FROM BULLYING TO GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE: UNDERSTANDING HIDDEN MECHANISMS OF OPPRESSION IN SCHOOLS

SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 197 FROM BULLYING TO GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE: UNDERSTANDING HIDDEN MECHANISMS OF OPPRESSION IN SCHOOLS Ipah Saripah Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17852528 Abstract. Schools are often perceived as safe spaces for learning and personal growth; yet beneath their surface, subtle patterns of domination and discrimination frequently persist. This paper explores the psychological and social mechanisms that transform everyday bullying into more systemic forms of gender-based violence, particularly among adolescents. Drawing on field experiences and empirical studies in Indonesian schools, the discussion highlights how social norms, peer hierarchies, and cultural silence contribute to normalizing aggression, marginalization, and emotional suppression among girls. The paper employs a socio-ecological and counseling framework to analyze the interplay between individual vulnerability, school climate, and broader cultural values. It further examines the mental health implications for victims, bystanders, and perpetrators, emphasizing the need for a whole-school approach in prevention and intervention. Beyond identifying the roots of oppression, this paper calls for a paradigm shift—from punitive responses toward restorative and gender-sensitive counseling practices that empower students and educators alike. Ultimately, creating safe educational spaces requires not only legal and institutional mechanisms, but also the transformation of mindsets that sustain invisible forms of violence. Keywords: bullying, gender-based violence, oppression, mental health, resilience. Introduction Schools occupy a unique and paradoxical position in society. They are simultaneously sanctuaries of learning and sites of violence, spaces of empowerment and arenas of oppression, institutions designed to nurture growth yet often complicit in perpetuating harm. The discourse surrounding education consistently emphasizes schools as protective environments where children develop intellectually, socially, and emotionally. Parents entrust their children to these institutions with the expectation that they will be kept safe. Governments invest resources with the promise that schools will cultivate responsible citizens. International frameworks, from the Convention on the Rights of the Child to the Sustainable Development Goals, underscore the fundamental right of every child to education in a safe, inclusive, and equitable environment. Yet beneath this idealized veneer lies a troubling reality. For many students, particularly girls and those from marginalized groups, schools are spaces where they encounter various forms of violence daily. The violence may be overt—physical assault, sexual harassment, explicit bullying—or it may be subtle and systemic—microaggressions, exclusion, the normalization of gendered hierarchies. What makes school-based violence particularly insidious is precisely this tension between expectation and reality: violence occurs in the very spaces meant to protect, perpetrated not by distant strangers but by peers and sometimes even by those in positions of authority. The betrayal inherent in such violence compounds its psychological impact. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 198 In Indonesia, the scale and severity of school-based violence, particularly gender-based violence (GBV), has emerged as a critical concern for educators, policymakers, and child protection advocates. Data from the Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI) reveals a disturbing pattern: reports of violence in educational settings have consistently increased over the past decade. In the period between 2020 and 2022 alone, KPAI documented 2,473 cases of violence in schools, with 37.5% involving elements of gender or sexual violence. These official statistics, however, represent merely the visible tip of a massive iceberg. Research consistently demonstrates that the vast majority of incidents go unreported, hidden beneath layers of shame, fear, institutional denial, and cultural silence. The reluctance to report is not merely individual but deeply systemic. Rifka Annisa Women's Crisis Center (2019), in a comprehensive survey of 450 female high school students in Yogyakarta, found that 84% had experienced at least one form of gender-based violence in school, yet only 23% had reported these incidents to teachers or parents. The reasons for silence are multiple and intersecting: fear of not being believed, concerns about being blamed, anxiety about retaliation, worry about damaging the perpetrator's future, and the pervasive cultural message that such experiences should be endured privately rather than exposed publicly. This culture of silence