Tuesday, February 26, 2013

The Liberal Sexist Bullying Democrats

For all their talk about equality, humility, integrity and respect, the Liberal Democrats are just another male-dominated, bullying, hypocritical, sexist gathering of a self-perpetuating arrogant elite. We have known for years that what they say while campaigning in Oxfordshire isn't quite what they say in Cheshire, and what they pledge for the governance of England isn't what they actually do in government in Scotland. We've seen their candidate in Eastleigh - Mike Thornton - voting for plans to build thousands of new homes on green spaces while promising ‘to protect our precious green spaces and countryside’. We know they are two-faced hypocrites. But never before have we had a glimpse into their bullying culture of misogyny and sexism.

Whatever Lord Rennard has or has not done - which is now the subject of the Specialist Investigations Command of the Metropolitan Police - the evidence of lies and cover-up emanating from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is astonishing. One day Nick Clegg denies knowing anything; the next day he knew nothing 'specific'. One day there's 'nothing to hide'; the next day there's been a 'screw-up'. One day it's all being blown out of proportion and the media must calm down; the next there are two full-blown internal investigations, one headed by a QC (who happens to be a former head of the LibDem Lawyers' Association).

But two things now emerge which have shocked Liberal Democrat women (and quite a few men) the length and breadth of the country. Firstly we have the crass and insensitive comments of the party's spokesman for Maidstone and the Weald, Jasper Gerard, who said the issue has been ‘blown out of all proportion’ and was ‘no Jimmy Savile’. These sentiments were echoed by LibDem peer Tony Greaves, who described the complaints against Lord Rennard as ‘mild sexual advances’, adding ‘half of the House of Lords’ had probably behaved in a similar way.

And now we also learn that a Helen Jardine-Brown, a former head of fund-raising, had raised concerns about Lord Rennard four years ago. From The Telegraph: 'Officials told her that Mr Clegg would call her directly to discuss them, but she never heard from him. Less than two months later, her post was allegedly cut, shortly after she told her employers that she was pregnant. She eventually reached a £50,000 settlement conditional on her silence.'

This is an astonishing and damning revelation. The poor woman must have been emotionally distraught, but they sacked her and bought her silence with £50k. It is textbook bullying and harassment.

Bullies manipulate, humiliate, denigrate, undermine, distort, fabricate, lie convincingly and then lie again to cover their lies. And then they project all of their inadequacies, shortcomings and inappropriate behaviours onto their innocent victims with ferocious psychological violence, just to avoid facing up to their own inadequacies and doing something about them.

Bullies are arrogant, audacious, and exert a superior sense of entitlement. They are practised in the art of deception, deflection and obfuscation: if ever they are called to account, they will flit from subject to subject without ever answering the question, and spontaneously fabricate further as the moment requires, knowing full well that further investigation of their additional lies is not likely. And so they continue their vile and vindictive campaign when any official internal process has been summarily dismissed. And they even lie on oath, perfectly convinced of the infallibility of their words and the untouchability of their person. They are impregnable, unaccountable and immovable; perfectly charming in public and before any inquisitor or judge but thoroughly evil in private.

They tend to be superficial and awkward in conversation, though possessed of exceptional verbal dexterity. Their laugh is forced, hollow and insincere. In any discussion in which they sense danger of exposure, a voice may be raised slightly to warn off, speaking may become ‘firmer’, or the conversation will be abruptly terminated. They will alienate the strong employees, often by overlooking them for promotion or recognition, and they will ‘look after’ the fawning and obsequious.

They tend to be emotionally retarded with a pathological inability to empathise; they may storm out of rooms or rant when they don’t get their way. They are prone to mimic, repeat and plagiarise in order to maintain their façade of working excellence and semblance of normality. They cannot be trusted with personal information or confidences, and are likely to use any employee’s weakness (like bereavement or illness) as a means of undermining and destabilising.

Bullies can exhibit an unhealthy obsession with sexual matters: they see everything in terms of sex discrimination, harassment or paedophilia. Any employee they wish to bully can expect to have their morality and integrity questioned and can be made to feel like a sexual pervert. They are profoundly prejudiced (gender, race, religion, sexuality) but present themselves as the epitome of rectitude and fairness.

