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

You miss my point Lula. I am not saying a boy should hit back a female. Just that we should not be encouraging boys to hit back at other boys.

It is wrong to hit people - and the tacit encouragement of boys responding to hitting with further hitting leads to situation of more men than women being subject to volence.

As not and Pingu say, it is wrong to hit people, regardless of gender, violence isn';t acceptable, full stop

There is no power inbalance at age 8. Girls and boys are physically equal.
Just to add, those who are arguing about men being the victims of domestic violence seem to be forgetting about violence in same sex relationships.
The only acceptable message is that violence is always wrong. No ine has the right to hit another person (except in self defence) and no one has to accept being on the receiving end.
Just to add, while it's true that far fewer men are killed by their partners than women, that doesn't mean that women are incapable of inflicting serious harm. I should know, I am regularly battered by my 7 stone (autistic) daughter and she is certainly capable of inflicting serious injury and physical pain.

OP is right.

If I had a son, I'd be telling him never ever to hit a girl. In case of self defense against a violent women, he is to restrain her, not hit her. Unless she has a weapon, in which case, all is permitted.

There is no doubt that society and law (western societies) come down hardest on men who hit women v. reverse or men-on-men
or women-on-women violence. And with good reason -- women are most often victims of male violence. That's just reality.

Women are more often victims of male violence as adults, but not in the playground where the attitude that boys will be boys/ its just wrestling and boys must learn to defend themselves often rule as seen on this thread. I have always felt my dd is much more protected in the playground than my ds's when it comes to violence.

Ferretsarefeminists I don't know how to quote your post from my phone but it's spot on. The, 'these posts are hilarious' one. It's actually like there are two different points being argued over because the people who are saying 'all violence is wrong' are often missing what others are saying entirely and are misunderstanding. I have a feeling this is one argument that will go round and round.

a man hitting a woman is worse because of the power imbalance

Power imbalance can and should only be judged on a case by case basis. i.e. Is the person who did the hitting significantly bigger and stronger than the person who was hit? Why on earth would you judge on the basis of who is most likely to be the biggest and strongest when you have the actual physical facts to go on?!

I have an 11 y.o. dd and a 9 y.o. ds. Dd is taller but there is barely any difference in weight and strength. Can someone tell me why ds hitting dd would be worse than dd hitting ds?

I think this all comes from a deeply conditioned, sexist and old-fashioned 'boys will be boys' and 'girls are nice and sweet and defenceless' attitude. And it's not an attitude that actually helps children grow up into equal, respectful and non-violent adults.

But it's less of an assault on him because he's a boy? That's what you are effectively saying!

Nobody is saying that.

Why don't you try actually reading and understanding what people are saying rather than what you think they're saying.

Is the person who did the hitting significantly bigger and stronger than the person who was hit?

And in the case of a man hitting a woman, 99.9% of the time the answers to that will be 'yes'.

I have an 11 y.o. dd and a 9 y.o. ds. Dd is taller but there is barely any difference in weight and strength. Can someone tell me why ds hitting dd would be worse than dd hitting ds?

Not right now there isn't, no. However when they're both going through puberty and certainly when they're both finished going through puberty, there will be a difference.

It's not simply about height and weight either. Men naturally have more muscle mass than women, more upper body strength, greater lung capacity, etc which give them a natural advantage regardless of height or weight.

ferret right on. Everything you said.

Ferrets 99% of the time? Have to disagree there.

And in the case of a man hitting a woman, 99.9% of the time the answers to that will be 'yes'.

Probably not 99.9% of the time. And in the case of children, much much less than that. But anyway, we don't need to guess at the probability, we need to judge the truth of the actual event.

A man who is larger hitting a woman who is smaller is no different from a larger man hitting a smaller man or a larger woman hitting a smaller woman. It is the size and power that is relevant, not the sex. So "It is wrong to hit anyone except in self defence, especially someone smaller and weaker than you" just about covers it, I'd say, because that's going to be true 100% of the time, not just 90 something percent of the time.

I don't think anyone has said boys will be boys or only boys are encouraged to hit back. Only two posts as far as I can see have agreed with encouraging hitting back and they were saying that children, regardless of biological sex should fight back. But it's interesting that people responding have projected their own sexist interpretations onto that.

It's all well and good 'taking the moral high ground' and ensuring 'teachers only punish the instigator' but in reality, a bully only understands one type of response and teachers don't have enough power to act. Children need to learn how to protect themselves.

