You're looking at it in isolation because you are not privy to the kids' social circle. What the gp is describing is a social cost imposed on the non-participant kid. If repeated often, this will lower their status within their social circle and (much like chickens) the least popular kids become the default target for emotional abuse and bullying. If they withdraw form their social circle to cut their losses, then they potentially become a general bullying target, because they are not part of a protective circle.
It's easy to be dismissive of these ideas, but there is an extensive and rigorous literature on network topology and dynamics. A good introduction with a strong quantitative/mathematical orientation is Social and Economic Networks by Matthew Jackson. Arguing on the basis of your own developmental experience in which significantly different conditions obtained (eg the non-existence/availability of social media or the internet) is equivalent to just wishing the problem away.
I'm a parent, and I was what you call a "non-participant" kid who was bullied when I was in junior high and high school. Here's the thing: School ends. It's a tiny part of one's life. I know, when you're in it, it feels like it takes forever, but once you graduate high school, nobody on earth gives a shit about where you were on the social totem pole. In the grand scheme of things, the cliques and social circles are entirely unimportant, and I plan to teach my kid that. Keep your eye on the prize. K-12 school is something you simply endure until you are an adult in the adult world.
I get what you're saying but we shouldn't escalate this into a type of prison gang situation, there's significant middle ground.
When the research is becoming clear that these dynamics and these years of a teen life cause so much harm, we can't be so fatalistic to say that giving in is mandatory.
Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting just giving in to it. But in contrast to the person I replied to, I think we should take teens' perspectives on their social cliques seriously, because even though the cliques don't have importance in society, they have impacts on those within, and our understanding of how cliques operate is surprisingly under-appreciated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary's_karate_club
Now combine the natural fact of cliques and fissures in small groups with the amplification/reinforcement effects that social media provides, and you can see the potential for acceleration/intensification of social stresses during formative years - like Mean Girls but potentially spread across the entire internet, or at least similar cohorts.
> But in contrast to the person I replied to, I think we should take teens' perspectives on their social cliques seriously
Of course I take teens' perspectives seriously. There really is no reason for you to personalize things in that way. You have talked about being accepting, yet you have consistently 100% dismissed the lived experiences of parents who disagree with your opinions.
I responded to your original comment of 'That's letting kids parent themselves' with an in-depth answer, and then you later went off on me in quite a sarcastic way. A very short comment like that doesn't give others very much to go by.
Kids setting their own bounaries and deciding what and when they can do literally is kids parenting themselves. Parents are more than just older people who ask kids what they want to do, tell them they are perfect, and give them money.
It's easy to be dismissive of these ideas, but there is an
extensive and rigorous literature on network topology and
dynamics.
Parenting through rigorous literature on network topology and dynamics?
Arguing on the basis of your own developmental experience
in which significantly different conditions obtained (eg
the non-existence/availability of social media or the
internet) is equivalent to just wishing the problem away.
Actually, it was a description of having fixed the problem, because it wasn't as much of a problem as people believe beforehand through network topology that simulates k-12 social circles. When parents love their children, talk to them, are privy to their kids' social circles, and make decisions in the best welfare of their children, those children are able to recover from the intense loss of missing what Stacy posted last night.
The problem comes down to putting kids in forced confinement with a bunch of other kids for 6 hours a day with no way for them to escape. Mandatory "education" of teens is harmful on the net. It wastes some of the most energetic and productive hours of life while teaching very few useful skills (and those could be taught in a fraction of the time).
To parent means to raise and nurture a child from infancy to adulthood,
providing them with love, care, guidance, and support as they grow and
develop. Parenting involves a wide range of responsibilities and
activities, including providing for a child's physical needs, such as
food, shelter, and medical care, as well as their emotional and
psychological needs, such as love, affection, and encouragement.
Effective parenting also involves setting boundaries and rules, providing
discipline when necessary, and teaching children important life skills,
such as communication, problem-solving, and decision-making. As children
grow and mature, parents often adjust their parenting style to meet their
children's changing needs and help them develop into independent and
responsible adults.
Problems are problems. On the one hand, you find out stuff yourself. On the other hand, sharing with your peers(parents) and getting info from them can help an enormous amount too. shrug
