Having a hard time reconciling something...

"it is wrong to hit a woman" is a very old traditional message that, oddly, dates from times when hitting the woman you lived with was considered quite acceptable by many people. Odd.

The idea that "women are weaker" doesn't seem that silly to me when I think what pregnancy, bfing, and having small children around does to me, and how it makes me feel, and that my grandmothers' generation routinely 12-odd children - I think there must have been a lot of women staggering about who could have been blown over by a puff of wind. On the other hand, they all did their washing in twin tubs if they were lucky and on washboards if not, and beat carpets by hand, so who knows.

The point of that little rambling discursion into Lives of Mid Twentieth Century Women was just that I don't believe that identical treatment = equality. Women do sometimes need to be actively treated differently, and better, because the default seems to be that they are so often, so terribly, at risk of being treated so much worse.

And I have a problem with the hushed sanctimony around physical violence as the very very very worst thing in all cases. I honestly think it is worse - as a general rule of thumb - for a man to hit a woman than for a woman to hit a man. A man hits a woman with the force of the billions of fists of a million years of patriarchy. A woman hits a man right here, right now, only with her own fist.

Yes but you are simply endorsing the message that boys/men are intrinsically violent, sausages If it is cowardice to hit a woman then that imples it is bravery to hit a man. You are giving them the message that men do use violence, that it is part of their nature, but they just need to accept that it's wrong to hit women. No, men need to accept that violence is not part of their nature and they shouldn't be doing it. By using the word cowardice, you are also suggesting that women are somehow lesser than men because they are no match for men due to their weak and feeble status. In fact, male violence against women often succeeds, not because women are physically weaker, but because they have may less psycholgical reasons for wanting to comit violence, they do not want to use violence. Therefore it is not cowardice to it a woman, rather it is very heroic of women not to hit back. It's probably the same with male on male violence - the "winner" is the most aggressive/angry person rather than the physically stronger one.

Interesting but I have always taught my boys it is wrong to hit girls, simply because if it is ingrained there is a hell of a better chance they won't hit their partner at a later date. Teaching boys to me is preparing them for when they are adults and if they believe it is cowardice to hit a woman then hopefully they never will.

To OP: i totally get the cross-purposes thing, but maybe it's a question of priorities. Ok hitting anyone is wrong, but considering how common violence towards women is I don't see it as bad thing we try and underline to boys that we shouldn't.

Taking myself as an example I remember thumping my sister once when i was very young. I got royal telling off and my mother explained how as we got older I would likely end up bigger than her, and whilst I shouldn't be hitting anyone it was especially bad to hit anyone smaller than I was.

Needless to say I never thumped her again, and I have never once felt the urge to hit women. All this BS about women being weaker I kind of hate as well as in truth ok maybe the average man might have more raw physical strength than the average woman, but there are many martial forms developed to specifically negate strength which women can excel in. I am partuclarly fond of fencing and many of the most skilled fencers I have seen are women. I also find this woman particularly inspiring: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_d%27Aubigny in any case I think a lot of violence towards women comes from this erroneous assumption that women are weak that we all sort of unconsciously go along with it.

lissie Your DH has a point, although, of course, that's not all feminism is about! Of course the days of chivalry were also the days of female ownership and dowries and such

exactly!

I agree with the consensus view on the thread. In anti-violence education programs for little ones conducted by domestic violence agencies in the States, (the ones I am most familiar with), the message is generally "hands are not for hitting," "no one deserves to be hit," and "respect for all people." Gender/sex would not come into it except as it relates to issues regarding disrespect based on sex, stereotypes, etc. As a feminist, I think that reinforcing respect and equality in the message of non-violence is the right approach at this age.

Tee, on a personal note, my DS had somewhat similar issues as a child. His learning disabilities made communication difficult, and his frustration sometimes made him act out physically. FWIW, it sounds to me that you are taking the right approach. We did get some excellent guidance along the way to help DS, especially in school, and long story short, he is a productive (and non-violent) young adult.

I find it hard to reconcile this too, DH has a very strong "you never hit a woman/girl" code, and thought that I would be delighted that he is passing it onto DS. His words were "Isn't feminism about stopping violence against women?"

Sorry, I just meant, you sound as if you're feeling guilty about him and you also sound so lovely, I'm sure you've nothing to be guilty about.

It's not like you're one of those people who goes around saying 'ah, they all hit don't they, it'll teach the others to respect him' or somesuch crap.

I don't see how it sounds awful. He's only 4. He'll learn.

So he hit because...?
Work out the trigger and you are part way to finding an effective method of teaching him not to.

I've hit a bunch of people lots. In Tae Kwon Do.

Wrong to hit is the simplest way of dealing with it, give him other strategies.
It doesn't matter about the shibboleths of 'is it worse to hit a girl/person with a disability/old person/to initiate or retaliate?'

He's almost 4. Hitting is bad. Yell a protest, run away from the problem, tell a grown-up...

The first thing you should do is ring the police. This is the same for accidents, btw - if you see an accident where someone needs medical attention, you ring the ambulance first, you don't go to help first. Last time I did my St John's course (which is yonks ago I admit) they were hammering this point home.

I know what you mean though, it's human nature to want to intervene. I would be more concerned in that situation about 1) whether me intervening would prevent me getting more effective help more quickly, eg. by phoning the police, 2) whether I'd exacerbate the situation, and 3) whether I'd end up being beaten up. I admit I wouldn't be thinking primarily about the rights and wrongs of hitting someone who is busy beating someone up, but I also wouldn't be trying to teach a child that it's ok to hit someone if you're defending someone else, because I think it's rarely the most sensible option.