Connect with us

The Silence Of Our Friends: Why Anti-Gay Bullying Survives

Published

on

“In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends”
— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whenever I need a quotation to encapsulate all that is right, wrong, or indifferent about the human condition, I turn to Dr. King. He implicitly understood and conveyed so eloquently the shame of humanity, the wealth to which humanity aspires, the possibilities for the future, and the failures for which we must atone. For nearly twenty years I have studied bullying behaviour in children and young people, and the scars that continue on into adulthood. Although I recorded the suffering of many people, young and old, who had been the victims of discrimination, and particularly homophobic discrimination, for a long time I did not consider the role played by those who stood at the side. I did not consider why “our friends” remained silent, why they did not intervene, and why they left their peers to the mercy of those “enemies” who taunted them relentlessly.

On April 17 I gave my inaugural lecture to an assembled crowd of over 150 friends, fellow academics, former colleagues and interested citizens to mark my appointment as Professor of Human Development. The title of my lecture was “A land of mythical monsters and wee timorous beasties: Reflections on two decades of research on bullying.”

While the purpose of my lecture was to reflect upon my career as a developmental psychologist, as I prepared my hour-long presentation I began to consider why it is that we, all of us, have allowed bullying to continue. Since joining Brunel University in 2008, I have wanted to understand that “silence” of which Dr. King so incisively spoke. I was also drawn to another quotation, attributed to the British politician, Edmund Burke, which continues to haunt my thoughts:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

But what does this mean? Does it mean that those who do something are bad men, or that those who shout the loudest are our enemies? I would hope the answer for many readers is a clear “no,” but for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBTs) I think the answer is a resounding “yes.” Often our allies have neither the resources nor the skills to combat the organised political and religious machinery that constantly seeks to deny even the most fundamental principles of equality before the law for those who walk a parallel path.

I call it a parallel path simply because, if we ignore just for a second the issues of sexual orientation or gender identity, what separates us? Do we not live together in the same streets, work together in the same firms, pay our taxes together, raise children together, and, if we are lucky enough, worship together? Do the children of LGBTs look any different from those of heterosexuals? Do LGBTs shop in different stores, eat different foods, or travel on different forms of public transport. No they do not. LGBTs are our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, neighbors, community leaders, political leaders, and religious leaders. They may not be “out” but they are there. They may find it difficult to support those who are “out,” but they are there. And of course we have our heterosexual friends. They too may deplore the violence and destruction that follow many LGBTs throughout their lives but what does it take to mobilize them? What is it that holds them back, like their closeted LGBT brothers and sisters?

I have spent the last three years questioning why those “friends” sometimes do not step up and challenge those who seek to discriminate. Social psychology tells us that bystanders may not feel responsible for the actions of others, particularly if they are one of many. Alternatively, the silence of others introduces an element of ambiguity about that which they have seen or heard which prompts hesitation or, at the very worst, inaction and complicity. But is that it?

If I am one of twenty people watching a beating, am I likely to stand by because I am only responsible for 1/20 of that which I observe? If no one else steps forward to intervene, do I presume that I cannot trust my eyes, and all that I see before me is a mirage? I think and sincerely hope this is not the path I would or have taken.

So why do we allow the persecution of others to continue? Is it because we believe in the justness of the punishment meted out on a particular individual or group? Perhaps! Is it because we are afraid of becoming victims ourselves? I think that is a distinct possibility. Is it perhaps because we do not know how to intervene or feel powerless to intervene? I believe this is where much of the answer lies, and it starts in school.

Suicide Risk in Boys Who Are Bystanders (N=554)

Suicide Risk in Girls Who Are Bystanders (N = 520)

Based upon the research I have conducted, I believe powerlessness combined with an emotional response to the victimization of others is at the heart of our silent friends’ inaction. They are themselves traumatized by what they see. They are, to all intents and purposes, co-victims. In my study conducted with 1,074 young people in secondary schools in the United Kingdom (average age 13.5 years), a colleague and I considered those factors that predicted suicide risk among young people who had witnessed bullying.

Our data showed that powerlessness (red) played a significant role in predicting suicide risk (28% for boys and 31% for girls) with fear (green) accounting for about 7% for both boys and girls.

