ostracization'). These are human behaviors that are not 'owned' by one sex or the other or more reflective or typical of one sex or the other. It's typical of group-think and they are classic bullying tactics. Bullies come in all sexes, shapes, sizes and politics, and they use all sorts of tactics to intimidate.

Third - I never said that to refer to those tactics as typical female-bully' tactics was sexist. I said it was wrong, because it is not just females who use those tactics and it is only typical of bullys, period.

I think those arguing over 'sexist' and percentages are hung up in an argument that is irrelevant; the point is not whether women do this and men do that - the point is that the behavior being discussed is wrong, no matter who is doing it. To genderize it belittles it and obscures the point.

It also perpetrates stereotypes; just because stereotypes have a grain of truth in them somewhere does not mean that they are in fact true. Yes, women employ those bullying tactics, but to say that it is typical female-bully tactics negates the whole thing. Does this mean the IRA were acting like a bunch of women when they employed the same tactics against those who spoke out against them? Give me a break. When I was being bullied in the same fashion described by Dean ('character assassination, half-truthful accusations that cannot be easily answered, name-calling, mocking, ostracization') by a bunch of men, I didn't think to myself, "Gee, those men are acting like typical female bullies."

It was poorly phrased. It has nothing - in my eyes - to do with sexism or Dean being sexist or whatever. It has everything to do with bullying and being bullied and recognising the truth of bullying (which is what I think those studies Dean cites are trying to do*) which is that it comes in many forms and is done by many people. For too long the image was just of the big giant tough guy beating people up. Well, it can be the little tiny skinny guy and it can be the vicious little girl and it can be the big strong woman and it can be all sorts. It can be mental, physical, a combination of both, emotional. It is not gender exclusive and the behaviors are not gender specific.

I don't know how to make myself more clear. Again, perhaps I am taking my personal experience and reading too much into things but if you're going to argue the points I am making at least argue the points I am making and don't accuse me of calling anyone sexist when I specifically made clear I was not calling anyone sexist.

Dean, I think I need that decaf!!!!

* Those studies are trying to break down the old stereotype of bullys/bullying being big males using physical force by showing that bullying comes in other forms. Those studies are getting bogged down in the gender wars, because people are using them to further genderize behavior. It is a step forward that bullying is being recognized in all the forms it comes in but 2 steps forward, one step back, as they say; it's a step back when you now have 'male bullies' and 'female bullies' which again trivialises the whole point. A bully is a bully is a bully.

I think I need more than decaf. Geeze does this happen to everyone, you get sucked into Dean's World like some sort of vortex? I feel like Pacino, circa G3.

Let's bring this thread back to the original subject: the Easterbrook affair. It hasn't died down. It won't die down. It has real ramifications.

Dean was kind enough to allow me to put up a post on this and in a few days I will. I need some time to think things over and simmer down.

I'm sorry for hijacking the thread onto something that is after all a small point (although I thought the discussion was interesting - and addicitve!). I hope I haven't overstepped the bounds of discussion here. I haven't a clue what the Easterbrook thing is about, don't know the background or any of the players which is probably why I fixed on a small irrelevant point that I did understand. I blame Frida!! (Kahlo, that is.)

Well, this has certainly been a bumpy ride tonight! Fascinating and addictive as Carrie commented.

As I read post after post I thought of my period of pre-adolescent jostling for position in the group I found myself in. It occurred to me that there may be an element to this drama that has been overlooked so far.

Humans are animals and in particular we are mammals. The element of competition is a basic survival instinct in the nature of most all species and in mammals it is most evident. In the abstract, we can observe that bullying, whether it is physical or verbal (in humans), is usually used as a tool to establish the hierarchy of the group. I'm looking at the most basic aspect of this behavior. Even puppies and toddlers are competitive - the only toy they want is the toy held by another puppy or child.

Success in obtaining more food or toys requires the exercise of power wielded by the strongest member of the group. Humans must learn to channel the territorial agression instinct into acceptable behaviors of sharing and fairness. Successful humans control the instinct for aggression and enjoy pleasant interactions with other people and the satisfaction that brings. Bullies are not successful people no matter how much power they may have garnerd for themselves. They don't have true friends and very little support apart from their lackies. They often end up defeated, embittered and alone.

Many groups that I've participated in (especially in the competitive world of business) has had its bullies. In reality when the competitive instinct is escalated to bullying, the group dynamics are somewhat or totally perverted from normal competition to a threatening and possibly dangerous situation depending on the size, strength, anger level and arrogance of the bully or bullies.

How we deal with bullies changes as we mature and become more competent in our own right. Most non-bullying people do not understand or anticipate the bullying AT FIRST. And sometimes we do not have the power within the group to effectively defend against the bully. Sadly, this state of affairs often results in passive-aggressive behavior on the part of the bullied person. Ideally, at some point we gain the confidence and competency to deal with the bully without resorting to true aggression. I suspect that many many of us have been through this ordeal by the time we reach late teens and by then have begun to develop the social skills to effectively stop bullies from tormenting us or
at least avoid having to interact with them in most situations.

Scott: Obsession? Hmm. No. I think not. If you know anything about obsession, you know this isn't that.

I hope if you ever have a son or daughter who goes through something like this--widespread character assassination and public humiliation, I mean--you won't have the same reaction. Sucking it up and "rising above it" are just another way of saying, "Hit me some more, because I'm a big pussy."

Ara: See above.

Jane: Fabulously insightful. Except that I'd say that "late teens" is a tremendously optimistic figure. Some of us take longer than others to learn how to recognize and deal with bullying behavior, and some of us never do. Especially when it comes in a form and from a vector where we don't recognize it.

There are probably some insights into the causes of domestic violence in there somewhere. But anyway...

My experience is that men are usually completely unaware that they're being bullied by a female. When it finally dawns on them what's happened, though, it's tremendously liberating. I suppose the converse must be true of women. That shock of recognition when it hits you is something else, though.

Contemplating how I'd watched Diana go through the exact same kind of bullying by these same people, who appear to have a habit of doing this sort of thing, was what woke me up.

Oh, and by the way? Last I checked, over 2,100 articles have been posted on Dean's World, and less than 10 have been devoted to the Meryl/Yehudit duo.

This officially makes Dean's World 99.982% Meryl & Judith-Free!

I'd say that's a bargain at twice the price!

;-)

I vote for 100%, Dean. I think yer beating a dead horse, here. :)

No prob, Casey.

I grew up being bullied, and spending a lot of time just rolling over and taking it. It was when I realized that this was what was going on that I realized what had happened, and how to deal with it.

I'm done with Meryl Sharpton & her buddy Judy. I really am. I'm just fascinated by the discussion it's provoked.

Female bullying is a real phenomenon, and it's high time that more people be made aware of it.

Y'all:

Just remember: bullies are cowards.

Dean

I suffered as a child being bullied and humiliated and as a relatively sensitive kid, it
put me through torture. I only learned to deal with the resulting psychological injury in my middle-thirties. Within another decade I was pretty much over the most serious aspects of it and have now developed what I consider to be a high level of competency in most areas of my life. There still remain some residual effects in my make-up but for all practical purposes I function now with a good measure of self-confidence and self-esteem. Like you, at some point a veil was lifted from my eyes and I was at last, after some struggle, a free person. It truly is liberating to overcome the effects of such hurtful experiences. Glad you appreciated my insights.

Good on yer, Jane!

So is Dean the Charlie Brown of the blogosphere, and Meryl its Lucy?

And now that the spat has played itself out, is there a chorus for us rubberneckers to sing?

Hmmm...