They criticise without foundation and often behind one’s back. They divide and rule by sharing ‘confidences’ with other employees and then swearing them to secrecy. They poison the minds by manipulating perceptions. Their own sense of superiority persuades them of the orthodoxy of their leadership style and methodology.

Serial bullies despise anyone who enables others to see through their deception and their mask of sanity. And they are programmed to discredit, neutralise and destroy. No-one knows more about bullying than the bully, and so the victim is often accused of bullying the bully by trying to raise a legitimate grievance.

The bully is spiritually dead. They may loudly profess their faith and use all the right words, but their soul is devoid of life. Their invincibility has made them their own god, and God is recreated in their image.

That is the bully. They exist in all walks of life, in all companies, at all levels. They exist in political parties, not always in the Whips Office. But exposing and attempting to bring them to account can be a suicidal pursuit, as Liberal Democrat women have clearly found.


Blogger Tony B said...

I think that description of bullies fits most politicians, managers, etc pretty well. Bullies run the world, unfortunately.

26 February 2013 at 07:54  
Blogger len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2013 at 08:17  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Unfortunately bullies seem to inhabit, to a greater extent than normal occupations, politics, NHS, media, local government and charities.

Key reasons are lack of accountability, lack of business imperatives and the presence of groups who can lead "outside authority".

Interestingly, just look at the bullying that went on over the Gay "marriage" vote!

26 February 2013 at 08:17  
Blogger Corrigan said...

See the gout's still playing up, Cranmer. Just as an aside, did you take this attitude towards bullies during the glory years of the Thatcher rampage, or has it only developed since the LibDems spoiled the Tories "turn" in office?

26 February 2013 at 09:02  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

To be fair, they are equal opportunities bullies, so far as gender is concerned. Cyril Smith made sure of that.

26 February 2013 at 09:15  
Blogger John Henson said...

You could be writing about the Church of England.

" ...bullying culture of misogyny and sexism... "? That just about sums us up!

26 February 2013 at 09:17  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"The bully is spiritually dead. They may loudly profess their faith and use all the right words, but their soul is devoid of life. Their invincibility has made them their own god, and God is recreated in their image."
Indeed, Your Grace, and they will usually justify their actions according to a higher purpose.

Ad Astra, indeed!

26 February 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"Bullied" & "abused" - along with "hateful" & "bigoted" : words becoming so over-used to have they have become devalued (as the words "holocaust" & "ethnic cleansing" are becoming in certain debates).

I have no idea whether the accused in this story is a sexist abusing bully or not - and to be honest - I can't be bothered to read the details.

I do detect a trend though - one that the CofE is an archetype of. i.e. the emasculation of leadership and institutions. The "Crushed testicle" leadership referred to in Deut 23v1

Sometimes people just have to "man up".

26 February 2013 at 09:30  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Mr Corrigan has the right sow by the ear .....

26 February 2013 at 09:31  
Blogger Flossie said...

Wow! This is harsh, Your Grace! I cannot dispute any of it, but like the other posters here I think the same criteria could apply to just about every other institution.

Having said that, I despise the LibDems more than the other political parties because they pretend to be something they are not, being neither liberal nor democratic.

26 February 2013 at 09:38  
Blogger bluedog said...

'They may loudly profess their faith and use all the right words, but their soul is devoid of life.'

Got it!

26 February 2013 at 09:42  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

This sounds like the book of Jude.

Such excellent analysis is helpful for all of us to check the excesses of our sinful bullying natures.

26 February 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Bullies are also apt to write long articles on how dreadful bullying is . . .

26 February 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Laurence Boyce.

I make no reference to the article but you do have a point that many bullies now adopt, in this age of offence taking, faux outrage and equal opps the role of victim in order to persecute people who hold different opinions.

Anyone who holds a differing point of view and seeks to promote it is a bully, racist, homophobe, islamophobe, fascist.....

Denunciation is a long held tactic of the Marxists and minorities who seek to cow others into acquiescence.

26 February 2013 at 10:44  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Guess who:

“The modus operandi of these thought police … is to brand as racists and anti-Semites any writer who dares to venture outside the narrow corral in which they seek to confine debate. All the while prattling about their love of dissent… they seek systematically to silence and censor dissent.”

Takes one to know one, some might say.

26 February 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger Flossie said...

I do think this is symptomatic of a wider malaise. We Brits are a pretty tolerant race by and large, but thanks to the machinations of the left (LibDems included) we are being set at each others' throats, all in the name of tolerance of course.

