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.

I can't think of an example other than this, so please forgive that on the surface it appears "insensitive" and I am in no way comparing children to animals, but referring to "why should the girls be kind when he hit them"

Imagine a child taunts a dog. Winds it up. Pokes at it and pulls the tail. Hides it's ball, generally torments. The next time the child pulls the dogs tail, it bites the child.

Now. Of course this is unacceptable. You can't have a dog that bites children. But you can't just gloss over the bullying behaviour that led to it. Actions have consequences. Their actions were nasty. His consequence following those actions was nasty. He's hit one (both?) of them in the past. Are we suggesting that the girls were nowhere near him, and he completely unprovoked decided, hey, I'll go find "Jane" and thump her for no reason at all.

The girls have been very unkind. And OP didn't think they needed to apologise for it. It doesn't excuse what he did, at all. But I think a lot of posters are trying to make a villain of solely the boy, because of his strong reactions. He's in the wrong, sure. As are the girls.

@MollysDolly

I can't think of an example other than this, so please forgive that on the surface it appears "insensitive" and I am in no way comparing children to animals, but referring to "why should the girls be kind when he hit them"

Imagine a child taunts a dog. Winds it up. Pokes at it and pulls the tail. Hides it's ball, generally torments. The next time the child pulls the dogs tail, it bites the child.

Now. Of course this is unacceptable. You can't have a dog that bites children. But you can't just gloss over the bullying behaviour that led to it. Actions have consequences. Their actions were nasty. His consequence following those actions was nasty. He's hit one (both?) of them in the past. Are we suggesting that the girls were nowhere near him, and he completely unprovoked decided, hey, I'll go find "Jane" and thump her for no reason at all.

The girls have been very unkind. And OP didn't think they needed to apologise for it. It doesn't excuse what he did, at all. But I think a lot of posters are trying to make a villain of solely the boy, because of his strong reactions. He's in the wrong, sure. As are the girls.

In both situations, the boy was the aggressor.

#1 - OP's dd's were playing together, they didn't approach either M or G (the boy). G went to them and took their toys.

#2 - G told provoked OP's dd with 'na na na' etc, and she responded with bite me etc. A girl having the temerity to answer back angered him and he tried to strangle her.

So no, OP's dd was not nasty and saying that OP's dd was strangled as a consequence of her speaking for herself is victim blaming.

@MollysDolly

I can't think of an example other than this, so please forgive that on the surface it appears "insensitive" and I am in no way comparing children to animals, but referring to "why should the girls be kind when he hit them"

Imagine a child taunts a dog. Winds it up. Pokes at it and pulls the tail. Hides it's ball, generally torments. The next time the child pulls the dogs tail, it bites the child.

Now. Of course this is unacceptable. You can't have a dog that bites children. But you can't just gloss over the bullying behaviour that led to it. Actions have consequences. Their actions were nasty. His consequence following those actions was nasty. He's hit one (both?) of them in the past. Are we suggesting that the girls were nowhere near him, and he completely unprovoked decided, hey, I'll go find "Jane" and thump her for no reason at all.

The girls have been very unkind. And OP didn't think they needed to apologise for it. It doesn't excuse what he did, at all. But I think a lot of posters are trying to make a villain of solely the boy, because of his strong reactions. He's in the wrong, sure. As are the girls.

Animals can’t help their instinctive reactions.

Humans can.

The girls didn’t put their hands on him. They had boundaries because he had already hit them. He initiated the first problem by stealing their toys because they rightfully had boundaries from a boy who had hit them twice. He initiated the second problem by teasing the girls for being in school longer.

Then him and another boy chased her down, attacked her, pinned her down and strangled her.

Yes actions have consequences. The consequence of him hitting them twice meant they don’t like him or feel safe playing with him so drew firm boundaries. He chose to violate their boundaries. He chose to be cruel and tease her 6 months later. He chose to physically attack her with his friend for back up. His actions would have serious consequences in the uk. In Scotland he would be the age of criminal responsibility and in England community police officers take reports to keep on record for future incidents to establish a pattern if needed. Schools can (and should) take action in the uk to punish such behaviour under section 90 &91 of the education act, that gives schools power to punish behaviour outside of school time.

