To think this is how violent men get their start in life?

[Anycrispsleft]

I wanted to know if you think I'm being U in this scenario, with a boy from my daughters' class. I'll try and tell the whole story from start to finish, but for a bit of background - my 9yo twin (shut up Mumsnet, they really are twins ) are in school with a boy, G, and a girl, M. All 4 of them have known each other since nursery, and at nursery they got on OK as most kids do, but since then G's behaviour has gone downhill a bit and he's hit one of my kids a couple of times and is often in trouble at school. Ms mum has been an unofficial childminder for G most of his life: he lives with his dad, a lone parent until about 18 months ago when he got married, so he and M are often together.

The first stushie was about 6 months ago. M Skyped one of my kids one Sunday afternoon and invited them to go and play in her garden.

1. my kids turned up - G was there as well, being looked after by M's mum/on a playdate
2. M went and played with my kids in preference to G
3. G tried to interrupt their game by taking their stuff
4. The girls retaliated by hiding their stuff from him (and probably laughing at him and stuff, I'm not saying they were particularly kind)
5. He went home in a strop and said the three of them hadn't been nice to him
6. My two came home, also in a strop, said G had been disrupting their game and acting like an idiot - I asked them whether they'd called him any names or hit him or anything - no (and I am inclined to believe them, bc at the very least if one of them had been a fecker they would have come back up the road fighting about who caused the fight)
7. The dad phones me and tells me his boy is upset and I need to talk to my kids and tell them to apologise. I tell him they've already talked to me about it and I don't see any reason for them to apologise any more than he should, that it all sounds like like normal kid falling-out and if the kids don't want to play with each other I'm not going to force them.
8. Unbeknownst to me at the time, he also phones M's mum. M's mum takes her up to his house and makes M apologise.
9. The day after M skypes my daughter to say she's not allowed to play with her any more. I tell M she's always welcome at our house.

M's mother never got in touch with me, so I was left in this weird limbo. I wasn't there, G's dad wasn't there, M's mum never spoke to me about the incident, so nobody was actually accusing my kids of anything to me but they couldn't see their friend any more and they were supposed to apologise for something (but G's dad couldn't exactly say what)? I concluded that they're all fucking mental G's dad is maybe paying M to childmind G, and so she feels obliged to make sure he has a nice time and stays to the end of the playdate, and maybe didn't want my kids there at all, but didn't feel like she could say that? Anyway not my monkeys etc... I told the kids not to go down there, we had M over for a few playdates organised by the kids themselves, and all was reasonably quiet.
Then, a couple of weeks ago, my kids were coming out of afterschool and the boy was still playing in the playground with one of his friends. He was like "na na na, you have to go to extra school" and my older daughter was like "bite me loser, the after school lady gave us sweeties" and she waved the sweeties at him and he and his friend chased her down the road, tried to get the sweets off her, then tried to strangle her, before my other daughter and their wee friend from afterschool pulled him off.
Given my opinion of the dad isn't great I said to them to just tell the school in the first instance. The teacher dealt with it pretty robustly, giving them the two of them pretty thoroughly into trouble and making them write an apology to my daughter. I thought that was an end to it - my daughter wasn't that bothered about it - and then on Thursday night I get 3 missed calls and 2 messages on my phone from the dad wanting to speak to me. I just deleted them, then he ran into my husband and chewed his ear off for about half an hour about how after this recent episode the boy had been complaining that he had to apologise and my daughter's had not had to apologise for that time 6 months ago, and the dad said he felt that it had been playing on the boy's mind, and that maybe it had even been responsible for the worsening of his behaviour over the past 6 months. He left his phone number, and asked us to think about it over the weekend. That my daughter not playing with him 6 months ago was the trigger for the boy's mental unrest, and not say the fact that his father had just got married and his new sister had been born, about a month before? That his hurt feelings somehow justified him trying to strangle my daughter, that excluding someone from your game is the same as strangling them? That boys are entitled to girls' care and attention, and if they don't get it, they're entitled to respond with violence? I mean TBH there's no point me putting this in AIBU because there is no way on this earth I would make my daughter apologise to that wee guy. I'm amazed though. That anybody could think that's a normal way to raise your kids.

A stooshie is a row or a fracas.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/scottish-word-day-stooshie-1619979%3famp

OP’s in Scotland: other giveaway is the use of the phrase “to give someone into trouble”.

Strangling is extremely serious and in abusive relationships, the presence of strangling is a predictor that the strangler will go on to attempt to kill the victim.

That a boy is doing this to a girl at that age is horrific. There is no excuse for it.

@vivainsomnia - why would he provoke the girl by teasing her about staying behind at school (granted we only have OP’s description)?