26 February 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger Berserker said...

I hear that The World at One (a bullying lefty but entertaining radio programme) were trying to blame the Tories for the timing of the revelations just before the Eastleigh By-election.

I think the BBC would be nearer the mark if they looked at the unhappiness of many LibDems with the current policies and leadership of their party of whom they believe that Nick Clegg is too close to the Conservatives. Of course, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. The LibDems are gonners and will do very badly at the next GE.

Lord Renard has actually kept the Lib Dems going as a political force. It was he who as Returning Officer got the youthful Nick Clegg his seat in Hallam, Sheffield by refusing to consider the late postal votes for - wait for it - Chris Huhne!

Alison Smith - one of the complainants against Lord Renard said: "This culture is absolutely intolerable. It is going beyond the pat on the knee a lot of the time, and even if it was just the pat on the knee, who gets to decide what is an acceptable advance and what is not an acceptable advance? The power dynamics in these situations are quite scary."

Quite. Or rather, what does she mean?

Would they quite so hot and bothered in La Belle France?

26 February 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger David Hussell said...

A thought provoking article, perhaps slightly over stated, I feel, but that's just my taste. It is though increasingly difficult to identify the bully. They have always been, by their nature, good at hiding, but nowadays, often those who pose as the fashionable "victim", can use relativism as their shield and weapon, thereby inviting, precipitating, the bullying of those who believe that there is such a thing as "truth", by recruiting the media and the sheeple to attack them. So the gentle, the spiritually strong and the true are bullied, and become the victims, whilst the true bullies pose as victims. Clever in its deviousness, don't you think ?

26 February 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

I ate a curry, and I liked it… (Actually, it was revolting, but I am too afraid to say so.)

Flossie's proposition is interesting, but I don't think that the English are an especially 'tolerant race'. We have, though, been forced into a kind of national schism on the issue, having to pretend (at least in public) that we really are jolly, jolly tolerant. Hence the public enthusiasm for all things ethnic and diverse (Olympic opening ceremony a case in point).

This is a kind of monolithic state sponsored cultural bullying, but visions of tolerance rarely overshadow reality, it seems.

26 February 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Nick said...

From the first day Nick Clegg was elected LibDem leader I suspected this was a man who believed in nothing. My suspicions have been confirmed many times.

As I said in a previous post I think the LibDems are some of the worst hypocrites around. That is speaking as a reformed LibDem supporter. Underneath the veneer of "freedom of speech" and "equality" the party is a spineless self-serving invertebrate that actually stands for nothing except filling its own belly.

Despite this, I am still suprised at these revelations of sexism in the party - I thought they may have at least tried to practice what they preech.

26 February 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Nothing wrong with bullying. How could there be. Bullying gets consensus. Consensus means policies formed. Policies means government, or more accurately the right for you to govern over us.

Give the Inspector a bully leader every time.

Gentle souls have no right to complain. Gentle souls do not belong in the world of politics...

26 February 2013 at 13:25  
Blogger Nick said...

Office of the Inspector General - when the LibDem vote collapses in the next GE, please stand for the leadership - I might even be persuaded to support the party again

26 February 2013 at 13:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

What you have said about Nick Clegg could apply to any of them, Nick! Principled politicians are very quickly sat upon by the party machine. Just look at how Iain Duncan Smith caved in to gay marriage. I am sure he doesn't really believe it is a good thing.

Ars, perhaps I am looking at life through rose-coloured specs. Brits don't tend to hold bloody revolutions too often, or wheel out the guillotines like the French, but I suppose looking back through history we have had our fair share.

On the subject of bullying generally, and sexual misdemeanours, I think it is only fair to say that the rules have changed somewhat. I belong to the generation of women which took responsibility for their actions. We were taught that (men being weak creatures who could not control their lusts)(sorry chaps) if you dressed provocatively and behaved wantonly you had to expect a certain amount of - um - masculine attention. I think a lot of men haven't quite caught up with the new rules of victimhood which some younger women employ.

Most of my working life has been spent in offices, travelling on the London Underground in the rush-hour (a groper's paradise, if there ever was one) and tended to take the sexist banter and wandering hands in our stride, meting out instant punishment (a sharp implement such as an elbow in a painful place was always quite useful) and getting on with our lives, rather than using the incident for political gain at a later date.