is reinforced by institutional practices. Schools, concerned with reputation and public image, often discourage reporting or minimize incidents when they are reported. Suryaningrum (2022), in a study of 15 schools across Central Java, found that only 19% had written protocols for handling sexual violence, and among schools that did receive reports, 68% of teachers responded with minimizing language such as "it's just a joke," "don't be too sensitive," or "you might have misunderstood." Such responses not only fail to protect victims but actively teach students that violence is acceptable and that institutional authorities cannot be trusted to provide safety or justice. While bullying and gender-based violence are often treated as separate phenomena in educational discourse and policy, this artificial separation obscures their fundamental interconnection. Bullying—defined by Olweus (1993) as repeated aggressive behavior involving an imbalance of power—frequently serves as an entry point into more explicitly gendered forms of violence. What begins as seemingly gender-neutral teasing or exclusion often evolves to incorporate gender stereotypes as weapons, eventually crystallizing into violence that is fundamentally about enforcing gender hierarchies and punishing those who violate gender norms. Consider a typical trajectory: A female student might initially be bullied for general characteristics—her academic performance, her physical appearance, her socioeconomic background. As the bullying continues and intensifies, gender increasingly becomes a focal point. She is mocked not just for being "too smart" but for being a girl who is "too smart," transgressing expectations of feminine modesty. Her clothing becomes a site of surveillance and commentary, her body objectified and evaluated. Comments that began as mean-spirited jokes evolve into explicitly sexual harassment. Physical boundaries are violated through "accidental" touching that progresses to deliberate groping. The violence that might have started as individual cruelty becomes systemic oppression, as other students learn to participate in or at least tolerate the harassment, and as institutional authorities fail to intervene effectively or at all. This progression is not inevitable—it can be interrupted through effective intervention— but it is disturbingly common. The transformation from bullying to gender-based violence reflects and reinforces broader societal patterns of gender inequality. Schools become microcosms where patriarchal values are learned, practiced, and normalized. Boys learn that dominance, aggression, SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 199 and objectification of girls enhance their status among peers. Girls learn that their bodies are public property subject to commentary and violation, that their safety depends on restricting their behavior and appearance, and that speaking out brings further harm rather than protection. Understanding gender-based violence in Indonesian schools requires attention to both the universal dynamics of gender oppression and the specific cultural, religious, and socioeconomic contexts that shape how these dynamics manifest. Indonesia's complex cultural landscape— encompassing hundreds of ethnic groups, multiple religions with Islam as the majority faith, rapid urbanization alongside persistent rural poverty, and ongoing tensions between traditional values and globalized modernity—creates particular conditions for how gender-based violence in schools is enacted, experienced, and responded to. Patriarchal values remain deeply entrenched across Indonesian society, though their expression varies by region, class, and religious interpretation. The concept of kodrat (natural disposition or destiny) is frequently invoked to justify gender hierarchies, positioning women's subordination as divinely ordained or naturally inevitable rather than socially constructed. Such beliefs permeate educational institutions, shaping everything from curriculum content to teacherstudent interactions to peer dynamics. The notion that boys are naturally more aggressive while girls are naturally more passive becomes not merely a description but a prescription—a template that students are expected to conform to, with significant consequences for those who deviate. Religious conservatism, particularly certain interpretations of Islamic teachings, has intensified in recent decades, contributing to increased policing of girls' behavior and appearance in schools. Debates over mandatory religious dress codes (jilbab), gender-segregated classrooms, and restrictions on girls' participation in certain activities are ongoing. While religious values can and often do support gender equality and protection from violence, conservative interpretations frequently emphasize female modesty and seclusion as primary means of maintaining social order, thereby placing responsibility