Small kid can only react by saying something back. If girl had been a bigger boy instead, I bet the boy 1) would have been less likely to tease about staying behind at school (in case big boy reacted the way he did) 2) would not have attempted to strangle (because he would probably end up worse off). I agree that OPs daughter should turn the other cheek, not respond and be kind (or at least civil when playing alongside him) - it will also be good learning to keep safe by avoiding violence in future (regardless of right and wrong - safety first then seek justice).

But smaller, weaker kids can also be targets (especially compared to similarly behaved bigger counterparts). Life is not fair, and I guess I’d rather teach my kids survival than retaliation.

Why are you putting the onus on 9yo girls to risk assess whether a boy will hit or strangle them?
Yes, how easy it is to manipulate what people say isn't it!

My comment was in relation to not including him in their play and laughing at him. There was no hitting during this play date, no strangling.

It's not about risk assessment of violence by a 9yo. What a ridiculous statement to make! It's about either the child plays with all the kids present or if they feel uncomfortable with their presence, ask not to stay or, if opting to exclude them, avoiding laughing at them and doing 'stuff' to them.

why would he provoke the girl by teasing her about staying behind at school (granted we only have OP’s description)?
Because clearly there's been conflict between the kids that has been ignored.

But teasing a kid for having to go to after-school club is quite different to be called a loser, especially when you're a troubled kid whose gone through emotional upheaval.

Perhaps it is the view that only the girls are victims that is so unpalatable.

His actions were unkind and physical. So they were victims of his physical actions. Absolutely.

Their actions were unkind and non physical. He is a victim of their non physical bullying. Absolutely.

It's not for any of us to decide who is "worse". And no one is victim blaming the girls for him hitting. Absolutely not. They are victims of physical action from him. That's not questionable.

Saying he has been at the hands of very unkind behaviour from them too is not justifying his actions, and I'm unsure why anyone claims it is. It's simple fact. I fail to see why they are viewed as the only people that are victims because they are nasty to him in a different way. All the children are victims, not just the ones who have been affected physically.

If Sarah bullies John, mocking, laughing excluding. John is the victim of the bullying.

If John bullies Sarah, pulls her hair and kicks her. Sarah is the victim of the bullying.

Drawing a connection between the two is not victim blaming. Neither John nor Sarah deserves their treatment. Both John and Sarah are in the wrong.

@vivainsomnia

If a bloke hit you a few times would you be 'kind' to him? If he really hit the girls before the incident with the childminder, then why oh why would you let your kids have a playdate with them?

I would be we send my kids anywhere there was a risk of abuse knowing there was a good chance he would be there.

I expect the violence really started after that time.

You didn't answer my question - if a bloke hit you a few times, would you be 'kind' to him? If a bloke hit you once would you be 'kind' to him? If a bloke chased and strangled you, would you consider it an assault or just brush it off as him having a bad day or feeling low and taking it out on you? Would that make it any less of an assault? I would be genuinely interested in your answers.

@vivainsomnia - really? I’d say they were pretty equivalent. I think you’re having a bit of double standards here. His teasing is seen as not so bad. Her calling him a loser is waaaay worse and provoked him to strangle while his friend held her down… if she is smaller than him, she basically has no choice but to suck it up and walk away (which is what OP should tell her to do - because it is kinder and safer). Meanwhile he can act as he likes and tease people whenever (except he probably won’t tease the bigger kids). He can’t control his temper or his tongue and his dad should try and teach him to do both instead of blaming it on an incident 6 months ago.

Drawing a connection between the two is not victim blaming. Neither John nor Sarah deserves their treatment. Both John and Sarah are in the wrong.

I reject several of your premises.

Upthread I asked those of you who think this to provide a genuine public service by explaining the difference between exclusion and the girls opting to maintain boundaries by not choosing to play with someone who had:
–previously hit them;
–opted to disrupt their game and take their toys.
The girls chose to remove themselves and play elsewhere and with each other. They were followed and it escalated.

I would also benefit from some insight into the comparability of consequences. A girl answers back and she is pursued by 2 boys who hold her down and she is strangled.

I genuinely don't understand the equivalence and I am interested to know why it appears that way to others as it will help me to understand the attitude of the parents in my own story (shared upthread).

You didn't answer my question - if a bloke hit you a few times, would you be 'kind' to him? If a bloke hit you once would you be 'kind' to him? If a bloke chased and strangled you, would you consider it an assault or just brush it off as him having a bad day or feeling low and taking it out on you? Would that make it any less of an assault? I would be genuinely interested in your answers.

I think if a bloke was the kind of person to hit me and I was therefore in genuine fear, I wouldn't go on a (play) date, make fun of him and shout "bite me loser" at him. I would be giving someone that hits people a very wide berth.

I absolutely would not brush it off as him having a bad day. It's physical violence. And I know he'll hit me, he's proved that already.