26 February 2013 at 13:35  
Blogger len said...

'Give the Inspector a bully leader every time.'

This is quite an evolutionary attitude ...survival of the strongest and the weakest go to the wall?.

No need to point out the leaders who followed this principle?.

It is a great indicator of a Society( and of the individual) not how it treats its strongest and fittest but how it treats the weakest.

26 February 2013 at 13:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The advantage of a bully leader is that he knows the next bully in waiting is, well, waiting to take his place. The next bully would convince his followers that the incumbent bully is maltreating the weakest, if that were the case. Ah, to be a righteous bully seeking to right the wrongs of a disreputable bully. How can you fail to bully your way to the top in that situation !

26 February 2013 at 13:50  
Blogger Andrew Evans said...


You've demonstrated effectively that the bully exists all over the place (and sometimes disguises him or herself as a victim).

And then gone on to tell us that's a reason to despise and reject the Lib Dems in particular, and some people within the Lib Dems especially, even though, on your own reasoning, we can't really be sure yet which version of events is the "bullying" one.

Seems to me like an exercise in self-righteousness and a massive failure to uphold His Grace's belief in the universality of sin and hypocrisy as well as your constant please for people not to judge others before the trial....

26 February 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Flossie I agree - we don't revolt, just simmer with resentment, putting up with the most appalling leaders, stewing away in our misery with only the blogosphere upon which to vent ourselves...

Even the bloody French occasionally lop off a few deserving heads.

Oh, the indignity of it all.

26 February 2013 at 14:11  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Its obvious to Eastleigh voters that the timing of the Rennard accusation is a plot around the by election, but whose plot? I assumed a Tory plot at first but the accusers are Lib Dems. Isthis an internal plot against Cleggy and/or an anti-Tory false flag to win sympathy votes for the Lib Dems? Its academic for me I already postal vote d UKIP but I'd love to know.

26 February 2013 at 15:10  
Blogger Nick said...

I'm not sure it is a plot Steve. The LibDems are already dead meat politically. They tend to lose their deposits these days, and come fifth place behind "Miss Whiplash" or some joker in a Scooby-Do costume

26 February 2013 at 15:16  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed,
It doesn't take genius level IQ to suspect that both the Lord Rennard accusation and the Cardinal Keith O'Brien one are either politically constructed events or ones whose timings are manipulated for political purposes. I am always suspicious regarding coincidences, but the facts may come out, eventually, maybe.
Oh and well done regarding the Ukip support, it's our best lever for escaping from EU totalitarianism and regaining our freedoms.

26 February 2013 at 17:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "travelling on the London Underground in the rush-hour (a groper's paradise, if there ever was one)"

Incidentally, that doesn't just happen to women. I've been groped (against my will!) by a man on the Tube. I handled that one rather well at the time, I thought.

26 February 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Nice one Flossie. More power to your elbow.

26 February 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

There has always been scandal. Are we any worse than before? I don't know but certainly we live in an age of moral pluralism so there is a lot of confusion and we have no consensus about whether the alleged behaviour of Renard is something to get concerned about. As a nation we have cast off the sweet yoke of Christ to pursue instead our lusts and our greed. As has been mentioned earlier, every human institution appears to be tainted today and lot's of our leaders don't have the decency to resign presumably because they have been brought up in a society which has always voted for the bribing promises. We are reaping what we have sown. Even supposing Renard is guilty what difference will it make to the direction our society is moving in?

26 February 2013 at 18:38  
Blogger Flossie said...

Oooh, DanJo, what did you do? A knee in the goolies usually does the trick.

I simply have to post a quote from the gloriously un-PC Rev, Dr Peter Mullen:

I’m still in shock after listening to that Lib Dem lady describe to Martha Kearney on The World at One how she was pestered by Lord Rennard. According to her distressing report, the less-than-noble Lord brushed against her in a bar, kept moving into chairs beside her “as they became vacant.” It could have been worse, madam: he might have tried to move into the chairs while they were full. And finally, the extreme of his depravity, he invited her into his room for a late night drink. And I always had Lord Rennard down as a paragon of morality – he is, after all, a trustee of the charity Action on Smoking and Health. And they don’t come more virtuous than that. I must say, knowing their social policies, I wouldn’t accept a late night drink from a Lib Dem peer. Next thing, he’d be asking me to marry him.