for preventing male violence on female behavior rather than addressing male aggression directly. The concept of aib (shame or disgrace) profoundly influences responses to gender-based violence. In a culture that highly values family and community honor, the disclosure of sexual violence is often seen as bringing shame not primarily on the perpetrator but on the victim and her family. This shame culture creates powerful incentives for silence, as families may actively discourage reporting to avoid social stigma. Bennett et al. (2018), in comparative research across Southeast Asian countries, found that Indonesian families were among the most likely to prioritize avoiding public disclosure over seeking justice or therapeutic support for victimized children. Yet Indonesian culture also contains resources for resistance and transformation. Values such as gotong royong (mutual cooperation), musyawarah (consensus through deliberation), and tepo seliro (empathy and respect for others) can be mobilized to support gender equality and violence prevention when reframed and activated by progressive educators and community leaders. The challenge lies in distinguishing between cultural practices that genuinely reflect community wisdom and those that perpetuate oppression under the guise of tradition. This paper employs Bronfenbrenner's (1979) socio-ecological model, adapted specifically for analyzing gender-based violence in schools. The socio-ecological framework posits that human development and behavior cannot be understood solely through individual psychology but must be analyzed across multiple nested levels of social context, each influencing and being influenced by the others. SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 200 At the individual level, we examine characteristics of victims, perpetrators, and bystanders—their beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, psychological vulnerabilities, and capacities for resilience and change. This includes understanding how gender socialization shapes self-concept, emotional regulation, and interpersonal behavior from early childhood. At the relational level, we analyze interpersonal dynamics—how peer groups form and maintain hierarchies, how romantic relationships are initiated and conducted, how friendship networks can serve as sites of both support and oppression. Particular attention is given to how masculine peer groups police masculinity through aggression toward both girls and nonconforming boys. At the organizational level, we examine institutional factors within schools—policies and their implementation (or lack thereof), school climate and culture, teacher attitudes and behaviors, availability of counseling and support services, and the physical environment of schools. This level also encompasses how schools interface with families and communities. At the societal level, we consider broader cultural norms, religious and traditional values, legal frameworks, media representations, and economic structures that shape gender relations. This macro-level analysis is essential for understanding why certain forms of violence persist despite individual good intentions and even institutional efforts at reform. The genius of the socio-ecological model lies in its insistence that effective intervention must address multiple levels simultaneously. Individual counseling for victims, while necessary, is insufficient if school climate remains toxic and cultural norms continue to legitimize violence. Similarly, policy reforms at the national level will fail without attention to implementation challenges at the school level and resistance at the cultural level. The model thus provides both an analytical framework for understanding the complexity of gender-based violence and a strategic framework for designing comprehensive interventions. This paper has three primary aims. First, it seeks to illuminate the hidden mechanisms through which everyday bullying in schools transforms into systemic gender-based violence. By analyzing the psychological, social, and cultural processes that enable and normalize such violence, the paper makes visible dynamics that often remain unexamined precisely because they are so normalized. Second, the paper examines the consequences of gender-based violence for all those involved—not only victims but also bystanders and perpetrators. The mental health implications are severe and far-reaching, affecting not only individual wellbeing but also educational outcomes and life trajectories. Understanding these impacts is essential for motivating institutional and societal commitment to prevention and intervention. Third, and most importantly, the paper proposes pathways toward transformation. Drawing on empirical research, case studies from Indonesian schools, and theoretical frameworks from counseling psychology, trauma studies, and gender studies, the paper advocates for a whole-school approach grounded in restorative rather than merely punitive principles, and in gender sensitivity rather than gender blindness. The goal is not simply to reduce incidents of violence but to transform the underlying cultures of domination and silencing that enable such violence to flourish. Methodology This article employs a literature review approach to analyze the mechanisms of transformation from bullying to gender-based violence in Indonesian school contexts. 