Facebook - the mask of cyberbullies

“One’s dignity can be assaulted, vandalized and cruelly mocked, but it can never be taken away unless it is surrendered.” Those words of Michael J Fox came to light whilst I was researching a growing concern I have with verbal bullying and social media.

When I was a kid we moved around a bit living in smaller rural towns where the community was compact, connected and supportive.

Local occasions such as the A&P Show; school gala day; volunteer fire brigade fundraiser picnic; sports day and family service at church on Sunday were always well attended. After service, as much time was spent the church hall over a cuppa catching up, making arrangements to look after old Mrs Thing who had just come out of hospital, checking to see whose garden had the best flowers for next Sunday’s service.

In short, all I ever recall of my childhood was everyone working together and looking after each other in what upon reflection seems to be a romanticised view of life.

More recently we have seen the introduction of Social Media. What an amazing invention for keeping in touch, sharing information, generally communicating better and faster – got to be good right?

I am not a big user of face book, I certainly don’t participate in chat rooms unless I have to or they are professional forums.

What seems to have crept up on us is a more sinister use of this fantastic media – cyber/verbal bullying. A face book profile can be the site of a budding romance or the staging ground for conflict. When a conflict arises, some choose to air their grievances, or “drama” in full view of everyone, friends and people they have never met before.

And what is even more amazing is the sudden and almost immediate appearance of a raft of other people who are not directly involved, but seek to involve themselves often as expert advisors.

I thought I was just becoming over sensitive and decided to do some research. WOW. I am not the only person who has thought about this. In fact there has been a huge amount of research, especially the psychology of how and why people behave like this.

Earlier this year I had the privilege to be invited to hear Marcus Akuhata-Brown speak in Pukekohe. The Hall was packed with mainly educators. Marcus grew up on the East Coast near Gisborne.  He is an experienced educator. He has led a number of innovative programmes around the world, focusing on addressing the learning and development needs of youth at risk. [Learn more about Marcus here - https://tukaha.wordpress.com/profile/ ]

One thing that he said stuck with me: “Isn’t it interesting how we can all look at the same thing and see something different. And isn’t it interesting how each of us believe that what we see is the right view.”

And therein lies the issue of verbal and cyber bullying. It seemed to me that we always knew what Marcus said, but we used to find ways to work with each other, demonstrating respect for the other’s view, whilst trying to find a way we could meet at a place called mutually agreed understanding.

There’s been a lot of research which supports the view that placing a layer of technology between you and someone you know makes it easier to say things that you’d never say to their face. Often people feel bolder, ruder, or more empowered because they are not in fear of immediate physical reprisal in the online space.

Here are some other researched facts:

·      Using social networking sites can increase people’s stress levels, produce anxiety and negatively affect a person’s sense of self.

·      People whose friends posted cheery status updates tended also to have a more positive mood.

·      When participants increased their Facebook use, their state of well-being declined, while those who increased the amount of time they spent with people face to face had an increased sense of well-being.

Verbal cruelty is the weapon of the cyber bully. It is a behaviour persistently used to introduce fear, discrimination, and doubt on the person being ill-treated. Verbal cruelty is a kind of misuse of words where they suddenly serve as weapons instead of just a means for communication.

One tactic I have experienced personally is where some abusers say for an excuse that they did not intend something that they have said to be an insult. People who are abused (verbally or otherwise) know when they are being abused or not.

The advent of social media makes it so much easier for those with a tendency for abuse to do their dirty work and to have an audience as well. So what does the research tell us about such a bully?

Criticisms and allegations are a projection of the bully’s own weaknesses, shortcomings, failings and incompetence; every criticism or allegation is an admission by the bully of their misdeeds and wrongdoing. The bully’s criticisms and allegations, which are usually founded on distortion, blame and fabrication, are an opinion or fabrication for the purpose of control.

The serial bully likes to play people off against each other. The bully gains gratification from manipulating and watching others destroy each other. Serial bullies excel at deception and manipulation.

The goal of the abuser is to hurt and lower your self-esteem and they will say anything to achieve that goal, no matter how stupid or mean that may sound. Watching you get angry only delights the abuser and encourages them to continue, letting them know they are doing an excellent job.

According to the research, verbal aggression is mainly a result of a lack of argumentative skill. Listening anxiety and intellectual inflexibility are predictors of aggressive communication traits.

Michael J. Fox’s quote, “One’s dignity can be assaulted, vandalized and cruelly mocked, but it can never be taken away unless it is surrendered,” is the lesson I have learned as a result of my research.

Other observations include:

·      If you see someone being bullied, make it stop.