I would not mock, taunt and insult that person. Which does not mean, by default, I must involve myself yet simper around like a timid kitten and allow him to behave however he likes. It means, I stay away from him and do not act nastily.

I think if a bloke was the kind of person to hit me and I was therefore in genuine fear, I wouldn't go on a (play) date, make fun of him and shout "bite me loser" at him. I would be giving someone that hits people a very wide berth.

Judging by other comments here, wouldn't some people criticise your actions as exclusionary?

@MollysDolly

Perhaps it is the view that only the girls are victims that is so unpalatable.

His actions were unkind and physical. So they were victims of his physical actions. Absolutely.

Their actions were unkind and non physical. He is a victim of their non physical bullying. Absolutely.

It's not for any of us to decide who is "worse". And no one is victim blaming the girls for him hitting. Absolutely not. They are victims of physical action from him. That's not questionable.

Saying he has been at the hands of very unkind behaviour from them too is not justifying his actions, and I'm unsure why anyone claims it is. It's simple fact. I fail to see why they are viewed as the only people that are victims because they are nasty to him in a different way. All the children are victims, not just the ones who have been affected physically.

If Sarah bullies John, mocking, laughing excluding. John is the victim of the bullying.

If John bullies Sarah, pulls her hair and kicks her. Sarah is the victim of the bullying.

Drawing a connection between the two is not victim blaming. Neither John nor Sarah deserves their treatment. Both John and Sarah are in the wrong.

You claim the girls bullied the boy. I don't see that in the OP's posts.

As far as I can see, the boy had form for hitting one of the girls and was therefore the bully at the outset.

Then, during the play date, the boy was excluded from the girl's play because he was annoying them and taking away their toys. Considering that the boy already had form for hitting one of the girls, that exclusion is completely understandable.

Six months later the boy taunts one of the girls and upon verbal retaliation by the girl, he chases and strangles her.

How is the boy supposed to be a victim here?

@MollysDolly

You didn't answer my question - if a bloke hit you a few times, would you be 'kind' to him? If a bloke hit you once would you be 'kind' to him? If a bloke chased and strangled you, would you consider it an assault or just brush it off as him having a bad day or feeling low and taking it out on you? Would that make it any less of an assault? I would be genuinely interested in your answers.

I think if a bloke was the kind of person to hit me and I was therefore in genuine fear, I wouldn't go on a (play) date, make fun of him and shout "bite me loser" at him. I would be giving someone that hits people a very wide berth.

I absolutely would not brush it off as him having a bad day. It's physical violence. And I know he'll hit me, he's proved that already.

I would not mock, taunt and insult that person. Which does not mean, by default, I must involve myself yet simper around like a timid kitten and allow him to behave however he likes. It means, I stay away from him and do not act nastily.

I mean you're literally outright victim blaming now.

You wouldn't go on a play date or voluntarily spend time with someone who hit you before because you're an adult. Kids don't get to choose who they spend time with and where all the time. And in fact they didn't want to play with him so removed themselves from his company, as you suggested, but you also think that is an exclusionary and mean thing for them to do. So they can't win really can they?

It's not for any of us to decide who is "worse".

Or perhaps the boy who, along with another boy, chased down a girl and strangled her is worse.

(I know some people made the excuse that he only strangled her in the course of his attempt to rob her but I'm really not seeing how that mitigates things.)

His teasing is seen as not so bad.

It wasn't

Her calling him a loser is waaaay worse

It is

and provoked him to strangle while his friend held her down

And this is beyond unacceptable. No one's saying it isn't.

I think what's getting lost here, is the end result is the most extreme, so everything before then is insignificant.

Strangling someone for sweets isn't normal. Let's start there. This little boy (perhaps through the loss of his mother at such a young age) reacts violently.

Is this right? No. Is this ok? No.

Does OP and both her daughter's know that this is how he reacts. Yes.

Is he likely to do the same if the daughter shouts "loser" at him again. Quite possibly.

Then common sense prevails. OP needs to stop minimising her daughter's part in all of this. It's quite clear that the reactions are not ok. So stop name-calling and other bullying behaviour (that another parent deemed worthy of apologising for) towards a child that only knows how to react violently.

This. Is. Not. Victim. Blaming.

It would be, if the daughters were doing nothing wrong. Ie John doesn't like Sarahs pink hair tie and keeps yanking it out of her hair.

This is Sarah and Sue have been in a situation where they (low level) bully John. John reacts violently. John's reaction is categorically not ok. Sarah and Sue do not have a green light to carry on bullying.

It would be, if the daughters were doing nothing wrong. Ie John doesn't like Sarahs pink hair tie and keeps yanking it out of her hair

oh come on, there would be dozens of posts saying not to wear the pink hair tie if it provokes him, complete with speculation about how he was probably traumatised by a hair tie in his youth.

