I'm excited about one "rubber meets the road" opportunity that we have to adress the ever-worsening epidemic of widespread bullying in our schools and our communities. It's called the "Bully" movie, which I learned about about a week ago. I found out about this movie when I visited the Causes site and learned about this cause, upon joining it as a new member. And I was hooked. I have seen only a little snippet of this movie on the news, which has been covering it. This movie, set to be released in theaters on March 30, is rated "R" because of its graphic content. In the little bit that I saw of it, I listened to the narrator refer to bullying being the motive to teen suicide in the case of one boy, among others. I can't understand the giving of a "R" rating to a movie that gives a deliberately frank portrayal of a very serious problem facing youth in their schools and communities. Isn't it a disservice to them by withholding something from them a strong message that they deliberately need to see and understand in the effort to save many of them from lifelong emotional scars or even bullycide? I know that there is a movement to lower the rating to "PG" but I fear that this would still miss even young children, as bullying begins before age of 13, in many cases.
I have come to detest the word "bullying," as the word seems to conjure up the "rite of passage" mentality that dismisses this serious epidemic and totally minimizes it. Somehow, when abuse is by peers to peers it seems to be more tolerable to so many of us. Yes, it even seems to be seen as a "kids will be kids" thing that we have to endure. This is why so many of us applaud the making of the "Bully" movie and the effort to lower its ratings. Myself, I would have much loved to have had this kind of awareness in operation when I was growing up and experiencing much teasing, verbal abuse, hitting, punching, tripping and plain exclusion at the hands of peers. And through my growing-up years, I was not bullied not only by peers but, because of unexplained differences which I now believe to be an undiagnosed autism spectrum condition, also by adults. Not knowing any better because the autism spectrum diagnosis was not even a concept then, adults often reacted unkindly or were frustrated with me. I was blamed for my challenges and, after a hellish year of relentless bullying (more like assault and torment), I was removed from the school in question. I found myself being taken to a testing center, being "assessed for what is wrong with you" and being sent to special school settings, where I had been sent for much of my childhood. And many of my peers in these settings exhibited agressive behavior. I felt a little safer at such schools as these students were monitored closely and classes were smaller. But the emphasis was on our weaknesses and we the curriculum was much watered-down. And I did experience bullying in these settings, including the sexual harassment and "flashing" of a few peer's private parts. When I reported such behavior, I was made to feel like I brought this on by my "hypersensitivity." It's simply sickening that calling behavior "bullying" and not abuse or assault makes it seem more excusable. And, like many bully victims, past and present, I felt that I was punished for being a victim and was robbed of a childhood and an education.
Since I last blogged about bullying, I heard about more bullycides in the news! A week ago, I read about another child, attractive, talented, popular and with everything to live for, ending her life because she could not take any more bullying. She felt that the adults in her life would not rescue her or protect her, certainly not those at her school. These stories never fail to make me sick and frustrated that once more, the system had failed a bully victim. I understand that teachers and educators have very difficult jobs and probably feel overwhemlmed and helpless about the bullying that keeps being brought to their attention. This is all the more reason that they, too, need to have the help of such things as the "Bully" movie which could help them reach students exposed to the powerful message. We can see that bullying is not going away and will only get worse if we don't try something new and implement underused programs.
In reading reviews about the movie, I'm reading numerous comments by parents and even grandparents. Many of the heartfelt, pasionate comments included stories about their children or grandchildren being subjected to relentless bullying. When they would try to get the schools to intervene and protect their children and hold the bullies accountable, little or nothing was done. They had to remove their children from the schools in question, just as I had to be. Over and over, it seems that schools seem to be on the side of bullies more than their victims, maybe because it is easier to dismiss the victims than it is to hold bullies accountable. Often, victims are told to "Handle it yourself." In special school settings, on two separate times, I was in restrooms with girls who had gotten out their cigarette lighters and, putting them next to my hair, flicked them. Both times, when I reported this, I received no concern but was told, "Handle it yourself." Teachers, educators, and parents need to see the "Bully" movie just as students do. Maybe then, and only then, will bullying finally be taken seriously.