·      When people hurt you over and over, think of them like sandpaper. They may scratch and hurt you a bit, but in the end, you end up polished and they end up useless.

·      Stay away from people who gossip and spread rumours. They are choosing the path of emotional bullying and negativity.

And finally, I have forgotten who said this but it seemed to me the best advice to finish this blog on. “The problem with cyber bullying is everything. If you have something mean to say, look in the mirror and say it to yourself. Maybe you’ll think twice.”

Teachers and Performance Pay

Its a brave politician to mess with the teachers and their very powerful union. It is seldom there can be a rational and emotion free debate about teaching and the education system.
Dilbert said, "Change is good, you go first." I hadn't realised he was a teacher advocate.

I have talked about change in previous blogs so it is not my intention to repeat myself, and occasionally I have had a tilt at education and its importance. With the election looming, education is playing a large part in the campaign rhetoric. Of course there are many good points but anything one party mentions apparently can't be acknowledged as good sense by another party.

Education and community are featuring and I think it extremely courageous of National to be talking about performance pay and more professional management of schools. And in my next blog I'll talk about the misnomer of smaller class sizes (a radical change from my earlier views).

My initial work experience was as a teacher. My first year was in a great school where everyone worked as a team. However my second year was a very different story. The team spirit was not there and some of the teachers clearly wished they weren't there also. They turned up just before the 9.00am start bell and were in their cars and gone as soon as the last bell rang.

Apart from the first year teacher, I would have been the lowest paid there. I always made sure I was there by 8.00am at the latest to prepare the room, set up the day's programme and in particular look out for and greet the children who were dropped off early because their parents had to head off to work in the factories.

At the end of the day I would spend an hour or so most days visiting homes so parents saw me at least once during the term and a couple of times a year. I always had a great turnout at Parent/Teacher evenings and great support from parents for class trips. I organised their first ever gala day and the PTA were elated at the great support and especially the money we raised.  

You are probably getting my drift by now. My colleagues got paid way more than me because pay was service or time served based. Regardless of how much time and energy I put in, I would never earn as much as these less than enthusiastic colleagues until after long service their salaries would begin to plateau, and my service would mean that I would be an old man.   

You won't be surprised to know that when the offer came from Whitcombe & Tombs to join the private sector, I grabbed the salary and company car with both hands.

I loved teaching so much and what I learnt in training and experience has stood me in good stead for a variety of subsequent career opportunities. Wherever else I have been since, I have always felt effort, energy and more importantly performance was always well recognised.

The Prime Minister recently said, "We can all remember a good teacher." He is absolutely correct, but do the really good teachers remember being especially rewarded for being really good? In my opinion, probably not.

Is the debate really about Water or Farming?

Agriculture will be having to think there may be alternatives to our traditional approach to farming.

Recently I wrote a response to an article, ‘Dirty Dairying’ in our local paper. It was another episode in the barrage against dairying led by the Fish & Game Council. In the response I questioned the integrity of the urban based critics noting that whilst they wanted diary companies to take responsibility for all of the organisations they deal with, we weren’t told what responsibility those critics were taking for their environment.

How many of them went out to clean up the rubbish in their street, or recycled their grey water instead of using high quality drinking water to water their garden, wash their car and flush their toilet? Did any of them collect water from their roof? How much recycling did they do? Were they putting out less rubbish bags? Did they only buy items in their supermarket that are packaged in recyclable material? How often did they drive when there were public transport options available? How many of them are subject to similar standards and penalties on water management and emissions as are demanded of farmers?

The waterways of urban Auckland illustrate my point well – there are many, many ‘dirty’ waterways which have nothing to do with farming.

An agricultural commentator wondered after an encounter with a Greens Party supporter recruiter, why anyone would consider there is a world without science, logic and where economic and social realities are irrelevant. You could be forgiven for thinking there might be given the nature of main stream media on dairying, associating water issues solely with that industry.

Of course there is no reasoned, scientific or logical debate about water in the main stream media. In constructing my response to the dirty dairying article, all of my information came readily via the rural/farming papers including the revelations about the pollution of Lake Wakatipu and Auckland Harbour.

Queenstown, the poster town for New Zealand’s 100% Pure campaign, has been responsible for repeated sewage spills into pristine Lake Wakatipu. Apparently in the past 12 months there have been spills on average once every 6 weeks and twice in January of this year.

And the ferry operator in Auckland who was emptying ferry sewage tanks in the harbour. They dodged prosecution and claimed ignorance about the law. What makes matters worse, the operator had failed to use a $400,000 rate-payer funded pumping station to handle their sewage.  