And yet the other mother, who was there at the playdate where the girls did "nothing wrong" took her own child to apologise to the boy, and OPs child was even told that she wasn't to play with her anymore.

But of course, the girls have done nothing.

I can't imagine one of my children shouting "bite me loser" at another child, especially in front of me. It's quite clear the mother allows unkind behaviour and doesn't address it. What did the boy say to deserve this? "Na na, you went to extra school". What an awful offensive child. Not like the delightful girl, who can shout "bite me loser" with her mother standing side by side in validation.

It seems that verbal abuse is fine, bullying is fine, excluding is fine, other children apologising for being party to this and stating they aren't going to play with OPs child again is fine, but such uproar at the boy. Because he uses physical abuse, as opposed to mental.

Physically harming someone is never okay. However your girls have been repeatedly bullying him - just because they are using their words rather than their fists doesn’t make it okay.

And yet the other mother, who was there at the playdate where the girls did "nothing wrong" took her own child to apologise to the boy, and OPs child was even told that she wasn't to play with her anymore.

The other mother was the childminder who would plausibly have lost a client if she hadn't compelled her DD to apologise to her tormentor. Or, feasibly, she might be the same sort of apologist who is posting on this thread.

@MollysDolly

I can't think of an example other than this, so please forgive that on the surface it appears "insensitive" and I am in no way comparing children to animals, but referring to "why should the girls be kind when he hit them"

Imagine a child taunts a dog. Winds it up. Pokes at it and pulls the tail. Hides it's ball, generally torments. The next time the child pulls the dogs tail, it bites the child.

Now. Of course this is unacceptable. You can't have a dog that bites children. But you can't just gloss over the bullying behaviour that led to it. Actions have consequences. Their actions were nasty. His consequence following those actions was nasty. He's hit one (both?) of them in the past. Are we suggesting that the girls were nowhere near him, and he completely unprovoked decided, hey, I'll go find "Jane" and thump her for no reason at all.

The girls have been very unkind. And OP didn't think they needed to apologise for it. It doesn't excuse what he did, at all. But I think a lot of posters are trying to make a villain of solely the boy, because of his strong reactions. He's in the wrong, sure. As are the girls.

The boy hit the girls prior to the play date where the first incident happened. Why should the girls then have "been kind" to the boy just because they were unfortunate enough to have been put in the same place by being invited to a play date with the third girl?

Once the girls were playing, the boy continued his bad behaviour by annoying the girls and hiding their toys. Why should the girls then have nevertheless included him?

That is victim blaming and is unacceptable.

It is not wrong for anyone to exclude anyone else who hits them and takes away their possessions. Teaching girls otherwise is to teach them that they should allow boys (and later men) to to treat them badly.

We have more than enough examples here on MN alone on how women tragically keep putting up with horrendous behaviour from men. What are the chances they were indoctrinated as girls into "being kind" no matter the cost to themselves?

@Missmissmiiiiiiiiisss

Physically harming someone is never okay. However your girls have been repeatedly bullying him - just because they are using their words rather than their fists doesn’t make it okay.

The girls did not bully the boys first according to the OP. He had hit the girls prior to the play date. You are misrepresenting the OP.

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.

@MollysDolly

And yet the other mother, who was there at the playdate where the girls did "nothing wrong" took her own child to apologise to the boy, and OPs child was even told that she wasn't to play with her anymore.

But of course, the girls have done nothing.

I can't imagine one of my children shouting "bite me loser" at another child, especially in front of me. It's quite clear the mother allows unkind behaviour and doesn't address it. What did the boy say to deserve this? "Na na, you went to extra school". What an awful offensive child. Not like the delightful girl, who can shout "bite me loser" with her mother standing side by side in validation.

It seems that verbal abuse is fine, bullying is fine, excluding is fine, other children apologising for being party to this and stating they aren't going to play with OPs child again is fine, but such uproar at the boy. Because he uses physical abuse, as opposed to mental.

The mother wasn’t their to witness the second incident as she explained. But school obviously believes the girls as they took action and twins are the first to tell on one another I can assure you.

The first mother is the child minder so can’t loose business or reputation, so it’s entirely possible felt she had to force an apology. And she’s the one who left the children alone even though she was well aware this boy had hit them before, so hardly an example of what to follow.