For boys, being a bully also played a part (blue), much more so than for girls (8% and 1% respectively). The remainder (purple) has yet to be understood.

If results similar to ours are found in other studies, they suggest that some of our silent friends may not be our friends at all. Sometimes they become our tormentors in order to save themselves from the wrath of the bully. However, others (perhaps the silent majority) may be ill-equipped socially or emotionally to intervene when any form of persecution happens.

History tell us that all too often we have accepted the leadership of bullies and their doctrines with little more than a whimper because we are, at heart, social animals that conform to the herd. Yet to challenge the herd often means that one is branded an outsider, a trouble-maker, or an activist. Alas, activism itself is not always founded upon a principle; it is often born of an experience, a tragedy, or an injustice that shakes the very foundations of a life, a family, a community, or a nation. Activists start from a position of vulnerability and need the support of those “silent friends,” and we need to find ways of empowering those friends so they act on principle rather than in response to a tragedy.

 

Ian Rivers is Professor of Human Development at Brunel University, London. He is the author of ‘Homophobic Bullying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives’ (Oxford, 2011), and has researched issues of discrimination in LGBT communities, particularly among children and young people, for nearly two decades.

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Quiet Part Out Loud’: Hegseth Slammed for Lashing Out at CNN’s War Reporting

Published

on

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is facing strong criticism for his remarks during Friday’s press conference, where he lashed out at CNN’s war reporting before mentioning the four U.S. service members killed overnight.

Punchbowl News’ Briana Reilly reported, “Hegseth opens DOD briefing criticizing media coverage of the Iran war.”

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” Hegseth said of CNN and the CEO of Paramount Skydance, which is set to acquire the parent company of CNN.

Reilly also reported that the defense chief mentioned “the tragic crash” of the KC-135 aerial refueler that killed four service members at the end of his remarks.

On MS NOW, Willie Geist, speaking to co-host Jonathan Lemire, noted the contrast, saying that when General Caine took the mic he “immediately talked about the four American service members killed in Western Iraq.”

Geist also noted that it took Hegseth “several minutes” to mention them.

READ MORE: Melania Trump Hails Herself as a ‘Visionary’ at Women’s History Month Event

Hegseth, he added, “first complained about the media, whined, and started to rewrite cable news banners, suggesting what they should say versus what they have said based on reporting.”

“And then, later, got to the acknowledgement of the death of those four service members — sort of tells you the whole story about where his mind is, deeply worried about the way the war is being perceived, the way he’s being talked about, perhaps, that seemed to be throughout the briefing, front and center to him.”

Critics slammed Secretary Hegseth’s remarks.

“It seems Secretary Hegseth watches the ongoing tv coverage of Iran given the editorial criticism he opened the briefing with in regard to the on screen graphics/chyrons he’d prefer be used to describe the state of the battlefield,” noted CBS News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Margaret Brennan.

“Just confirms they expect the new [CNN] owner to serve as state sanctioned media. Only pushing the admin’s narrative,” observed attorney Fernando Antonio.

Barbara Starr, a former CNN Pentagon and national security reporter for two decades, blasted Hegseth:

“Listen up Mr. Defense Secretary. CNN has had personnel in combat zones for decades. CNN has had killed and wounded and all with lives changed forever. You have a legal and moral obligation to defend the free press, even the ones you don’t personally like,” she wrote.

READ MORE: GOP Senator Demands TSA Funding—Then Blocks Bill Funding TSA

She suggested that it would be “extraordinary” if he countered what he didn’t like with facts. “Flood the zone with actual information rather than vanity statements. Always possible Mr. Ellison wont appreciate your public comments about him,” she continued.

Starr added: “Bottom line for those busy looking at photos of themselves…the press corps will endure regardless of affiliation or ownership. All should be accredited and admitted to the Pentagon briefings regardless of affiliation. All any reporter needs is pencil, paper and a phone.”

Calling the Secretary’s remarks “Ominous,” political science professor Brendan Nyhan warned: “Competitive authoritarianism watch.”

Speaking to Hegseth’s David Ellison remark, health care activist and nonprofit cofounder Melanie D’Arrigo wrote: “Really shouting the quiet part out loud that Trump’s billionaire allies are buying up news publishers and controlling social media and AI platforms to push Trump’s lies and propaganda.”

