[overflow] Re: GHHS

["J. Spencer Love" <jsl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 8:56 AM -0600 3/27/01, Michelle & Boyd Bottorff wrote:

> I do pretty much expect them to put up with verbal abuse...
> I think it's unnecessary, and uncalled for, and I jump on them
> quick enough when they try it, but if they're ever going to be
> able to participate comfortably on usenet, they're probably
> going to need to start developping their flame proof skins...

Sorry, this set me off.

There are various strategies for coping with verbal abuse.

I completely reject being told, in the face of over-the-top
situations:

A)  Keep a stiff upper lip.

B)  Don't react -- they just tease you because you give them such
    a good reaction, or

C)  Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never
    hurt me.

I have lots of anger left from being the continuous butt of jokes
and general whipping boy in 5th and 6th grade, and I'm 45.

The quote I learned much more recently is,

    Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can break
    your heart.

I think this version is a lot truer.  It goes along with The Pen
Is Mightier Than The Sword, and the power of whispering campaigns
for marketing and character assassination.

I admit we all need somewhat thick skins, for several reasons, e.g.,

1)  Things may seem awful now, but we usually really need to wait
    a while (there are exceptions!) to properly assess things, and
    our point-and-click and TV culture doesn't lend itself to sober
    reflection.

2)  We have to learn to consider the source.  This means we have
    to know when and what to discount.  Was my mother/wife/sister
    thinking about some other male when she shot me down?  Does
    the opinion of so-and-so matter?  Will they find out that
    they are wrong?  Will they listen?  Does it matter?

3)  The circumstances matter.  Flames on a screen are not the
    same as assaults in person.  With the feedback loop open,
    people will write things they would never say if they could
    watch your face during the build-up.  People who completely
    lose it based on a reading of text have first failed to
    close the feedback loop -- flaming (flailing) back doesn't
    count as closing the loop, since putting out a fire with
    gasoline is not generally recommended.  Ditto escalating
    argumentation in person.

4)  E-Mail is a lot like gossip -- the person discussed isn't in
    the gossipers' faces to object.  It's not to say that reading
    and getting upset with an e-mail is like overhearing people
    talking about you -- but it IS like hearing things from an
    intermediary, who might have their own agenda (or your own
    expectations) that really ought to be factored in.

Wholesale cauterization is not a way to build up tolerance
for heat.  If the pain is too intense, it will override attempts
at reason later.  Holding a grudge based on a hasty evaluation
may be a mistake, but remembering injury and trying to avoid it
in the future is how we all got so smart -- too important to
survival to be just discredited and tossed out.

And chronic injuries have their own pathologies.  If you keep
rubbing something raw, you get granulation, if I've got the name
of the condition right, but anyway a sore that does not heal
without special attention.

I'm all for civility, enforced or voluntary, but also for saying
things that need to be said even if it's tactless or hurtful.
Keeping these two contradictory ideas in my head makes my head
hurt, and my less-than-exemplary record at balancing them against
each other has, er, spoken for itself.  But they were isolated
incidents, I think.

To write off a friendship or a peer group, you first need

i)   To verify the emotional content.  Someone who is your friend
     might tell you something you don't want to hear -- but you
     might need to hear it.  Look for malice, or failing that,
     callous disregard.  That's hard to read between the lines of
     e-mail or other intermediary; it's more reliable to determine
     in person -- although it still requires experience and
     critical thinking.

ii)  the testimony of witnesses is important -- and the victim was
     there.  This seemed to be invariably disregarded by the adults
     around me, until all of a sudden one day it all came to the
     attention of the superintendent, who had a few choice things
     to say to/about the principal and the teachers -- and who told
     my parents (who had been on the front line of discounting my
     reports) to remove me from the school.

iii) To be fair, after a few incidents of being disregarded and/or
     punished for my testimony, I was less likely to complain --
     which may have given some a false sense of the problem having
     gotten better.  Pay attention.

iv)  A baseline -- is this a temporary aberration or a long-term
     trend?  A misunderstanding or a campaign?  A pernicious
     pattern?  A paranoid fantasy?

Changing schools seems drastic, but it worked for me.  If gang
persecution were to happen to (or be done by) my kid, I'd take
moderately prompt action (see above) and be prepared to be as
drastic as necessary.

When I got to the new school in 7th grade, a remedy applied about
21 or 22 months later than it should have been, I carried a big
chip on my shoulder.  But I had switched from wholesale to retail
persecution, so I had a chance to learn to cope.  It's down to
about boulder-size by now; at the time it seemed to me like I was
a squashed bug.

						-- Spencer
-- 

* J. Spencer Love *  Love Song Productions  * voice: 1-508-478-5002 *
* jsl@lovesong.com * http://www.lovesong.com * free: 1-888-494-3455 *
* 11 Wayne Road, Milford, MA  01757-3918, USA * fax: 1-508-634-9345 *