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

To those of you who are blind the sex and say it does not matter, is completely shocking given what we know about male / female dynamics and violence. I think it is shocking to think that hitting boys is less serious, they are people with feelings and don't need to be hit.

Right well I don't like macho dickheads either. Males who are aggressive will have learnt that by the way they have been brought up. Now my children aren't exposed to violence and aggression so I am confident they will grow up to be respectful adults to all members of society.

Not said its less serious, just that it is something that needs to be addressed in a way that acknowledges the gender difference, and that it brings forth some wider issues of concern that would trouble me if my daughter was hit by a boy. Why is this so hard to understand? Do we just pretend that the sexes don't differ? Why should we be agnostic to the reality of the differences between the sexes and why is it terrible to acknowledge this?

If we say it is particularly bad to hit a girl, or you shouldn't hit anyone but especially a girl, then to me that says it is worse to hit a girl.

At the risk of stating the obvious (again)....
If we are to ignore physical differences and insist males and females are the same, then shall we -

Insist that all athletics / sports events become gender neutral
Insist that games like rugby are sexist unless at least half the team are women
Insist that all construction work must be undertaken by women, because after all, what's the difference?
Insist on quotas for the military, that half of all units at all levels MUST be filled by women, whether women want the jobs or not
Etc...

Or should we, as women, be confident about what we bring to the world and understand that equality is not the same thing as being gender neutral.

@Granny, no the message is not that simplistic but you seem to want to frame this issue in the very one dimensional way that a lot of the posters on this thread see it by yelling 'that's terrible / disgusting to suggest it is worse hitting a girl'. To me this is just negating the very fundamental differences between males and females because it fits a very specific agenda.

What would that 'very specific agenda' be?

To promote a very very politically correct view of the world that really has very little basis in reality is the one that immediately comes to mind.

I was under the impression that boys have always been taught not to hit girls and that is what hasn't worked. I don't have any boys, but if I did they would be taught not to hit anyone, period.

Not said its less serious, just that it is something that needs to be addressed in a way that acknowledges the gender difference

This is very vague. Either you believe it is worse/more serious for a girl to be hit by a boy or you don't. And you and several other people on the thread have made it clear that you do.

It is perfectly possible to teach all about differences between the sexes (sticking to the actual biological facts, of course), and to be very clear about any 'issues of wider concern' (by which I presume you mean the prevalence of domestic violence and rape?) WITHOUT coming to the conclusion that it is de facto worse/more serious/more morally wrong for any male to hit any female than it is for any male or female to hit a male.

However awful and common male-on-female domestic violence is, that simply does not excuse a blanket statement which says that an innocent female being hurt by an assailant is worse than an innocent male being hurt, just by virtue of her being female.

A court would be justified in giving a harsher sentence to a man who had inflicted very serious injuries due to his strength and weight. It would not be justified in giving a harsher sentence because the accused was a man on the grounds that there are wider issues of men often treating women badly. Because what other men do has nothing to do with the case in hand. And if the same injuries had been inflicted on a (perhaps smaller, weaker) man, the sentence should be the same.

Eolian, by saying less serious - what I mean is that the school's policy would not differ on this but I would certainly make a point of saying that hurting a girl is different to hurting a boy since boys strength increases as they get older and this point would need to be hammered home to ensure that the message is clear that all violence is wrong but that, as strength increases, girls are more likely to be hurt than men if there is an incident etc. These messages need to be instilled in children at an early age. Why is this so wrong to address this in a way that acknowledges and highlights the fact that boys and girls are different? I am so baffled by the train of thought that these points do not need to be made / are irrelevant..?

Insist that all athletics / sports events become gender neutral
Insist that games like rugby are sexist unless at least half the team are women
Insist that all construction work must be undertaken by women, because after all, what's the difference?
Insist on quotas for the military, that half of all units at all levels MUST be filled by women, whether women want the jobs or not

. No, we should judge induviduals on their actual merits /strengths /weaknesses, not on the basis of what people of that sex are mostly like. That's pretty much the opposite of having the stupid quotas you give in your examples.