It's ironic. Even as bullying continues to receive more and more attention and media coverage, children continue to end their lives because they feel the hopelessness and helplessness of feeling that NO ONE CARES and NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO THEIR CRIES. Let me also point out that for every bullycide that we hear about, there are probably many other children who experience similar vicious bullying and suffer depression and may unsuccessfully attempt suicide. Don't think it is only the bullycide victims whose stories deserve to be told! The other children, the survivors, past and present, just never make the headlines. These many other children simply suffer silently, entering adulthood, as I did, with lifelong emotional scars of major trust issues, confustion, shame, guilt, fears, feeling excluded and more. All because of the "rite of passage" mentality.
And while many of us hope that the rating of the "Bully" movie is lowered and that it will be shown widely in in many media outlets, there is another, positive, approach that could complement that "Bully" movie. The approach is called the campaign to start "chain reactions of kindness" in schools and in our communities. The nonprofit behind this effort is called "Rachel's Challenge" and this nonprofit uses presentations and resources in schools and communies, to spread a simple, but profound message, that the deliberate effort to perform acts of kindness can start "chain reactions" among others. This can prevent and end bullying through replacing it with its exact opposite behavior. "Rachel's Challenge" was set up by the father and stepmother of 17-year-old Rachel Scott, the first student who was murdered in the massacre at Columbine High. As portrayed by her dad and biological mom in their moving books about her, Rachel Scott, a devout Christian girl, actively reached out to fellow students who were new to her school, who had special needs, or who were bullied by their peers. In her journals, she wrote about her philosophy that she believed that if one lived a life of kindness and compassion, one can start a "chain reaction" among others who will do the same. This nonprofit is set up in honor of Rachel and her "chain reaction" philosophy of life. Rachel's dad, Darrell Scott, and the others on his team, travel to schools and communities all over North America, with resources to make presentations about the simple but profound message of using lives of kindness and caring to start "chain reactions" as a way to prevent and end bullying. I know that there are some who no doubt think this approach is too simple and unrealistic, but the website for "Rachel's Challenge" and books about this, document one story after another that this approach ACTUALLY works.
In my humble opinion, the widepread us of the "Bully" movie in schoold and communities and schools and in many media outlets, as well as much-increased support and activity through the "Rachel's Project" kindness campaign approach, are MUSTS to FINALLY stop bullying.
http://rachelschallenge.org/
This website is for the nonprofit that was set up in honor of a slain Columbine student who believed that kindness could start "chain reactions" that could prevent and end bullying by replacing it with its opposite behavior. This nonprofit seeks to reach into schools and communities with presentations and materials and to get students, educators and parents to accept the "Rachel's Challenge" approach to stop bullying everywhere.
http://www.thebullyproject.com/#/press
This website is about the "Bully" movie and contains an overview about this epidemic, live footage and sections for parents, educators, advocates, students and more. Excellent resource.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Advocates and Causes and Social Networking
What is an advocate? Growing up, I got the idea that an advocate was a person who spoke before legislators and lobbied them to get laws passed on behalf of those whom they were speaking for. When that word came to mind I would think of lawyers or other trained professionals with official ties to nonprofit or for-profit organizations. But in these days of the "information age" mass media and social networking, it has become clear that making a difference in this world has become much more accessible to us and that advocacy is not just for professionals or for those with the money and time to influence the powerful.