I have suggested, the defensive and name calling counter attacks on the Fish & Game Council in the rural media were not the answer because whilst it may make the farming community feel better, no one else sees that, let alone cares.

A better tactic would be to render Fish & Game irrelevant in the debate. Another tactic would be to get a wider debate going on water and its quality as it is affected by urbanisation, especially in areas with fast growing urban populations, and more especially in areas where that growth is at the expense of first class productive agricultural land.

In short, rather than reacting, all of us advocating for agriculture should be working collaboratively from a strategy to (a) change the fundamental platform of the debate away from dairying to water quality and availability generally; (b) break Fish & Game’s throttle hold on the debate in the media and relegate their engagement from prime authority to that of minor stakeholder; and (c) urbanise the debate in the mainstream media.

Whilst the time might be right to ‘engage positively’, the farming sector need’s to set the plan and direction. Set it in a world where science, and logic apply and ‘where economic and social realities are relevant’. I would place a caveat on that philosophy of course.

What we learn from successful entrepreneurs is they ‘believed’ or had a vision long before there was any proof solid. If we relied solely on scientific proof, nothing could or would change quickly. Excitement and daring vanishing. So we might need to consider alternative views and ideas with open minds.

However, that will not be about cementing our traditional view of farming. The other side of this coin for agriculture will be having to think there may be alternatives to our traditional approach to farming.

And in my opinion, I suspect that might just be the real issue here.

Change – What’s the Big Deal?

I have often heard it said that people do not like change. If that is the case, it is probably more to do with how ‘those people’ have experienced change before, and the people who did it to them.

I am not a regular flyer, but when I do, I pull up the Air NZ magazine and look for the advertisement by 3 Wise Men Shirtmaker.

Whoever writes their adverts are clever. There is usually an introduction such as this in the March issue: “Change means to be different, to transform, to try something new. Sometimes change is scary, like when your voice dropped at Intermediate and you changed from a soprano to an alto between morning tea and lunch. Sometimes change is hard, like promising to do something about your Christmas belly, and now it’s March already. But every now and then when you embrace change, good things happen.”

What a refreshing take on change. I worry we have created an industry to scare the bejeebers out of everyone contemplating the prospect of some change.

Having policies and procedures is no doubt helpful for people who are in charge and have no empathy with those they seek to change, or are being done to. The problem with these policies and procedures is that they become automated and mechanical, with the major concern being to have ticked procedural boxes. In short the procedure becomes the focus not the people.

I have often heard it said that people do not like change. If that is the case, it is probably more to do with how ‘those people’ have experienced change before, and those who did it too them.

Henri Bergsen was a significant French philosopher, influential especially in the first half of the 20^th Century. He convinced many thinkers that immediate experience and intuition are more significant than rationalism and science for understanding reality. He said, “To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.”

We are pretty good at change as the shirtmakers pointed out. We have had lots of it and adjusted to it. In my case I was born. I didn’t have a chance to plan or have a say in that. I just had to go with it. That’s a pretty big change! For a while I was the complete and entire focus of my parents life. Pretty cool really. Then they had my brother. What was that all about? All of a sudden I am second fiddle. That’s a pretty big change.

Apart from a couple of minor incidents and with careful management by my parents, I adjusted to the change then damn it, they delivered another brother. Now I was third fiddle. Not only that, I was expected to take on big brother care and guidance responsibilities. What the…! All that and I was still getting the hang of this school thing. That was a bunch of change.

And so it goes on. Any one of us can tell similar stories of lives packed with change. Change is everywhere and by the time we get to work we are pretty experienced. So why is change so suddenly different because we are at work?

It becomes a problem at work when we are subjected to the insecurity of the manager who finds solace in the prevailing command and control model of management.  We don’t like change being done to us really so let’s just hold that simple thought and work from there.

Of course the greater issue is the sector of our community that is disadvantaged for one reason or another and those youngsters who do not get to use new technology and understand the exciting prospects in change from an early age.

There are those who can ensure their children get a quality education. There are a large portion of the population who have to rely on the public education factory system, and it’s a miracle they learn anything.

In my opinion, to ensure the quality of our ability to live and work in life where change is not an operational variable but a constant, we should start by dumping command and control managers whose first reaction to any issue is to restructure, but more significantly, ensure all of our kids get a quality education.

The Urban Pots calling the Dairying Kettle Black

An article under the heading “Kiwis dirty on dairying” appeared in our local paper claiming the results of the survey commissioned by the Fish & Game Council would shock many in the agriculture sector where “... the long held presumption has been that farming enjoys popular support of the wider public.”

That comment could only be described as naïve and stupid.

