When Support Groups go Bad #2

There has been a lot in the press recently about bulling and I will start this post by stealing a bit of background from a former post on this topic.

Although there is still a scientific debate on the nature and definition of bullying, most researchers understand this behavior as aggression characterized by:

  1. causing intentional harm,
  2. repetition, and
  3. an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim.

Bullies appear to derive satisfaction from inflicting injury and suffering on others, seem to have little empathy for their victims, and often defend their actions by saying that their victims provoked them in some way.

Bullies often come from homes in which physical punishment is used, where striking out physically is seen as a way to handle problems and where friendships and warmth are frequently lacking. Sociologists agree that children who have been bullied tend to become bullies themselves. Researchers also agree that all bullies share two key personality characteristics: Low self esteem and profound insecurity.

Boys and girls bully differently but it is still about power and control.

Boys will beat you up and feel they have won because youre the one with the black eye and bleeding nose. But they have won nothing. The victory is shallow and exists only in their minds.

Girls, on the other hand, tend to choose rumors, criticism and ostracism as methods of bulling. In its own way, this kind of ‘psychological warfare’ can be more damaging and harder to combat than the simple physical abuse traditionally preferred by boys.

Bystanders also play a role in bullying:

  • The enforcers join in and assist the bully.
  • The re-enforcers encourage the bully by observing and laughing.
  • The outsiders avoid the bullying by staying away and not getting involved for fear of losing social status or being bullied as well.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of bullying is that it doesn’t end with childhood. Childhood bullies often become adult bullies. Their methods become more subtle but their basic behavior patterns remain the same.

We have recently been hearing a lot about adult bullying in newspaper and magazine articles addressing office bullying and, in particular, ‘the bully boss’. The bully boss’s leadership style is usually described as ‘my way or the highway’ and he or she almost always surrounds him/herself with multiple enforcers and re-enforcers.

The bully boss is also characterized by a top-down management style. She/he consults the employees under her/his authority only to inform them of decisions already made at the executive level; never to seek their guidance or opinions. If the employees choose to remain ‘outsiders’ and simply ‘go with the flow’, the bully boss is successful in maintaining his/her position of power and control. If, however, any employee dares to question the bully boss’s policies or actions, the employee can expect to face the boss’s retribution. Retribution may come in the form of reprimands, threats and (in extreme cases) material punishments such as demotions or suspensions.

The bully boss can also – and all too often does – appear in the leadership of service clubs, volunteer-based groups and other non-commercial organizations. Almost invariably, the bully boss, as President of the club, surrounds him/herself with enforcers and re-enforcers and alienates any non-outsiders – anyone who disagrees with their top-down policies and poses a threat to their power and control.

So it was with Gender Mosaic.

After getting rid of the Secretary and Media Relations Officer, who threatened her power and control, Kelly Ann felt invincible and set her sights higher – on removing the Webmistress and Founder.

I wonder there the idea come from to phony a mail breach, and release it to the private e-mail list and implicate the Founder in this event.

No proof was ever forthcoming that there had been any mail system breach in the Gender Mosaic online system, as alleged by Kelly Ann and her regime – the pretext on which the Webmistress/Founder was fired.

This brings us to the 1st vice president, Rachael. She holds a very special place in my life as she is only the fourth person that I have ever disliked on sight in my life – even before I had talked to her.

My assessment of the previous three proved to be right on the money, and my Spidey sense on the fourth one quickly proved accurate, as well.

She was, I believe the instigator of the insidious plot to remove the groups Founder and shares the discommodation of the former executive.

More to come.


~ Judy Kearns



One Response to “When Support Groups go Bad #2”

  1. Materace Says:

    Very well written 🙂 My rating 5 / 5 !!!

Leave a Reply