Yes, in my younger days, years before social networking existed and before I discovered this social networking, I would write letters to legislators on behalf of those vulnerable groups of people for whom I felt laws need to be changed for. I would occasionally circulate offline, paper petitions and participate in sporadic fundraising projects. But two years ago, I discovered social networking and especially, Facebook. And I saw something of what advocacy is. At that time, I was trying to bury my past and to "put it behind me" by trying to forget, since I could make no sense of it, there was no word for many of my experiences and no community that I could identify with concerning my experiences. In other words, no sense of belonging. So, as a way of what psychologists would call "sublimation" or using one's inner conflicts by channeling them into positive action, I got interested in following true crime cases and missing person cases as I viewed a few on television. This was a way of getting my mind off my apparently unsolvable, unexplainable problems. Plus, I knew that serious crime could very well happen to my family and me and that I wanted to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem by inactivity. Plus, I knew the Scriptural principle that "If a man does not hear the cries of others in need, he cannot expect others to hear his cries in his own time of need." At the time, I was disgusted with the media for devoting hours to celebrities while they gave only minutes to missing people. I was frustrated with them for their tendency to sensationalize the few cases they did cover. So, because of these reasons, I set up a Facebook account and began "friending" those whose profiles indicated that they were advocates for the missing, exploited and the abused, or whose profiles indicates that they had missing loved ones.
All I can say is that entering the world of advocates through social networking has proved to be a lively education in itself. First, I learned, by trial and error, the right and wrong things to say that convey sensitivity and support for the families of missing loved ones or who had other needs, and what offended them or drove them away, making them see one as one of "the bad guys" even if I was just trying to help. I rarely had trouble with family members of the missing or murdered. The exception was a person who had a missing young person who was found deceased in a matter of months. Initially, I was on great terms with this person but this person became greatly angered with me one day with I posted on this person's page about a missing child who was also in this person's state. We exchanged messages that amounted to an online shouting match and the person's threat to have me reported and "stopped" because I was one of the "bad guys" and an "abuser" of families of the missing.
Advocates have shown themselves to be quite a mixture in their ability to tolerate differences. Early on, I learned, the painfully hard way, that there are quite a few advocates who have chips on their shoulders and little tolerance for differences and were quick to "give you the boot" and remove me from their networks, if they disliked my beliefs, my posts or my posts on their pages about my causes. When I was still new to Facebook, I posted on the page of a person who was a respected missing person advocate, sharing the posters of two "cold case" missing children whom I hoped that this person would circulate among those in this person's own social networks. I checked this person's page a while later, hoping that I had an effect. I did, but not the effect I wanted! The posts were removed. Upset, I sent a messagge to the person, attaching the links to my message and appealing to the person to share them. The person responded but not in a friendly way, chewing me out for imposing my cases and my agenda on this person, and so forth. Again, our messages back and forth became an online shouting match that resulted in this person blocking me, apparently for good. Lesson learned? Do not engage those who disagree with you online, as people's monds are made up and online arguments are a waste of time and almost always backfire.
I have found, in relating to advocates in my networks, that there are a number whom I count as warmly supportive and tolerant of differences and a number, like those, like the person above, who show little tolerance for differences or other beliefs or agendas. But the majority rarely, if ever, correspond with me, whether because they are "single cause" people, use social networks sporadically or for other reasons. I have found that my most awful experiences with advocates have happened when I applied for official volunteer positions with nonprofits that I learned about only online because of their online presence.
Well over a year ago, I applied to a nonprofit that was hugely praised by many in my social networks. Craving a community to belong to and wanting to make a difference on a different level, I applied to the nonprofit, where I was asked, among other things, a disability-related question. I disclosed my epilepsy (noting that it was under control) and my Marfan's Syndrome and, in the phone interview, my undiagnosed autism spectrum condition. I was very elated and thrilled when I was told that I was accepted. I set up a new, official page for the nonprofit and its staff and volunteers "friended" me there. Almost right away, the account was hacked and those in my network received links to suspicious, "cheesy" material in my name. Soon, I grew crushed and depressed when I was abruptly told that I was "not the right fit" for the nonprofit and that I was dismissed as a volunteer. I was told that the nonprofit had issues with the dynamics of my family situation as they believed it would affect my ability to "be an asset to our organization." To make matters worse, I was told that everyone linked to this nonprofit was ordered to "unfriend" me on both my accounts. I was heartbroken to see that I was also blocked by a number of them. As this had happened during the Christmas eason, I entered into a depression that saddened my holiday. To me, this was a case of cyberbullying that was made worse by the fact that I could not prove a thing!