The Fish & Game Council have been running a campaign against dairying for some time so the latest attack would come as no surprise to the industry. And their campaign has obviously been successful with a sustained main stream media campaign described in Straight Furrow as ‘Farmers victims of overheated media’.

This particular survey and news piece is political in that it is driven by a political party to provide a focus on their agenda, and also by an environmental organisation whose favourite pastime is criticising the major economic provider in this country. There is nothing quite like creating an ‘enemy’ image to draw people to your safe political haven.

Don’t get me wrong, the significance of agriculture and the growth of dairying have presented challenges which are being addressed to meet all the various sensitivities we have become aware of through scientific development. Just as we have to face the negative impacts of intensive urbanisation and residential development on productive land. There can be no argument with those respondents who want to know political party policies on economic growth and the subsequent impact on the environment.

It was interesting that 73% or the respondents wanted diary companies to take responsibility for all of the organisations they deal with. What we weren’t told was what responsibility those respondents were taking for their environment. How many of them went out to clean up the rubbish in their street? How many recycle their grey water instead of using high quality drinking water to water their garden, wash their car and flush their toilet? Did any of them collect water from their roof?

How much recycling do they do? Are they putting out less rubbish bags? And do they only buy items in their supermarket that are packaged in recyclable material? How often do they drive when there are public transport options available? How many of them are subject to similar standards and penalties on water management and emissions as are demanded of farmers?

If you don’t grow all your own food and meet all of the same standards and requirements, there is the risk that your negative view of farming is hypocritical.

The Primary sector is predicted to increase exports by $5billion this year. That’s a 16% increase for the benefit of the entire country. Putting that increase into perspective, that is more money than the Government will generate from its entire asset sales programme. As one agricultural commentator has noted, “Farmers have achieved that largely on their own and after a severe drought. Along the way farmers have fenced waterways, done their best in tight financial times to maintain and improve soil fertility, increased the breeding efficiencies of their animals and put up with a tonne of media angst.”

The questions of the survey were clearly pointed towards a preferred answer, and also we do not know whether the respondents were urban dwellers or not, or what knowledge base respondents were drawing their answers from.

The perception of the respondents of the environmentalist’s survey of dairy farming in particular and agriculture in general is probably determined by what is largely a negative media focus on farming. 

How many read about Nuffield Scholar Natasha King’s goal to run Fonterra’s tanker fleet on fuel created from dairy cow effluent using algae technology? Her research found that algae driven bio-fuel production could be the most promising long-term solution to the problem of diary effluent. That technology would also help to make New Zealand more self-sufficient in fuel. The fact is you didn’t read or hear about it in mainstream media.

How many read about Shayne and Charmaine O’Shea who won the LIC Dairy Farm Award, the Northland Council Water Quality Enhancement Award and were the Supreme Award winners for the Balance Farm Environment Awards in 2013? Judges said that all aspects of their business were sustainable and profitable and there is an obvious balance of the financial, environmental and social aspects of their farming model. The fact is you didn’t read or hear about it in mainstream media.

Recently, in the NZ Farmers Weekly, Neal Shaw highlighted the disparity between how farmers and others are dealt with in pollution matters. He noted that Queenstown, the poster town for New Zealand’s 100% Pure campaign, has been responsible for repeated sewage spills into pristine lake Wakatipu. Apparently in the past 12 months there have been spills on average once every 6 weeks and twice in January of this year.

Because the spills were deemed to be caused by a third party – Joe public – Queenstown District Council has dodged a fine. “Any farmer smarting from an effluent fine could rightly expect the council to be hunting down the culprits blocking town sewers with fatty waste, just as offending farmers are quickly identified  when polluted waterways are detected,” wrote Shaw. However it appears it was simply too difficult for the council to deal with.

And how many heard about the ferry operator in Auckland who was emptying ferry sewage tanks in the harbour excusing it because they were busy over the summer. They dodged prosecution and claimed ignorance about the law. What makes matters worse, the operator had failed to use a $400,000 rate-payer funded pumping station to handle their sewage. Did you read or hear about it in mainstream media?

Subsequently there have been articles in the local paper by John Allen which provide a much more sensible and considered approach to sustainable dairying. He notes that the label ‘dirty dairying’ has more to do with unsustainable regulations around managing dairy effluent than it has to do with dairy farmers compliance with those regulations. Yes there are issues with water quality and the intensification of dairying. The challenge, he says, is to find solutions that are workable and to do it reasonably fast.

In my opinion we have to acknowledge the significant economic contribution of Agriculture in general and dairying in particular, get solution focused and stop the pointless name calling.