2.1 Search Strategy Literature searches were conducted across multiple academic databases and repositories: SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 201 1. Google Scholar 2. ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) 3. ProQuest Education Database 4. Portal Garuda (Indonesian publication database) 5. Institutional repositories of Indonesian universities Search terms included: "bullying Indonesia," "school violence," "gender-based violence," "kekerasan berbasis gender sekolah," "perundungan remaja," "school climate Indonesia," "peer harassment," "counseling intervention," "sexual harassment schools," and combinations thereof. 2.2 Inclusion Criteria Literature was included if it met the following criteria: 1. Published between 2018-2025 2. Focused on secondary school contexts (middle school/junior high and high school) 3. Related to bullying, gender-based violence, or school violence 4. Empirical studies, research reports, or official policy documents 5. Indonesian context or Southeast Asian contexts with similar cultural characteristics 6. Published in peer-reviewed journals, by credible research institutions, or by government agencies 2.3 Data Analysis Data obtained from literature were analyzed using thematic analysis: 1. Identification of patterns and mechanisms of transformation from bullying to GBV 2. Categorization based on ecological levels (individual, school, community) 3. Synthesis of findings regarding impacts and interventions 4. Critical evaluation of gaps and development of recommendations 2.4 Conceptual Framework This study employs the Socio-Ecological Model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) adapted for the context of GBV in schools, with four levels of analysis: 1. Individual: characteristics of victims, perpetrators, and bystanders 2. Relational: peer group dynamics and social interactions 3. Organizational: school policies, climate, and practices 4. Societal: cultural norms, gender values, and social structures 3. Findings 3.1. The Continuum: From Bullying to Gender-Based Violence Bullying and gender-based violence (GBV) are often understood as separate phenomena, yet they exist on a continuum. Olweus (1993) defines bullying as repeated aggressive behavior involving an imbalance of power, while GBV is violence rooted in gender inequality and harmful norms (WHO, 2012). In Indonesian school contexts, this transformation occurs through three stages: Stage 1: General Bullying Targeting individual vulnerabilities without explicit gender motives (physical appearance, academic performance, socioeconomic background). Stage 2: Gender-Stereotyped Bullying Using gender stereotypes as weapons ("girls shouldn't be class president," "weak boys"). Stage 3: Explicit Gender-Based Violence Systematic patterns of dominance and control with clear gender motives (sexual harassment, gender role enforcement, exploitation). SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 202 3.2 Prevalence in Indonesian Schools Multiple studies reveal alarming prevalence rates: Table 1. Prevalence of Gender-Based Violence in Indonesian Schools Study Sample Key Findings KPAI (20202022) National case reports 37.5% of 2,473 school violence cases involved gender/sexual elements Rifka Annisa (2019) 450 female high school students, Yogyakarta 84% experienced at least 1 form of GBV; 68% verbal harassment Munir & Yasin (2020) 320 middle school students, Jakarta 42% of girls reported inappropriate touching; 76% did not report to school authorities Rokhmah et al. (2021) 520 high school students, Jember 31% experienced gender-based cyber harassment; 89% perpetrators were classmates Suryaningrum (2022) 15 schools, Central Java Only 19% of schools had protocols for handling sexual violence Source: Compiled from various studies, 2019-2022 The data reveal that most cases go unreported, creating a significant "dark figure of crime." Reasons for non-reporting include: fear of not being believed (43%), shame/stigma (38%), not knowing where to report (32%), and fear of retaliation (28%) (Munir & Yasin, 2020). 