26 February 2013 at 19:34  
Blogger Flossie said...

I have never met Lord Rennard. I know nothing at all about him. But looking at his photo - I don't think I would be taking up his invitation to late-night drinkies in his room.

A girl has built-in antennae, you know.

26 February 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I heard the description on the radio earlier of a vaguely brushing leg and hand which followed movement away. Hmmm. On the tube years ago as a callow youth, I felt a hand cup one of my buttocks so I knocked it away. It returned. So I knocked it away. It returned again. So I grabbed it, crunched the fingers together hard, and pushed it away. It returned. So I said in a loud voice to my mate at the other side of the door area: "Paul, this fecking bloke to my right keeps grabbing my arse!". Everyone stared at him. The hand moved away and didn't return. I'm pleased to say I did not need counselling. :)

26 February 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was once propositioned by a very muscley older bloke in the showers in Purley swimming pool too, asking if I wanted to "soap him up". Again as a callow youth. I recall vaguely smiling, saying very primly "No, thank you" and moving off to the changing room. No harm done either, though I did get dressed very quickly without drying off when he came in too.

26 February 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, plenty of queer folk around, what !

26 February 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger uk Fred said...

The onbe point that no-ne seems to have mentioned is the slur that these complaints cast on the female LimpDum MPs. I have heard the question asked as to how many of them succumbed to his advances to get a winnable seat.

26 February 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One must agree with Flossie and her built in whatever. If a gal goes to the press over a salacious male superior, it’s usually because said bulk has failed to deliver after a considerable sacrifice by the young thing.

tis the way of the world, you know !

Tally ho !

26 February 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger non mouse said...

The bully is spiritually dead. They may loudly profess their faith and use all the right words, but their soul is devoid of life. Their invincibility has made them their own god, and God is recreated in their image. Outstanding, Your Grace! Therein lies serious danger, of course: unless the perpetrator somehow develops a conscience and grows up.

I say some of Shakespeare's villains realistically illustrate the unredeemed type ... the eponym of the Scottish Play springs first to mind. He's a man who joins an army so as to satisfy his lust for - er - power (and that's before we even consider the liaison with his soulless mate).

When multiple bullies gang up, furthermore, that's your righteous army gone wrong.

Right now, our marxist-inspired politicians work effectively at a mental level. Much of the "spiritual murder" [defamation] we witness today manifests their work.

26 February 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

By the way. While those tactics for stopping harassers' games may work on bullies of lesser rank, I suggest being very careful with those of a higher echelon and greater cunning. They neither forgive, nor forget. Their revenge can ruin lives.

Many ladies here will be familiar with the experience of being 'chased round the sofa' by someone who doesn't understand the word 'No.' I recall hearing about a variation on the theme, where a high-ranking personage did the same thing at a social held in a yacht club bar -- only he chased the woman around the room.

Trying to be polite, she kept backing off; but he persisted and never answered her question: "Why are you doing this?" Once they got to the bar, he seemed to think he had her cornered. Being fairly agile, however, she sidestepped his final lunge. So he lost his balance and landed with his face in the beer trough. The silence was profound; no one there laughed.

Did the man do this on purpose - knowing exactly where the bar trough was? Was it merely coincidence that the woman never saw any of the people from that gathering again? Why was it that, when she met other mutual acquaintances ... well, they set a high-ranking lezzo on her? Who's to say? To solve that difficulty, though, she sought advice from a lawyer. In the end, it seemed wiser for her to leave the area entirely. I haven't heard from her since.

Oh - and the gentleman who took her to the party? He's still near here; she never saw him again.

26 February 2013 at 23:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

mouse. Politics is a serious business. Rather a bit too rough for retiring intellectual fair minded ladies. Let each gender excel at what they do best, what !

26 February 2013 at 23:27  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: The gentleman in that story married someone who was related to the aggressive lesbian.

OiG: I'm not sure what you mean. Though I rather wish the elecorate could find a way to call the bluff on the Lib/Lab/Cons. Why pretend that any of the parties are worth voting for?

26 February 2013 at 23:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Be careful old chap - lest you find His Grace one day judging men and angels.