A number of months ago, I applied to a second nonprofit, also one that I knew about solely from is online presence. I had corresponded with a few people who had official ties with this nonprofit and I admired their work on behalf of their chosen cause. So when they placed an online appeal for volunteers, I applied, striving for honesty and transparency in my application, though I saw the screening process as intrusive and excessive for someone who, in my case, was asking for the opportuntity to do online activites for the nonprofit. I also included a heartfelt piece that I hoped would explain my answers to the disability-related question on the application and any "red flags" that the nonprofit may find in my background. I hoped that I could receive empathy and understanding and a volunteer opportunity. After weeks of waiting, I got a curt phone call where I was told, unequivocally, that the nonprofit had no interest in my volunteer services. As this experience also happened around the holidays, I was left deeply distressed, disillusioned and turned off to the very idea of ever offering my volunteer services to another nonprofit. To this day, those in my network who have official ties to this nonprofit or who are its staunchest supporters, have stopped any form of communication with me. To this day, I remain leery of nonprofits that I learn about only online.
It's because of my experiences with these two nonprofits that I remain a "self-directed" volunteer or advocate who works on my own, with no official ties to any nonprofit. I'm often mage aware that those who have official ties to nonprofits (and my network is full of them!) enjoy friendships, social connections, a sense of belonging and appreciation and recognition for their efforts, that you have a harder time finding without official ties to any nonprofit. But I'm not about to risk the prospect of identity theft to find these things.
Why do advocates do what they do? From my observation, there are those advocates who get into their work because of their educational backgrounds, training and skills, who do their work professionally. Many in my social network present themselves as CEO's of nonprofits. While I admire these folks to their single-minded dedication to their chosen professions, I usually don't identify with them. Then there are the many, many advocates in my network who present themselves as "survivors" whose past traumatic experiences have compelled them into advocacy. This makes sense, as a big way of finding healing and redemption from one's past lies in using it to strive to make a difference in the lives of others. This illustrates the Scriptural principle that God allows suffering in our lives so we can comfort others who suffer. And finally, there are those in my networks who are "everyday people" who share little about themselves except that they simply want to help. They are often the best advocates who are agenda-free and are often the most likely to support me back.
As I continued social networking and got in touch with my past, I began taking on multiple causes that I identified with, such as poverty, disabilities and injustice. I still supported the cause of missing people and crime victims but it no longer is it my exclusive focus. Many in my social network are "single cause" people who focus mainly on their own passion and whom I know I can't expect to show support for my multiple causes, unless any of these "meet with" their single passion. "One cause" advocacy is understandable in many cases, even though these are not people that I consider to be friends, as any positive experience with them is based on my support of their singular causes.
Social networking with many "locals" in my area, including family and friends, has had a way of revealing the "true colors" of so many of them. For in the course of posting about my causes, from early on, I have seen that many of them would quietly and without dislosure, remove me from their social networks. Incredibly, these online deletions came from "church members," including a pastor's wife, youth workers and several family members and others whom I believed were my "friends"! This has taught me that Facebook and other social networks do not of themselves ruin relationships. Social networking only unmasks people who already know each other personally, or think they do.
I have found out that there are many people who want no part of social involvement or causes, whether because they don't think they have the time, don't identify with any cause, don't think they can make a difference, or just don't care. And many "church members" tend to focus exclusively on their own relationships with god, family and their congregational life, forbgetting that Jesus tells us that we will be judged by our willingness to help the less fortunate and who combined His ministry with social involvement with all kinds of needy people.
This has been a most interesting two years.
