I keep wondering what you think bullying is, at the school level?

Because at my level, it was physically violent - and I was not in a school where this was considered "a problem". Everyone knew who the bullies were, and there was a collective culture of silence because the school could not possibly enforce proper physical safety on the grounds or around it. You avoided them and stayed away from them, because they absolutely knew who they had a physical edge on, and were absolutely willing to do nothing but escalate.

We don't need to "teach children to deal with bullying" we need god damn physical security around and within schools, and a panopticon of surveillance to make sure that justice happens swiftly and accurately.

I knew one kid who stood up to the bully and then was jumped by the whole gang after school. They used steel pipes to break a leg and knock out teeth. Of course there were no "witnesses" as "snitches get stitches" in that old neighborhood.

Now... i was also heavily bullied at school and at some point my solution was to show everyone of the "gang" (not in the US sense... more a clique of 13 - 15 year old wannabe-gansters) that i am total psycho. I waited for weeks until i got the chance to grab the main bully alone and unprepared, surprised him, beat him heavily while keeping total silent while doing so only to tell him afterwards in a somewhat calm way that it could be weeks, months or years, but i would GET him if he continues to harass me.

Worked for me, never had any problems with his clique afterwards.

If the environment is that uncivilized, the usual solution is every kid joins a gang, for mutual protection.

That is a sad comment on the adults in the community failing to provide proper parenting, families, and civil government.

Pretty much. The "adults" were only a few years removed from childhood anyway. The ones that were around at least.

I know several people who endured violent bullying as kids until they learned how to stand up to it.

Teaching children to deal with physical bullying includes self defense lessons and also involves teaching them not to be passive if they witness physical bullying.

Maybe the bully is the biggest kid in class but it won't matter if every kid knows how to defend themselves and also every kid will team up to pull them off of someone.

And then the bully, because for some reason they're still in the school - because you seem to think its "going too far" to enforce the rules in anyway other then mob justice - cries about how it's unfair, and then jumps one of the kids at the bus stop after school.

This is a stupid idea that doesn't scale, and continues the cycle of victimization: the victim gets to take on all the risk of physical retaliation. Maybe the next punch kills someone? It's impossible to know. Now they get to be on trial for murder while everyone declares they "just don't see how little <bully> could have deserved this".

An 80 lb kid who "knows how to defend himself" against one weighting 150 still loses the fight. The benefit of defending oneself is mostly that the bully often moves on to easier pickings after pummeling the one who fought back.

Yet some school cultures are entrenched, and extend from the broader community. If people are taught from everywhere else that bearing witness is dangerous then groups of bullies will have free reign. Changing that culture can be like pushing a rock up hill.

Solutions may have to be drastic, like electronic surveillance or sending troublemakers to different schools.

A panopticon of surveillance? That’s absurd. Anyway, a lot of bullying actually happens online these days. It can be much more effective than physical bullying.

Why is surveilling schools with cameras absurd? A societal panopticon is, but visual surveillance of an entire school, surrounding streets and buses? That's already happening, it's just not coordinated. We've pushed the responsibility onto kids with cellphones, so school authorities can pretend they "don't know" what's going on.

not only universal surveillance, but swift and accurate justice.

We cant even manage the latter a dedicated judicial system.

It’s traditional for a father to teach his son that he should defend himself. He may lose the fight, but respect is gained. And, you’d be surprised, many bullies are actually cowards and will fold early.

There are many novels directed at young people that show how to behave in these situations. It’s not clear that anyone reads them anymore.

It’s important to work these things out early in life, before the “events” get too serious. Refer to the Wikipedia article on “The Dozens”.

(I have no idea how mothers traditionally taught their daughters to stand up to bullies, but I’m sure they did.)

You should learn about bullying from science, not from out of fashion novels. Try out your intervention in a dozen randomly selected schools, try a different one (or do nothing) in the others.

This has in fact been done, and nothing resembling your approach, what one might call the "Manhood YouTube channel" approach, has done well at all.

Not an "intervention", but part of communicating basic civilization to one's children. People aren't born civilized.

Do you have a reference for your claim?

You propose people, other people, should do a specific thing. That's an intervention you're proposing.

Yes, I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread the book that is school bullying 101, "Bullying in school: what we know and what we can do", Dan Olweus, 1991. It contains the results of the first large scale intervention studies on preventing bullying in schools.

I’m saying that when fathers raise their sons in the age old way, the results are better.

Or, maybe you think raising your kids not to be savages is an “intervention”?