27 February 2013 at 08:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 February 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Non Mouse,

Well when me and my sister have that sort of problem,knowing a few bits of Krav Maga goes down well (having British relatives who have martial arts skills and my Israeli relatives who have been or are in the IDF are a great help when it comes to self defence martial arts).

27 February 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

My dear mouse. An observation if you will. A children’s playground. At the boys end it’s rough and tumble. At the girls end it’s sensibilities and subtle intrigue. If the girls go over to the boys end, it’s still going to be rough and tumble there. No point going to teacher about it, they knew what they would find there. Politics is the boys end. Politics attract bullies. Bullies make good politicians.

Nicely wrapped up that one, don’t you think ?

27 February 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger len said...

I suppose power attracts those who feel the need to dominate and intimidate others to make up for inadequacies they perceive within themselves.I suppose it compensates(in their minds at least)

28 February 2013 at 00:33  
Blogger non mouse said...

OiG @18.01: Nicely wrapped up that one, don’t you think? If you're happy with the packaging --that's your prerogative! However, you've obviously not spent much time around girls' schools.

Eventually I decided nastiness must be fairly evenly distributed among the genders: 6 of one and half a dozen, sort of thing. Same goes for goodness, talent, brainpower, strength of character, etc: though I know you won't agree.

As for what constitutes a 'good politician' --- needles and haystacks spring to mind. However, it must be my day for cliches, and hope does spring eternal.

Hannah @ 12.49: -- my appropriate cliche here: each to his or her own! Emma Peel set the example for some, I daresay. However, my point is that politicians and game-players think a few moves ahead of the gambit. It's the nature of the beast, as it were.

Well. I guess that's my quota for now. Evenin' each!

28 February 2013 at 00:40  
Blogger Manfarang said...

non mouse
Isn't Shades of Grey all the rage now?

1 March 2013 at 04:01  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Plenty of real bullies in east Belfast and west Belfast for that matter.

1 March 2013 at 04:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 March 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger non mouse said...

I had trouble seeing what you're talking about, Manfarang. Checking the words online, I could not imagine why you would associate them with me or my points of view!

But --- If your comment related to the filth young people read nowadays; well, most I meet don't even read. Some of those who do favour The Hunger Games, which I tried but could not stomach. Though, noting the voracious ambition the title suggests, I suspect the story might present aspects of bullying.

Further consideration led to: were we to investigate, we would find that bullying still flourishes in sports (school and otherwise, as it does in the US). Tom Brown's Schooldays springs to my mind as an archetype. Subsequent to it are all those films about US High School bullies: John Hughes portrayed the convention well. The inhuman products of this 'socialisation' move on ... to impose their wills on the adult world.

We know that such fiction reflects reality, and clearly our dominant culture has housed the habit from ancient times (?Achilles) - its being perverted 'survival' behaviour. It is also apparent that Christianity has continually fought the practice but never actually cleared it out.

Come to think of it... isn't the Crucifixion itself a comment on bullying? As the "Dream of the Rood" describes it, Christ ascending the Cross models the brave warrior. In every way, He is the antithesis of the bully.

Perhaps that's why we always learned that bullies are cowards? Their motivation is fear, I do believe - and that is surely related to His Grace's brilliantly conceived point: The bully is spiritually dead. They may loudly profess their faith and use all the right words, but their soul is devoid of life. Their invincibility has made them their own god, and God is recreated in their image.

So we all know bullies can't win in the end, whatever they do.

2 March 2013 at 18:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

‘Bully’ is an interesting word, don’t you think mouse ?

It’s a word of the victim. If you find the need to use it in politics, you should not be in politics. If you can’t assert yourself in a way that would justify others to view you yourself as a bully, what damn use are you in that game ?

2 March 2013 at 18:43  
Blogger non mouse said...

Took me a while to figure that one out, also, OiG.

You may agree with writers like Judy Blume.* I understand she had a practical take on the issue, which seems to suggest: until victims learn to defend themselves against their tormentors, no other earthly intervention will save them. That doesn't mean they have to be copy-cat bullies, though. Didn't laws and such once help us control that sort of continuum?

As to "bully" being the "word of a victim" -- sometimes victims of bullies don't survive to use the word against, e.g., murderers or rapists. So I say you define an incomplete way of looking at perversion: for bullying surely springs from perversion and cowardice. However, there always are victims where bullies seek to thrive.