Just because most women would be unable to compete with most men in many sports, why should we want to limit the few women who could by saying that no women can?

Just because most men are stronger than most women, why would we make a blanket statement which a) denies the possibility of some women being biggger and stronger than some men and being able to inflict significant damage and b) implies that men who are attacked are not worthy of protection just as much as women, especially if the attack was unprovoked and the victim was smaller and weaker than the assailant.

Many women suffer terible treatment in life. So do many men. Women do not have a special right to a greater level of safety and protection than men. It was certainly believed in the past that they did, but did this belief actually make for a better life for women? I think I'd rather be a woman today than in the 1950s, thanks very much.

Eolian - A court would only look at the behaviour and history of the individual concerned - male or female.

I guess how you feel on this whole issue comes down to your own personal morals. Either someone gets it or they don't.

God Eolian are you living in the real world? Facts, figures and statistics that bear out real differences are to be subordinated to exceptions? The reality of the differences between the sexes should be masked over?

Cross-posted, Marinade. So the school policy should reflect what we all know is actually fair, but if an act of hitting actually happens we should go against the policy by quietly saying "Oh yeah but it's really not on, hitting a girl, is it?". If that's really a defensible, fair truth, then why wouldn't you put it on the school policy, along with an explanation of why?

And I am hardly one to recommend "quotas" - I was making a point about the ridiculousness of insisting on gender neutrality in the face of common sense.

Because a policy is a high level framework that does not and cannot allow for the nuances of every day life and the reality of, in this context, male / female dynamics. Have you ever written a policy? They are as high level as you can possibly get.

And yes I would put it on the policy that the discussion should be had. But then I would get shot down in flames by parents like you!

Ok I can't actually cope with the stubborn dimwittedness in this thread any more. I will bow out by saying I guess maybe we'll have to wait another generation for this kind of backwards thinking to finally die a death. I'm just glad my daughter hasn't yet encountered any of this kind of bleating about the special and weaker status of girls. Because she is quite sure she can do anything that a boy can.

And yes, in the simplest sense, you simply do not 'get it'. For whatever reason the simple fact that there are key and fundamental differences between the sexes that should have, in my view, been addressed in the situation highlighted within the original post, seems to be absolutely lost on you.

Dimwittedness, have you read your own posts?

Marinade if we teach no violence, absolutely unacceptable, why would that be a problem? If nobody hits then all women and all men are safe. Isn't that what you want, or do you want a little boy to be considered less important as he carries the guilt of countless generations of men who have hit women?

Don't you think it might just confuse the issue if you say to children don't hit but it isn't as bad if you hit a boy? Much clearer to say don't hit.

"Because she is quite sure she can do anything a boy can"

And my daughter is quite sure she doesn't need to "do anything a boy can" or to even value herself within a male framework.

I'll ask again.. why can't we teach no violence towards anyone? Why do we have to add on "especially not girls because they are (sometimes) smaller and weaker than you?" These are children we are talking to, not teenagers. Once a male child becomes physically stronger and bigger than the females at his school then address the "especially don't hit someone smaller than you as you can cause more damage and risk a criminal record." Until they can be prosecuted for violence they should be taught not to hit anyone, ever. Once they become old enough that their actions can be prosecuted hen you introduce the power balance element that is link to them being imprisoned if they don't think and use their extra weight (both males and females) against someone smaller and cause serious harm. Until then you teach violence is not acceptable against anyone at anytime, ever!

Have I made it any clearer? We should simply teach not to use violence at all, but clearly once the law comes into it and you can accidentally kill someone using your fists then you bring up about the weight and strength behind a punch. I think people are forgetting this post is about a young child not a teenager or an adult.

You have made it clear Quack, it's just that some people do not entirely agree, or have a different moral outlook or perception on this.