Do you teach your child to hit back?

[SweetBobby]

If yes, why?
If no, why?

I do and I feel pretty strongly about it. Being able to stand up for yourself in life is absolutely vital.

YABU- No I don't
YANBU- Yes I do

Awful and isn't the norm elsewhere so obviously there is a systemic issue.

Even if there were fighting I and my sons would do as set out by @Runnersandtoms

No. I taught mine one punch can kill.

Not to hit back because you will be in trouble for fighting (at school)

Taught to avoid conflict, leave, run away if possible.

Now, he knows how to defend himself getting his guard up.

Fact remains that bullies will almost always pick the easier target. Even if they beat up the kid that fights back the chances are good that they'll think twice next time.

This is completely untrue. The worst bullying I've seen was in a posh catholic private school.

And lol at all the 'one punch kill' comments. 😂 How often does this actually happen with children?

How many children accidentally kill others vs giving the bully a bloody nose/black eye? I mean, if you're really this risk averse I can only assume you don't drive to work and will be trying your damnedest to ensure your children never learn to drive.

My sister told each of her three kids (two girls and a boy) to take no nonsense from anyone. If they were ever hit then they were to hit back harder.
All three have grown up to be very confident, successful adults.

@SidhuVicious Theres always one school with poof leadership and Catholic schools, as we all know, are not all beacons of excellence in a number of ways. In general, children viciously hitting each other is not a factor in a well led school.

Don't you expect the lessons you teach your DC to be taken into adult life? If the only conflict resolution you have taught your DC is violence, then that is what they will do as an adult.

But yes, you may be surprised to hear that teens do kill one another.

Taking no nonsense doesn't equate to hitting.

Violence only begets violence.

Self defence is generally admissable as a last resort. If somebody attacks me I'll defend myself and I'd much prefer that to standing there and getting pummeled. I used to do Thai boxing and I had to use it one time against a drunken woman who went for me. It stopped her in her tracks and left me with just a minor cut on my cheek. Had I not defended myself I'd likely have been injured.

Such weak people on this thread. Even if I end up losing, I'm fighting back.

Don't you expect the lessons you teach your DC to be taken into adult life? If the only conflict resolution you have taught your DC is violence, then that is what they will do as an adult.

Children are not adults. It could work the other way too - a kid who thinks they can exert power through violence and bully people, gets hit back once and realises they can't do that as there are consequences. Finds another path.
I'd rather my kids had a good chance at defending themselves. We've never smacked dc, dc are not violent at all but have stood up to bullies and stood up for their friends.

A question to the posters that believe violence is never the solution....

If an out of control dog attacked you or your child and you had something to hand you could use as a weapon, would you stand by watching your child or yourself get mauled and wait for help or would you use necessary violence?

If the latter, why is it different when the attacker is a human? Is it because their human rights are more important than your own despite the fact they made a conscious decision to attack you?

What a nonsense comment. The only reason I would need a weapon/violence would be to get the dog off my child - if they'd clamped on etc. My main aim would be to get my child out of the situation and to safety. We live in an area with wild boar, I tell my dd to back away, or climb a gate or wall, if one decides to attack. I wouldn't suggest she try to fight it - violence in most situations leads to further violence.

When animal attack me of course the animal attack for kill so I will be try to kill it too and after I be kill the owner for being stupid enough to not look after his dangerous pet

But it's the same when you're dealing with a human being. Obviously, you try to avoid violence. However, if someone is on you and attacking you then you need to try to get them off you. Shouting for help doesn't always work.

The same if someone is attacking a child that you're responsible for. If a yell doesn't work, then do your best to get them off the victim whilst causing the least amount of damage.

So you'd use violence to get a dog off you but not to get a human off you?

Violence is needed and justified for self defence, for protecting others and in war too if someone want to shoot you

Nope.

Why no? so you let the human kill you ?

I'd avoid violence with either and walk or run away, or get help. We are talking about children at school, not adults out to murder. Please stop trying to lead with your comments, it is alright for me to disagree with you.

It's a false equivalence, it's a fucking dog. I'd shoot it in the face without hesitation if necessary. I wouldn't if it was a person.

A lot of us aren't talking about what they'd do if someone is actively attacking you, you do what you need to do to get them off. It's more a discussion of if someone punches do you walk away or retaliate.

As people have explained quite patiently, it's not always possible to walk away or get help - particularly when someone is literally on top of you.

Children at secondary school can do a lot of damage, unfortunately. Over 40 yrs of teaching, I've stopped a few assaults. I'm not sure how many. The hands off approach worked for some; for others, I had to get the assailant into a bear hug to haul them off the victim. It's not easy, and I have been hurt in the process - but the alternative would have been to allow the assault to continue. I twice had to get down on my hands and knees to pull one teenager off another. In those situations, you always try to de-escalate, but that doesn't always work.

The one time that I felt that I couldn't intervene physically (after shouting failed to work) was when I was in the very early stage of a pregnancy. (No, I didn't have a Risk Assessment in place. I'd only got a faint blue line and was waiting a week to re-test.) It was interval and the victim ran into my room for sanctuary, closely pursued by the perpetrator. I kept well out of the perpetrator's way and tried to get to my phone to get assistance. He came at me and punched me in the stomach. I didn't even know him. He followed me quite deliberately - it was no accident.

People forget how strong teenage boys are.

A senior boy ran to get help from two male teachers in the next classroom. They were also punched. (One had stood in front of the pupil victim to protect him.) The assault was finally stopped by a retired police officer who was then our Community Link.

ETA No, I wasn't dealing with assaults every single day - but this is the reality of what you see in a long career. Most pupils are perfectly harmless. A handful are not. Schools are a reflection of society.

I also work in education and would still not advise a child to use violence in retaliation, which is what the original question asked.