Yes, in my younger days, years before social networking existed and before I discovered this social networking, I would write letters to legislators on behalf of those vulnerable groups of people for whom I felt laws need to be changed for. I would occasionally circulate offline, paper petitions and participate in sporadic fundraising projects. But two years ago, I discovered social networking and especially, Facebook. And I saw something of what advocacy is. At that time, I was trying to bury my past and to "put it behind me" by trying to forget, since I could make no sense of it, there was no word for many of my experiences and no community that I could identify with concerning my experiences. In other words, no sense of belonging. So, as a way of what psychologists would call "sublimation" or using one's inner conflicts by channeling them into positive action, I got interested in following true crime cases and missing person cases as I viewed a few on television. This was a way of getting my mind off my apparently unsolvable, unexplainable problems. Plus, I knew that serious crime could very well happen to my family and me and that I wanted to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem by inactivity. Plus, I knew the Scriptural principle that "If a man does not hear the cries of others in need, he cannot expect others to hear his cries in his own time of need." At the time, I was disgusted with the media for devoting hours to celebrities while they gave only minutes to missing people. I was frustrated with them for their tendency to sensationalize the few cases they did cover. So, because of these reasons, I set up a Facebook account and began "friending" those whose profiles indicated that they were advocates for the missing, exploited and the abused, or whose profiles indicates that they had missing loved ones.
All I can say is that entering the world of advocates through social networking has proved to be a lively education in itself. First, I learned, by trial and error, the right and wrong things to say that convey sensitivity and support for the families of missing loved ones or who had other needs, and what offended them or drove them away, making them see one as one of "the bad guys" even if I was just trying to help. I rarely had trouble with family members of the missing or murdered. The exception was a person who had a missing young person who was found deceased in a matter of months. Initially, I was on great terms with this person but this person became greatly angered with me one day with I posted on this person's page about a missing child who was also in this person's state. We exchanged messages that amounted to an online shouting match and the person's threat to have me reported and "stopped" because I was one of the "bad guys" and an "abuser" of families of the missing.
Advocates have shown themselves to be quite a mixture in their ability to tolerate differences. Early on, I learned, the painfully hard way, that there are quite a few advocates who have chips on their shoulders and little tolerance for differences and were quick to "give you the boot" and remove me from their networks, if they disliked my beliefs, my posts or my posts on their pages about my causes. When I was still new to Facebook, I posted on the page of a person who was a respected missing person advocate, sharing the posters of two "cold case" missing children whom I hoped that this person would circulate among those in this person's own social networks. I checked this person's page a while later, hoping that I had an effect. I did, but not the effect I wanted! The posts were removed. Upset, I sent a messagge to the person, attaching the links to my message and appealing to the person to share them. The person responded but not in a friendly way, chewing me out for imposing my cases and my agenda on this person, and so forth. Again, our messages back and forth became an online shouting match that resulted in this person blocking me, apparently for good. Lesson learned? Do not engage those who disagree with you online, as people's monds are made up and online arguments are a waste of time and almost always backfire.
I have found, in relating to advocates in my networks, that there are a number whom I count as warmly supportive and tolerant of differences and a number, like those, like the person above, who show little tolerance for differences or other beliefs or agendas. But the majority rarely, if ever, correspond with me, whether because they are "single cause" people, use social networks sporadically or for other reasons. I have found that my most awful experiences with advocates have happened when I applied for official volunteer positions with nonprofits that I learned about only online because of their online presence.
Well over a year ago, I applied to a nonprofit that was hugely praised by many in my social networks. Craving a community to belong to and wanting to make a difference on a different level, I applied to the nonprofit, where I was asked, among other things, a disability-related question. I disclosed my epilepsy (noting that it was under control) and my Marfan's Syndrome and, in the phone interview, my undiagnosed autism spectrum condition. I was very elated and thrilled when I was told that I was accepted. I set up a new, official page for the nonprofit and its staff and volunteers "friended" me there. Almost right away, the account was hacked and those in my network received links to suspicious, "cheesy" material in my name. Soon, I grew crushed and depressed when I was abruptly told that I was "not the right fit" for the nonprofit and that I was dismissed as a volunteer. I was told that the nonprofit had issues with the dynamics of my family situation as they believed it would affect my ability to "be an asset to our organization." To make matters worse, I was told that everyone linked to this nonprofit was ordered to "unfriend" me on both my accounts. I was heartbroken to see that I was also blocked by a number of them. As this had happened during the Christmas eason, I entered into a depression that saddened my holiday. To me, this was a case of cyberbullying that was made worse by the fact that I could not prove a thing!