If I said anything nasty, even cruel, to dh and his response, immediately or 6 months later, was to strangle me you can bet the law would not consider my cruel words a reason not to charge him with assault.

What a vile bunch of victim blaming and misogyny going on in this thread.

Now. Of course this is unacceptable. You can't have a dog that bites children. But you can't just gloss over the bullying behaviour that led to it
Exactly this.

The boy hit the girls prior to the play date where the first incident happened. Why should the girls then have "been kind" to the boy just because they were unfortunate enough to have been put in the same place by being invited to a play date with the third girl?
How about not putting themselves in that position in the first place? Either treat him decently despite his behaviour, or tell their mum they didn't want to stay.

I don't believe for a second here that the girls are all innocent. The fact the kum of the other girl made her apologies rather than telling the bit off, which as a childminder was at liberty to do, says it all really.

@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.

From the op posts it doesn’t sound like her or her dds knew he would be there. Even if they did she should be able to trust that the adult would be supervising and safeguarding the children. Especially an adult who is a child minder.

The first mother is the child minder so can’t loose business or reputation, so it’s entirely possible felt she had to force an apology
Because if course, the option that she just agreed the behaviour of the girls were just vile couldn't possibly be the reason!

Anyone calling someone known to be violent a loser has nothing to be proud of. All she needed to do was ignore him. What OP should be teaching her girls.

I don't believe for a second here that the girls are all innocent. The fact the kum of the other girl made her apologies rather than telling the bit off, which as a childminder was at liberty to do, says it all really.

As above, is it possible that you are not considering that the other mother was the childminder who didn't wish to lose a client or she might share your views about centering the male primacy of credibility in this situation.

Reading this thread is eye-opening for me. It makes sense as to why charges for men are so frequently dropped or converted to lesser offences. It even explains why it's so difficult to achieve a conviction for some crimes against women.

From the op posts it doesn’t sound like her or her dds knew he would be there
Of course she would have Susie Ted, she herself says she babysit often. If she had any genuine concern, you would ask surely.

And what mothers leave her kids in a situation if potential abuse, even with supervision?

Ironically, it doesn't sound like the girls were scared or worried as they saw free to bully and exclude him.

@vivainsomnia

The first mother is the child minder so can’t loose business or reputation, so it’s entirely possible felt she had to force an apology Because if course, the option that she just agreed the behaviour of the girls were just vile couldn't possibly be the reason!

Anyone calling someone known to be violent a loser has nothing to be proud of. All she needed to do was ignore him. What OP should be teaching her girls.

When did the op say she was proud?

What does knowing he was violent have anything to do with it? Are you trying to suggest the girl should have moderated her behaviour to avoid his violent response?

@vivainsomnia

From the op posts it doesn’t sound like her or her dds knew he would be there Of course she would have Susie Ted, she herself says she babysit often. If she had any genuine concern, you would ask surely.

And what mothers leave her kids in a situation if potential abuse, even with supervision?

Ironically, it doesn't sound like the girls were scared or worried as they saw free to bully and exclude him.

Having boundaries is not bullying. They don’t need to play with a boy who hits them.

it doesn't sound like the girls were scared or worried as they saw free to bully and exclude him.

As a public service, can you distinguish between 'excluding' someone and removing yourself from an escalating, difficult situation (the disruption, attempting to take the toys etc.)?

I don't think shouting 'bite me' (or the equivalent) at someone is showing fear!

@MerryMarigold

I don't think shouting 'bite me' (or the equivalent) at someone is showing fear!

So she should have been suitable cowed in fear of him?

I’ve shouted fuck off to predatory men at times, doesn’t mean I wasn’t scared as well as angry that some creepy was expecting me to owe him my time.

The girls could have felt scared at sometimes and angry at others and brave at other ones. But they are always justified in not playing with a violent child.

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)
Some posters seem to have missed out the bit where OP acknowledge they were laughing, doing 'stuff', whatever what that was, and acknowledging they were not kind.

Is this acceptable behaviour when a child who was already present on a playdate is excluded?

Are parents really teaching their kids that this sort of behaviour is acceptable?

An actual victim of a boy strangling her referred to as ‘playing victim’
An event that happened AFTERWARDS!

Of course this not acceptable. Not at all. But it doesn't erase the bad behaviour of the girls 6 months earlier!