To think if a boy hits my daughter then yes it is different to if a girl does

[ouchthathurtsabit]

Preparing to be flamed as this is a controversial issue.

I'm a mum of a girl and 2 boys. My daughter came home with a red mark on her face saying that a boy- known for hurting others- had punched her in the face because she had gone in front of him in the queue. The boy was spoken to and it was dealt with. The children are 8 and in year 3.

So I spoke to the teacher and said I was glad it was dealt with and that I was sure my daughter would be fine but it would probably be helpful for this boy to know that it's unacceptable to hurt or hit anyone but that hitting a girl in the face is really not acceptable.

The teacher then had a massive rant at me saying that there is absolutely no difference and that's a very dangerous thing to be teaching children and it would not be an appropriate thing to say in school.

Whist I do understand what she was tryouts g to say, I do try and explain to my boys that In our society, no matter what age you are, if you hit a female then it is completely unacceptable and that no matter what a girl does or says to you then if you respond with physical violence then it's not acceptable. Males are generally bigger and stronger. Am I completely wrong in thinking at 8 years old this could be mentioned? Because I don't know! I know if one of my boys hit a girl in the face I would be a tiny bit more mortified than if it was a girl

I am two inches taller than dh, two stone heavier

He would slaughter me in a fight, he is so much stronger than me

I agree no one should hit anyone else

But someone bigger and heavier will do a lot more damage

Unless these women are bloody Buffy, then they are generally not going to cause significant harm, on the whole.

That's just nonsense. I'm pretty sure I could punch someone hard enough to do significant damage. Anyway, why are we only talking about punching? Put any kind of weapon or heavy object in a woman's hand and she can certainly do damage. Heavy objects are not hard to come by.

Why are people reading the words "It's wrong to hit people" but assuming that means "It's ok to hit women"? Women are people.

The likelihood of ending up dead or seriously injured depending on the sex of your assailant is irrelevant to the overall message: Do Not Hit People. Why would you want to dilute that message by saying "But hitting certain people isn't as bad as hitting certain other people."? Is killing a man not as bad as killing a woman? Is veing verbally offensive to a man not as bad as to a woman? Is stealing from a man not as bad as from a woman? No. Killing is wrong, verbally abusing someone is wrong and stealing is wrong.

Why, in the face of blatant daily reality, do some people feel the need to pretend there are no physical differences between men and women - as if admitting that women are physically weaker (in general) is somehow synonymous with inferiority. This is utter nonsense.

I for one have never been under any illusions about my physical abilities. Why pretend I am the same physicality as a man, fgs! I may not have the same strength, but I'm probably more flexible - plus I've given birth three times which, to my mind, makes me more than "equal", all things considered.

Yes, believe it or not, I do think I deserve special treatment from men - i.e. not to be hit by them. If that makes me "special", so be it. I don't give a monkeys.

Our society is founded on certain codes of behaviour and principles which exist for a reason. All violence is bad, but male on female violence is particularly revolting and goes against human integrity. It is sickening in a particular way. That is all I can say really.

He would slaughter me in a fight, he is so much stronger than me

My wife undertakes endurance sports to a highish level and could beat me to a pulp should she chose. It wouldn't make it any less wrong for me to hit her.

The teacher could have got her point over without ranting.
It is unacceptable to use verbal or physical violence against anyone. Period.

Why doesn't male on male violence go against human integrity? I think if my son were attacked and seriously hurt by a man (of whatever size, because let's face it, any adult-sized person could inflict major injury if they really wanted to), I would consider that utterly sickening and appalling. As would my son. And I don't think the response "Well, at least you're not a girl" would be much comfort to him.

A woman punches another woman in the face and she ends up with a broken nose.
A man punches a woman in the face and she ends up with a broken nose.

How is one of these worse than the other? Is it because the man could potentially have done more damage?

If you heard someone was attacked by a man and was in hospital, then you later heard the attacker was a woman, how would that make at difference?

But nobody would say, "Well at least you're not a girl", would they? Why would that come into it?

Walkingdead11
Your personal situation is not relevent in this debate, because more often than not men ARE stronger than women, fact.

Of course his situation is relevant, you and others are trying to spin the thread to represent your agenda.

A girl hitting a boy is as bad as a boy hitting a girl.

Now lets spin that to include numbers other than one on one and situations that aren't relevant to the situation.

Eolian

Male on male violence does go against human integrity. But some people do get 'special' privellaged protection by virtue of their position, i.e. the elderly, disabled, children for example. This is because it is clear that those people would be at a disadvantage to violence from a male......as are women.......