4. Hidden Mechanisms of Oppression 4.1 Social Norms and Cultural Silence Indonesia's patriarchal social norms create fertile ground for normalizing gender-based violence. Research by Utari and Fitria (2021) in Bandung found that expressions such as "boys will be boys," "that's just how males are," or "girls must be patient" are frequently uttered by teachers and parents, instilling the idea that aggressive male behavior is natural while females must accept and remain silent. Rokhmah et al.'s (2021) study identified minimizing responses from school authorities. When female students reported harassment, 64% received responses like "it's just a joke," "don't be too sensitive," or "maybe you misunderstood." These responses not only fail to protect victims but actively legitimize perpetrator behavior. The culture of aib (shame) also plays a significant role. Bennett et al.'s (2018) research on school-based violence in Southeast Asia shows that families in Indonesia and the Philippines are more concerned about social stigma than seeking justice, unlike in Thailand where there is greater openness. 4.2 Peer Hierarchies and Masculine Dominance Peer hierarchies in Indonesian schools are powerful, with hegemonic masculinity as the determinant of social status. Connell (2005) explains that hegemonic masculinity is the dominant form of masculinity that legitimizes the subordination of women and non-conforming men. Nilan et al.'s (2020) ethnographic study in Jakarta schools found that "popular" male groups often use objectification of female students as bonding rituals. They create "ratings" of girls' appearance, spread sexual rumors, or compete in daring to touch female students. Conversely, males who refuse to participate are often ostracized or labeled as "sissy" or "unmanly," creating strong conformity pressure. Parker and Nilan (2013) in their research on SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 203 young masculinities in Indonesia found that adolescent males face "masculine anxiety"—constant fear that their masculinity will be questioned if they don't demonstrate dominance. 4.3 Gendered Emotional Suppression Indonesian females are socialized to suppress anger and assertiveness. Blackwood (2007) in an anthropological study of gender in Indonesia explains that the concept of halus (refined, gentle) is a cultural expectation for Javanese women, encompassing patience, obedience, and emotional control. In schools, female students who dare to resist or protest are often labeled as "disrespectful," "impolite," or "insolent"—labels that carry negative social consequences. Utari and Fitria's (2021) study found that female students who reported harassment actually experienced secondary bullying from their peers for being seen as "making a big deal" or "ruining that boy's reputation." Conversely, male socialization emphasizes that emotions other than anger are weakness. Nilan et al. (2020) found that 73% of male adolescents in their sample felt pressured not to show sadness or fear. This inability to process complex emotions is often expressed through aggression toward others, especially females. 5. The Socio-Ecological Framework 5.1 Individual Level: Vulnerability and Agency At the individual level, several factors increase vulnerability. Munir and Yasin's (2020) research identified that female students with the following characteristics have higher risk: 1. Negative body image or physical appearance that "differs" from norms 2. Very high or very low academic performance 3. Lower to middle socioeconomic background 4. Physical or mental disabilities 5. Non-normative gender identity or sexual orientation However, vulnerability is not determinism. Herman (2015) in trauma theory emphasizes the importance of "recovery ecology"—environments that support healing. Female students with strong family support, access to counseling, and high self-efficacy show better resilience. Table 2. Protective and Risk Factors at Individual Level Protective Factors Risk Factors High self-esteem Low self-esteem Strong family support History of domestic violence Access to counseling Social isolation Assertiveness skills Dependence on peer approval Good digital literacy Limited understanding of rights Positive friendship networks Involvement in toxic peer groups Source: Adapted from Munir & Yasin (2020) and Suryaningrum (2022) 5.2 School Climate: Enabling or Preventing School climate is a crucial factor. Thapa et al. (2013) define school climate as the "quality and character of school life" encompassing norms, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures. Suryaningrum's (2022) research on 15 schools in Central Java identified characteristics of schools with low GBV incidents: 1. Clear and publicized policies: Schools have written rules about zero-tolerance for sexual violence and gender-based bullying SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 204 2. Safe reporting mechanisms: Multiple confidential channels available (mailbox, hotline, dedicated counselor) 3. Quick and serious response: Every report followed up within 2x24 hours maximum 4. Trained personnel: At least 2 counselors trained in trauma-informed approach 5. Preventive education: Regular programs on respect, consent, and gender equality 6. Parental engagement: Active communication with parents about violence issues Conversely, schools with high incidents show: policy ambiguity (72%), minimization of reports (68%), prioritizing "school reputation" over student safety (81%), and no trained counselors (64%). 