Haven't time to check the etymology beyond Chambers - who suggest it might be German or Dutch. You'll have to do the rest for yourself, if you're genuinely interested.

However, I do note that sub-uses include those referencing the beginnings of (e.g.) hockey; we've already covered that connotation by associating 'bullying' with power-mongers and their strategies!

Blume, Judy. Blubber. New York: Random House (Yearling), 1974. (She has a website, too; it's easy to find).

2 March 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

mouse. The Inspector re-iterates his stance. “Bully” is a word the vanquished uses – no one else. Of course, the word will be bandied about in circles, and the wise fellow will place his hand on his sword should he come against anyone to whom the word is applied.

Take the long and the sort of your contemporary and possible adversary, what !

This natural behaviour from, let’s face it, a natural born leader, will upset faint hearts. In it’s purest sense, it does not immediately attract the criticism of perversion or cowardice. far from it, those latter attributes are often applied by the envious.

Anyway, back to the post in question. The Inspector recommends that any future lady subject to unwanted sexual attention prod the thing in the stomach and say “Why aren’t you squealing with delight like the pig your are ?”

3 March 2013 at 00:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 March 2013 at 16:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

Inspector: and I re-assert mine - so perhaps we will agree to differ.

I'll merely support my position by pointing out that those who contemplate the mechanics of how these types develop don't disagree with the pictures presented by Shakespeare in the Scottish Play. See, furthermore, how that 'mother' would treat her babies.

For children who survive, the likes of Blume and the Hugheses illustrate the progress of aetiology. The formation of twisted branches starts very young. It is also not dissociated from the homo- practices His Grace discusses today: as comments there also suggest.

Indeed, some Shakespeare scholars who are well-qualified to know -- both academically and empirically -- state that the homo- thing is about dominance. Much Shakespeare (and all that vile Restoration stuff) reflects the principle. And then there's Morte d'Arthur ....

As you yourself indicate today about sportsmen -- unadulterated types try to draw the line between themselves and those who take dominance too far. The same line serves bullies and strong leaders. Actually, the latter emerge from the practice of defence against bullying.

That resistance too must start with the young, and I think Blume develops the argument as to how the campaign can succeed. She suggests not only that children resist the corruption, but that peer-onlookers should not feast on the carrion. Instead, they should learn to act against the hunting and soul-killing: both within the group concerned, and by seeking support from outer authority.

Now when the outer authority conspires to promote the corrupt ... ah. And so to today's thread.

3 March 2013 at 17:08  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: Sir, sensible ladies don't go around sticking their fingers in people's stomachs.* Such crude and physical behaviour lowers one to the level of the person who would drag a lady down: it plays into the tactics of the prime mover.

Escaping intact to fight another day. Making sure that other decent people know what is going on. Those are prime objectives.

Aids to achieving the goals: Ridicule works well (harassment manifests the overweening Pride of the bully); leaving doors open, and otherwise never being shut in alone with harassers (who are bullies, defamers, liars); working for companies that have anti-harassment programmes (authority and law thus discourage victimisation); and living in cultures that promote 'zero-tolerance' of harassment (non-authoritarian culture of the majority must, with due warning, disable bullies). The 'stepping aside' move usually works well too - though it can go wrong, so be careful.

Beyond that the rest of us should: help train all young and vulnerable people (not just girls) to defend themselves. Sadly, in today's world, that increasingly involves dealing with issues they are too young to understand.

Childresn should learn that, once they grow up, they'll need to apply the knowledge gained from all this training. They should know that harassment is about Power: it is a permutation of the drive that produces murderers and rapists - and it has nothing to do with gender, race, age etc:
-isms are just excuses. However, in this case, the s** thing serves for asserting power.
Do some of those things, and we'll prepare youngsters to recognise bullies before we 'elect' them to political power over us.

All best, then, Inspector. NON mouse.
*They also don't call people 'pigs' -- hogs mayn't be nicest animals, but they shouldn't be insulted by such comparisons.

3 March 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger non mouse said...

sigh. "children."

3 March 2013 at 18:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Interesting dissertation from you not a mouse. And yes, your points are taken on board in full and considered. Which just goes to explain that out of all Cranmer’s communicants, the Inspector remains the wisest of the lot, albeit in his own far from humble opinion.

Toodle pip, old thing !

3 March 2013 at 19:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older