Aside from that, people are looking too much into the 'because they are girls' as opposed to understanding it's not because they are girls per se but because adult males will be stronger than women. So teaching them early is not a bad thing. It's only discriminating against girls if you are saying it's just because they are girls as opossed to 'you need to deal with people smaller or weaker than you differently' My husband, for example, has worked in security in London clubs. He would treat an aggressive man under 5 foot, or person over 65 threatening him very differently than a man of equal footing. Would we argue this is 'ageist' or 'disablist' (if a person was disabled) and he didn't retaliate with violence? Of course not. It's just understanding power imbalance and teaching boys that before they hold physical power isn't a bad thing. It does NOT mean accepting violence from women, however others wish to interpret that message.

'If' he retailiated with violence I meant.

Cross-posted with you, Ferrets. I still think my It is wrong to hit anyone except in self defence, especially someone smaller and weaker than you works a lot better than Ds, don't dd because she's a girl. The former teaches a moral lesson. What does the latter teach?

Don't hit* dd

oh bugger, if he DIDNT retaliate with violence. Damn phone and fat fingers.

Teaching a boy he should never hurt a girl gives the message it's more acceptable to hurt another boy. The message must always be violence of any kind is unacceptable whether it be girl/boy or dog/cat/frog/bird.

YABU and I agree 100% with the teacher.

I'm not encouraging boys to hit back at other boys at all. That is a different point altogether. Violence per se is not something anyone would want to encourage.

However, I do think it's worse for a boy/man to hit a girl/woman. To me this is obvious - in the same way as an adult hitting or retaliating against a child is unacceptable.

Most boys are brought up that hitting women or girls is cowardly and ungentlemanly in principle. There is a reason for this.

Most boys are also brought up that violence is wrong in principle. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

so what age is it appropriate to mention the male on female violence issue to boys??

Agree Lalalu 100%

I have a son and 2 daughters.

I would be furious if a teacher told a child that hitting girls is somehow 'more wrong' than hitting boys.

I spent a lot of time with my son talking about how you have to find solutions to problems that aren't violent. If it is 'less bad' that he hits a boy, then can you imagine him aged 18 outside a pub and thumping someone who was being a pratt, and thinking Oh - at least it isn't a girl.

I think it is a massive issue to teach our boys not to fight, that fighting = assault, and a criminal record is forever.

I have visions of my ds losing his cool over someone commenting on his hair colour, and then ending up getting stabbed by someone.

So, while I get the concern about violence against women, I think you do the boys a massive disservice when you say that, because by implication it says that violence against boys is less bad and leads to the situations as above.

But a violent response to being attacked by someone equal or larger than you IS different to being the instigator of violence or responding to violence from someone to whom you are much stronger and larger. Or shall we start telling rape victims not to fight back because all violence is equal?

I had a problem when DS1 was in Year 5. A girl was hitting, pinching, punishing and tripping him up. The teacher was ineffective and girl's parents didn't take it seriously. He wasn't her only victim.
I suspect his reluctance to defend himself was rooted in the fact that the bully was a girl.
I stuck with telling him not to retaliate until she sent him flying across the classroom and still the teacher didn't do anything. I gave DS "permission" to hit back. He only had to do it once.

A man who is larger hitting a woman who is smaller is no different from a larger man hitting a smaller man or a larger woman hitting a smaller woman.

Except they are different. Men are naturally stronger that women for reasons which have already been outlined. When it comes to men hitting women, height and weight have very little to do with it because even if a man is smaller then he will still have all the biological advantages that come with being male.

I know a woman who was the victim of domestic violence. I'm not sure how tall she was but she was fairly tall for a woman and her DP was slightly shorter than her. No idea how much either of them weighed but he was quite a skinny guy whereas she wasn't.

However despite this she was still regularly overpowered by him, raped and beaten to a pulp by him. She has spoken about how she would often tried to fight back, push him away or defend herself but she physically couldn't. He was shorter than her and a thinner build but he was still too strong for her to be able to fight back.

I was friends with a guy in college who was only a couple of inches taller than me and a lot thinner. He was actually quite a fair bit underweight if I remember correctly and I know he weighed less than I did. However he could still easily pick me up and carry me around and he frequently did. We were 17 and for some reason we found it hilarious and I would let him carry me around quite often...again we were 17 . I did try to pick him up one time but let's say that didn't end very well .

I think most people get that men are stronger than women but I don't think people realise just how much stronger they are. I was raped when I was younger and up until then I had it in my head that yes, sure, men are stronger but they're probably only a little bit stronger. But when I was raped, he pinned me down to the bed and I tried to fight but no matter how hard I tried I physically couldn't budge him. He was holding me down with one arm at one point but I still couldn't fight him off. It scared me how quickly he was able to grab me, overpower me, hold me down and hurt me with me being physically unable to do anything about it.

So yes, I do think that too much emphasis is put on size when it comes to men, women and violence. Size may be relevant sometimes but chances are, a 5'4 man is still going to be stronger than a 6ft tall woman. That's why sport is segregated by sex first of all and not simply by height/weight/size/build.