Democratic congressional candidate Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, and an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, called Hegseth’s remarks “fascism.”

READ MORE: Trump Has ‘No Idea’ If Iran War Will Win Him Nobel Peace Prize

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Melania Trump Hails Herself as a ‘Visionary’ at Women’s History Month Event

Published

on

First Lady Melania Trump, in remarks at a White House Women’s History Month celebration, hailed herself as a “visionary” as she gave advice to guests.

“As a visionary, I know success is not born overnight, but rather takes shape after long, and sometimes challenging process,” the First Lady said. She also described herself as “a mother, humanitarian, philanthropist, and entrepreneur.”

Mrs. Trump also mentioned her new film, “Melania,” saying that she “shaped its creative direction, served as a producer, managed post production and activated the marketing campaign.”

Noting that “curiosity is a core value” that keeps her “ahead of the curve,” she said that her “unrestricted mindset” has led her to “build across very different sectors,” including, “fashion, digital assets, publishing, accessories, skincare, commercial television, and of course, filmmaking.”

Sharing advice and personal experience, Mrs. Trump told the audience, “Often alone at the top, I follow my passion. Listen to my instincts, and always maintain a laser focus.”

She also declared that the “strength of America is closely tied to the role women play in shaping their children’s character, education, and morals. The values cultivated within our communities shape the voice and vision of our next generation.”

“A woman’s influence strengthens our democracy, capital markets, and time-tested business institutions,” she said. “Across the country today, women are finding unique ways to balance career, ambition, and family.”

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

‘Seems to Be No Plan’ Expert Says on Trump Securing Iran’s Nuclear Material to End War

Published

on

President Donald Trump says he is bombing Iran so it “does not obtain a nuclear weapon,” but a veteran nuclear policy expert is blasting his war strategy, warning there appears to be no plan to secure Iran’s nuclear stockpile — a failure that could leave the U.S. in the “worst of all worlds” while Iran is “holding all the nuclear cards.”

“This may be the worst planned war in history,” Joe Cirincione told Mother Jones. “I see no sign that they knew what they were doing. It seemed to be just literally bomb, bomb, bomb. There didn’t seem to be a plan for how you were going to get at that particular material. If there is one, it hasn’t emerged.”

He warns, “there seems to be no plan for how to end this war.”

“Almost all wars end by some sort of negotiation,” Cirincione says. “If you project forward several weeks, it’s going to have to end. Usually there’s some sort of arrangement that’s made to end a war.”

But, he says, President Trump “seems to be flying by the seat of his pants and making this up as it goes along,” so “we just don’t know.”

READ MORE: Trump Has ‘No Idea’ If Iran War Will Win Him Nobel Peace Prize

Cirincione warns that “it’s possible that Trump has put us into the worst of all possible worlds. He’s made it impossible for us to have a negotiated solution to this. And we can’t use any military means to solve the problem. So we’re left in this worst of all worlds, which is Iran is holding all the nuclear cards at the end of this war.”

Mother Jones reports that “with his war in Iran, Trump has created a big, possibly catastrophic problem: A half-ton of highly enriched uranium, which can be made bomb-ready, is somewhere…out there—available for use by Iran’s new regime or perhaps not fully secured and susceptible to theft or expropriation.”

So, what are the options?

“The United States either has to conduct some high-risk military maneuver where we would land people from the 82nd Airborne or an Israeli commando unit into the site at Isfahan and try to find the uranium, go down hundreds of meters underground, retrieve the uranium and pull it out or perhaps destroy it on site,” says Cirincione. He calls it “a high risk proposition.”

“What you’re left with is really the only other solution where we started: a negotiated deal.”

President Barack Obama signed one with Iran. Trump tore it up during his first term.

With a negotiated deal, “You have to get Iran’s agreement to secure that material, declare it, allow inspectors, and then either secure it under inspection or downblend it—the process in reverse, bring it down to a 3-percent or 4-percent level. That’s the only two solutions to this problem.”

READ MORE: ‘Trying to Look Cool’: Patel Roasted for Inviting UFC Stars to Train FBI Agents

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.