Slash - if a woman broke my nose I would be outraged for sure, but if a man did it I would be even more outraged, yes.

Eolian I agree. If my son was hit by anyone the last thing I would be thinking "Oh it's ok, at least he's not a girl because that would be so much worse ()"

In fact if he was ever hit by a girl, I would probably be even more pissed off than if he was hit by a boy. Because of the many people saying we should be taking extra care to teach boys not to hit girls. I teach my son not to hit anyone, I don't give him extra talks about not hitting girls because I don't need to. So if a girl came up to him and walloped him one because apparently it's not as bad I would be absolutely fuming and rightly so.

This is because it is clear that those people would be at a disadvantage to violence from a male......as are women.......

But we are talking about whether a man hitting a woman is worse than a woman hitting a woman.
So a woman hitting an elderly person is not as bad as a man hitting an elderly person?

If yes, then when does that work?

Or put it this way...I have never hit anyone in my life, but If I did ever happen to punch another woman and break her nose, I would feel terrible. But I would feel even more disgusted with myself if I broke the nose of a child.

Also it really goads me when female on male dv is brought up.....no I'm not denying it happens and yes it IS appalling. But the incidents are far fewer and I mean FAR fewer than male on female dv. The stats are undeniable on this. It is usually used by mra people and I find it particularly offensive when other women use it.

You are aware boys that when men start punching women they don't tend to stop. Male violence to women is both much more likely to end in rape death or serious injury and much more likely to happen than the other way round, which was the point. One random article doesn't change that. Same way the fact I was a victim of csa doesn't change the fact it's mostly men who sexually abuse children. One person's account doesn't disprove the stats.

Slash (?) All individual are responsible for their violent actions (unless legally exempt because of extenuating circumstances). But from a sociological pov we look at these things on a large scale. How culture and socialastion influences people's actions, and what can or should be done about that.

Walkingdead, your feelings are not facts.

But nobody would say, "Well at least you're not a girl", would they? Why would that come into it?

No, I don't suppose anyone would say it. But if my son read this thread, what he would inevitably conclude would be that lots of people think it is less bad for him to be hit and injured than for a woman to be hit and injured, even if their injuries were exactly the same. Because that is what you are saying.

becotide

Stats on dv are facts not feelings.

Right, so what age do you use for the cut off between woman and child? When it's a five year old then it's obviously very, very wrong but what about a 17 year old?

When it comes to the elderly, is punching a 59 year old bad but punching a 61 year old terrible?

Once you start adding qualifiers and hitting Person A is worse than hitting Person B then you go down a very complicated route and ranking people in order.

It's worse to hit a woman than a man...but then hitting a child is worse...is worse for an adult to hit a girl or a boy...or is it worse to hit an elderly person

Surely "hitting EVERYONE is bad and you should not do it" is far simpler.

The discussion is not is it worse for a man to hit a man or a woman. That's being deliberately obtuse or worse.

If 100 men hit 100 women and 100 women hit 100 men the point is that the women would mostly be seriously injured and the men mostly not. And of course there is the reality where men do this much much more than women in reality. It doesn't make individual cases of female violence any less serious it is an example of how differently males and females are socialised and the school has a responsibility to address this.

When I worked with teenage (male) sex offenders we had a 3 to 2 ratio of staffing, plus at least 1 manager on site at anyone time. 2 out of every 3 staff were male (except 2out of 3 managers being female) and never worked a shift with solely female staff even in the event of sickness or holiday leave. Partly because boys have a right to have access to male staff but also because it was well understood that physically women aren't as strong in restraints and because it was known the boys would intensionally target us if it was a soley female or mostly female shift. Part of the role was to teach the boys how to behave towards women and the male staff modeled those behaviours.

We already tell children that hitting is bad, boys and girls but based on statistical evidence one sex is not getting the message.........that is the issue.

Stats on dv are facts not feelings

At a population level, yes. (And we could argue about how accurate DV stats are and what they might under report)

But it doesn't make an iota of difference to the person who has been hit.

I think I may just have to agree to disagree on this.
We are driving and I just asked DH about this. He said if you were a man you would naturally stop yourself before hitting a woman, in a similar way as you would stop yourself hitting an elderly person or child. This is a natural instinct unless you are insane.
He said he would not box with any woman because he wouldn't be able to punch her to the chest or know where to hit her.
That's his view and fairly typical common-sense, I would say.

It wouldn't make it any less wrong for me to hit her.

Absolutely agree

Which is is why i was careful not to use a sex in my post