A number of months ago, I applied to a second nonprofit, also one that I knew about solely from is online presence. I had corresponded with a few people who had official ties with this nonprofit and I admired their work on behalf of their chosen cause. So when they placed an online appeal for volunteers, I applied, striving for honesty and transparency in my application, though I saw the screening process as intrusive and excessive for someone who, in my case, was asking for the opportuntity to do online activites for the nonprofit. I also included a heartfelt piece that I hoped would explain my answers to the disability-related question on the application and any "red flags" that the nonprofit may find in my background. I hoped that I could receive empathy and understanding and a volunteer opportunity. After weeks of waiting, I got a curt phone call where I was told, unequivocally, that the nonprofit had no interest in my volunteer services. As this experience also happened around the holidays, I was left deeply distressed, disillusioned and turned off to the very idea of ever offering my volunteer services to another nonprofit. To this day, those in my network who have official ties to this nonprofit or who are its staunchest supporters, have stopped any form of communication with me. To this day, I remain leery of nonprofits that I learn about only online.
It's because of my experiences with these two nonprofits that I remain a "self-directed" volunteer or advocate who works on my own, with no official ties to any nonprofit. I'm often mage aware that those who have official ties to nonprofits (and my network is full of them!) enjoy friendships, social connections, a sense of belonging and appreciation and recognition for their efforts, that you have a harder time finding without official ties to any nonprofit. But I'm not about to risk the prospect of identity theft to find these things.
Why do advocates do what they do? From my observation, there are those advocates who get into their work because of their educational backgrounds, training and skills, who do their work professionally. Many in my social network present themselves as CEO's of nonprofits. While I admire these folks to their single-minded dedication to their chosen professions, I usually don't identify with them. Then there are the many, many advocates in my network who present themselves as "survivors" whose past traumatic experiences have compelled them into advocacy. This makes sense, as a big way of finding healing and redemption from one's past lies in using it to strive to make a difference in the lives of others. This illustrates the Scriptural principle that God allows suffering in our lives so we can comfort others who suffer. And finally, there are those in my networks who are "everyday people" who share little about themselves except that they simply want to help. They are often the best advocates who are agenda-free and are often the most likely to support me back.
As I continued social networking and got in touch with my past, I began taking on multiple causes that I identified with, such as poverty, disabilities and injustice. I still supported the cause of missing people and crime victims but it no longer is it my exclusive focus. Many in my social network are "single cause" people who focus mainly on their own passion and whom I know I can't expect to show support for my multiple causes, unless any of these "meet with" their single passion. "One cause" advocacy is understandable in many cases, even though these are not people that I consider to be friends, as any positive experience with them is based on my support of their singular causes.
Social networking with many "locals" in my area, including family and friends, has had a way of revealing the "true colors" of so many of them. For in the course of posting about my causes, from early on, I have seen that many of them would quietly and without dislosure, remove me from their social networks. Incredibly, these online deletions came from "church members," including a pastor's wife, youth workers and several family members and others whom I believed were my "friends"! This has taught me that Facebook and other social networks do not of themselves ruin relationships. Social networking only unmasks people who already know each other personally, or think they do.
I have found out that there are many people who want no part of social involvement or causes, whether because they don't think they have the time, don't identify with any cause, don't think they can make a difference, or just don't care. And many "church members" tend to focus exclusively on their own relationships with god, family and their congregational life, forbgetting that Jesus tells us that we will be judged by our willingness to help the less fortunate and who combined His ministry with social involvement with all kinds of needy people.
This has been a most interesting two years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)