You wouldn't go on a play date or voluntarily spend time with someone who hit you before because you're an adult.

Correct

Kids don't get to choose who they spend time with and where all the time.

Also correct. OP chose to take them to a play date he was already at. And on seeing him there, could have diplomatically left, or stayed, but chose to leave them all there together.

And in fact they didn't want to play with him so removed themselves from his company, as you suggested, but you also think that is an exclusionary and mean thing for them to do. So they can't win really can they?

OP states all three girls went off and left him, and that they were "laughing at him and stuff, I'm not saying they were particularly kind". We'll have to draw our own conclusions as to what "stuff" entailed and how nasty that was. It warranted the third girls mother not wanting her child to play with OPs girls afterwards. So as for "they can't win" that's making excuses for their behaviour. Removing yourself from a situation is what you do. Following it with laughing, being unkind, and "other stuff" is not.

And again, for clarity, no, that doesn't mean they deserve a physical reaction.

This. Is. Not. Victim. Blaming.

Yes. It. Is.

@allmywhat

It would be, if the daughters were doing nothing wrong. Ie John doesn't like Sarahs pink hair tie and keeps yanking it out of her hair

oh come on, there would be dozens of posts saying not to wear the pink hair tie if it provokes him, complete with speculation about how he was probably traumatised by a hair tie in his youth.

Er, no there wouldn't. And there haven't.

Non physical bullying being ignored and dressed up as victim blaming is the issue. He has physically bullied them. They have non physically bullied him. Pointing both of those things out is not victim blaming him, or them. That's the entire point.

if a bloke hit you a few times, would you be 'kind' to him?
I don't know. Depends on circumstances, how bad he hit me. In all likelihood, I'd probably do everything to avoid him.

But what relevance to the OP? OP didn't say he had hit the girls before the first incident, posters have just assumed.

If a bloke chased and strangled you, would you consider it an assault or just brush it off as him having a bad day or feeling low and taking it out on you?
I would report him to the police but then again, I cwrtaiy wouldn't have called him a loser before.

Again, irrelevant again as we are talking about kids here.

His teasing is seen as not so bad. Her calling him a loser is waaaay worse and provoked him to strangle while his friend held her down
Worse to call.gim a loser? Definitely yes. Provoked him to strangle her? Absolutely not. His actions were in no way justifiable, whatever the circumstances. I am absolutely not defending the boy.

You claim the girls bullied the boy. I don't see that in the OP's posts
That I really don't understand. So you are invited at a friend's house. You start having a drink, charting, having fun. Unbeknown to you, she calls two other friends you don't like much.

They come and your friend start to speak with them, give them drinks, go in another room than you. You go to them, they go silent. You ask what they were talking about, or try to immerse in the conversation, but they ignore you, go elsewhere, tell you you're not welcome. You start to lose it, they laugh at you, tell you u kind thing and do more 'stuff'.

Wouldn't you think all 3 behaved appallingly? These are kids, they don't yet have all the social skills to address the situation appropriately. That's why parents should be there to teach them. One child acting bad doesn't give you the entitlement to hurt them back.

In this instance, it sounds like it's been tit for tat for some time and gradually escalating to violence because none of the parents, except for the childminder, accept the wrong doing of their kids.

@youvegottenminuteslynn

This. Is. Not. Victim. Blaming.

Yes. It. Is.

So if my son bullies someone, and they respond on whatever form, I'll be glad to let the school know that they must only deal with the other child. DS is not to be addressed, as it's victim blaming.

And in fact they didn't want to play with him so removed themselves from his company, as you suggested, but you also think that is an exclusionary and mean thing for them to do. So they can't win really can they?
That's why the parents should be making decisions. OP should have asked if he was there and tell the girls it was better not to go then but could invite their friends other another day. Very simple. Why send you kids to play with a kid you know to be abusive to them. It's that part I really don't understand.

Er, no there wouldn't. And there haven't.

There haven't been dozens of posts about your hypothetical situation? Of course there haven't, it's a hypothetical you came up three posts up the page from here. I'm contesting your idea that victim blaming wouldn't have taken place in your hypothetical circumstance.

Why send you kids to play with a kid you know to be abusive to them. It's that part I really don't understand.

So now it's time to blame the girls' mother. At what point do people posting this stuff stop and take a long hard look at themselves?

@allmywhat

Why send you kids to play with a kid you know to be abusive to them. It's that part I really don't understand.

So now it's time to blame the girls' mother. At what point do people posting this stuff stop and take a long hard look at themselves?

Perhaps, instead you could take a long hard look at that question, and answer it? Because it's the choice the mother made.

Why send your kids to play with a kid you know to be abusive to them?