5.3 Cultural and Community Level Community and cultural values shape school norms. Bennett et al.'s (2018) research shows that in communities with rigid religious interpretations of gender roles, schools tend to reinforce segregation and subordination of women. Social media has become a new arena for GBV. Rokhmah et al. (2021) found that 31% of female students experienced gender-based cyber harassment, in forms including: sexual comments on photos (68%), spreading sexual rumors (42%), coercion to send photos (23%), and threats to spread private content (18%). Unique characteristics of cyber GBV: 1. Persistence: digital content is difficult to completely delete 2. Pervasiveness: can be accessed anytime, anywhere 3. Audience: potential for humiliation before wide public 4. Anonymity: perpetrators can hide behind anonymous accounts 6. Mental Health Implications 6.1 Impact on Victims The psychological impact of GBV on victims is severe and long-lasting. Munir and Yasin's (2020) study found prevalence of mental disorders in school GBV victims: Table 3. Prevalence of Mental Disorders in School GBV Victims Disorder Prevalence Severity Level Depression 38% Mild: 45%, Moderate: 35%, Severe: 20% Anxiety 51% Mild: 40%, Moderate: 38%, Severe: 22% PTSD 29% Partial: 58%, Full: 42% Eating Disorders 23% Anorexia: 8%, Bulimia: 11%, BED: 4% Self-harm 19% Non-suicidal: 73%, Suicidal: 27% Suicidal Ideation 16% Passive: 68%, Active with plan: 32% Source: Munir & Yasin (2020), N=320 GBV victims Academic impacts are also significant. Rifka Annisa (2019) reported that GBV victims experience: 1. Grade point average decline of 0.8-1.2 points 2. Absenteeism rate 2.3 times higher 3. Dropout risk 2.8 times greater 4. 67% decrease in class participation SCIENCE AND INNOVATION INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL VOLUME 4 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2025 ISSN: 2181-3337 | SCIENTISTS.UZ 205 Herman (2015) explains that interpersonal trauma (especially perpetrated by peers) is more difficult to recover from than impersonal trauma because it damages basic capacity for trust and connection. 6.2 Impact on Bystanders Bystanders—students who witness but are not involved—also experience psychological impacts that are often overlooked. Rigby (2017) terms this phenomenon "vicarious traumatization." Rokhmah et al.'s (2021) research found that bystanders experience: 1. Guilt and moral distress (62%) 2. Decreased sense of safety at school (58%) 3. Anxiety about becoming the next target (47%) 4. Desensitization to violence (39%) 5. Cynicism about reporting effectiveness (71%) The "bystander effect" (Latané & Darley, 1970) is very strong in Indonesia due to collectivist culture that prioritizes harmony. Fear of being ostracized or becoming the next target makes many students choose silence even though they know the incident is wrong. 6.3 Impact on Perpetrators GBV perpetrators are also victims of a toxic patriarchal system. Without intervention, these behavior patterns will continue into adulthood. Nilan et al.'s (2020) longitudinal study found that 68% of school GBV perpetrators continue violence patterns in intimate relationships in adulthood. Psychological characteristics of perpetrators: 1. Alexithymia (difficulty identifying and expressing emotions): 73% 2. Low empathy: 81% 3. Hostile attribution bias: 64% 4. Rigid gender role attitudes: 89% 5. History of witnessing/experiencing domestic violence: 57% Perpetration is learned behavior that can be unlearned through appropriate intervention, but requires an approach that is not only punitive but also rehabilitative. 7. The Need for Whole-School Approach 7.1 Beyond Punitive Measures Punishment-only approaches prove ineffective. Suspending or expelling perpetrators without rehabilitation only moves the problem. Morrison et al.'s (2005) research on safe school communities shows that punitive approaches actually increase recidivism by 35-40%. Restorative justice offers a more transformative alternative. In this approach, the focus is on: 1. Reparation of harm: what needs to be done to repair damage 2. Accountability: perpetrator acknowledges and takes responsibility for actions 3. Healing: supporting victim recovery 4. Restoration: rebuilding relationships and trust in community Zehr (2015) explains that restorative justice is not about "forgiveness" or avoiding consequences, but about deeper accountability—directly confronting the harm that has been caused. 7.2 Gender-Sensitive Counseling School counselors need specific training to handle GBV cases with gender perspective and trauma-informed approach. Principles of trauma-informed care (SAMHSA, 2014) include: