Well, I guess some gegeneration was to be expected. I'm surprised CJ hasn't jumped in with a "me too" to Severin's post, but otherwise, it's followed a predictable course.

Personally, I think far too much thinking is being done on this topic, which is a very simple one at root.

Among schoolboys, it is almost always about establishing hierarchies and protecting them. Throughout history, an essential aspect of a secure hierarchy is the creation of an "other", who can be blamed for failings of the leadership, or simply vilified in order to distract from them.

For young boys that "enemy" is often girls: "Eeew, she touched you, you've got girls' germs", while for older boys it is usually a boy who can be easily portrayed as different. R0bert touched on that when he mentioned the small boy who hit him for the approbation of his mates, while TRTL showed a similar dynamic in his own example. The less stable a group, the more the bullying is likely to occur, as different boys within the gtoup may initiate bullying to improve the security of their own position. That was the dynamic at Churchie, which I have mentioned previously.

As boys grow to men, the nature of the bullying changes, but the reason doesn't. Severin asks: "why an adult male would feel the need to continue bullying if they already have high status in our society", which misses the point. Bullying between males is not usually about wider status, but about establishing relative status between the two.

It seems that some thought I was having a go at CJ with my previous remark about dogs, but I was serious. If a new dog is introduced to a pack, the alpha is not compalcent, but immediately goes out of his way to establish dominance. The only way the newcomer can avoid a fight is to submit to some lesser bullying, such as denial of access to the food or the bitches.

Males of any social species are pretty simple in their motivations.

Overthinking this subject won't illuminate it.

R0bert, I think you misinterpret Houellebecq's intent. His jibes are always based on what he percieves as the hypocrisies of posters.

Thus he says "R0bert really agrees with Anti, but can't acknowledge that because he also wants acceptance by some others", which is a common social problem, I'm sure you'll agree. I can recall biting my tongue in lots of meetings when the boss made it clear that he didn't approve of something said by someone with whom I agreed. According to some of the links put up, that is submitting to bullying, but I prefer to think of it as choosing one's battles.

Further, this site, like any other discussion, needs provocateurs who offer views that challenge received wisdom. I couldn't think of anything worse than a forum in which everyone was in violent agreement, or spoke entirely at cross-purposes to each other in an effort to avoid offence.

I make an effort to make my posts thoughtful and entertaining. I try not to post views I'm not prepared to defend. Whether I hold any of those views as deep personal truths is a moot point. I reckon Houellebecq does the same, despite his protestations. Long may he continue to do so.

Allow me CJ,

As an anthropologist you make a great garbologist anti-woman.

'Males of any social species are pretty simple in their motivations. '
No doubt that is an apposite analysis of yourself, but real men with a functioning brain are much more complex.

'Overthinking this subject won't illuminate it.'
I don't think anyone is ever very concerned about antiseptic 'overthinking' anything.

anti,

'Bullying between males is not usually about wider status, but about establishing relative status between the two.'
As in the Mark Latham handshake?

R0bert

I don't hold grudges - at least not for long. One of 2 points I was trying to make about bullying is:

1. Fear of losing power; this is what I was leading to with my comments about why someone who has attained status, power, money, whatever, would continue to behave with contempt towards his fellow beings.

People who have a tenuous grip on their self-worth often remain bullies into adult-hood - despite education or intelligence.

This leads me to considering people like Rupert Murdoch - is there ever enough power? Is not amassing more wealth than can be spent in a lifetime, while others live in poverty from which they have no hope of extricating themselves, not a form of abuse?

Severin I bet when you play monopoly you don't charge rent and give rent subsidies to other players when they have to pay rent.

I think looking at your living standards, you are abusing every poor kid in Africa, and exploiting all the poor workers in China.