I couldn’t believe my eyes seeing this advice to teach young boys to hit girls so as to restore the boys’ self esteem and pride.
This is the kind of toxic belief that shouldn’t be allowed to proliferate here and yet is embraced with open arms by other users.
That boys can only regain their pride and self esteem by hitting girls leads directly to more violence against women and girls.
This hits home. I was severely bullied and ostracized at school.
It was only when I snapped and kicked a bully that the bullying stopped and simply became avoidance. There’s a point to be made about setting personal boundaries “Don’t do onto others what you wouldn’t want done to you”.
I don’t think it’s about restoring self-esteem or pride but simply setting personal boundaries in a situation where “turning the other cheek” wouldn’t help.
Lemmy has a huge population that has a hard-on for violence in general.
Lemmy has a sizable population of Reddit rejects.
Semi-anonymous loosely moderated forums always attract people seeking outlets for things they can’t say on other social media or in real life.
- Society has a sexism problem.
Don’t know the context here, but to me it looks like that comment simply suggests teaching self defense to a victim of physical violence. Knowing some self defense is generally a good idea, especially if someone has a higher risk / history of being physically attacked. And if your attacker is a woman of course you still need to defend yourself.
That’s not the same as teaching boys to hit girls, and I don’t think that’s the point the comment was trying to make.
Another point I think I have to make: hitting back is not the same as self defense, it is retaliation, and not something we should teach children.
Literally says “and to hit back” right there.
Hitting back implies getting hit first, but apparently context is for losers, so who will ever know what we aren’t told.
You know what’s for losers? Trying to justify unnecessary violence. And among kindergartners, no less. You sound like someone who never left preschool emotionally.
Right, the violent ones are always the ones defending themselves, not the ones who attack them, aelf defense is never necessary or justified, it simply doesn’t exist. Ask Israel.
Perhaps look inward and consider why “self defense” means retaliation to you.
Difficulty: not bringing anyone else’s behavior into the equation
Perhaps you look inward and consider why you think DEFENSE means violence.
You charactized hitting back as self defense, not me.
Also good job on the “not bringing anyone else’s behavior into it” part. Well done. Masterful.
You just compared 5 year olds to Israel. Go the fuck outside and touch grass.
Don’t tell kids that self-defense is violence.
Encouraging 5 year olds to hit back is terrible. Encouraging children to solve their problems with violence is bad. Encouraging comparing a 5 year to the plight of Palestinians to win an internet slap fight is horrible.
Teaching boys they can restore their self esteem and pride by hitting girls is sexist.
The context is these are two kindergarteners. They’re like 4 years old.
Any defense of teaching boys that their self esteem and pride is tied to hitting anyone is terrible and violent advice. It hurts those boys as much as it’s going to encourage those boys to harm women if they feel slighted against.
Removed by mod
Nah. It’s only this one user. The rest of Lemmy is reasonable feminist
I’m not sure that’s the point of the comment though. Maybe it is, idk.
I guess we fundamentally agree and just interpret the comment differently. Hitting others is generally not ok, except in self defense.
I interpret the comment as “The boy should learn some self defense. That will help him get over the abuse and recover some self esteem.”, which I find valid.
You interpret it as “The boy should start hitting girls. This domination will lift his self esteem”. I agree that’s a shit take, but again, I also don’t interpret the comment that way, and I don’t think that those who upvoted it do.
I guess only OP can clarify what they meant.
Removed by mod
You’re in the feminism comm what tf are you talking about
he needs to overcome this to restore his pride
I think its pretty fucking clear.
To me it’s clear that the little kid is being bullied and the adults aren’t helping. It is a shitty situation. Kids do need to learn conflict resolution. Kids also need to learn about violence – not to perpetrate it, but to recognize it, respond to it, stay safe from it. Violence is an option in the world and kids need to learn to be protected from it and choose better options.
How do you teach kids to stand up to bullies? Somewhere in there has to be what to do in the case of violence, aka self defense, or pushing back if all else fails.
This kid does need to overcome this problem, although “restore his pride” sounds pretty gross.
Poor little boy didn’t want to go to school anymore. I don’t think we should teach boys that self esteem comes from violence against girls, but the real villain here is the school enabling the bully.
Yeah, it it was just “he should be able to defend himself” I think the comment would be okay, but the commenter is clearly saying he should get physical.
Additionally, the “its not like a grown man hitting a woman” and “restore his pride” definitely makes it sound sexist.
Teaching ___ to hit ____ to restore their pride is
sexistimmoral and ineffective.There. I fixed it for you. This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with violence culture.
Teaching girls to hit boys to restore their pride is wrong. Teaching boys to hit boys to restore their pride is wrong. Teaching enbys to hit puppies to restore their pride is wrong.
Violence as an act of necessary defense is the only justification for violence. Gender is irrelevant.
I agree. This comment is specifically about a little boy hitting a little girl to restore his pride and self-esteem.
When you strip away all context from something, you can make it mean anything you want.
And when you microscope on the specific context of an individual event you can miss the larger implications and ethical concerns about a set of behaviors.
If the comments were indicating that they should teach the boy to hit back because it’s a girl, or implying that in any way, I’d say it’s sexist. And the tendency towards violence may very well come from sexist systemic cultural issues. But I don’t think this reply set is particularly indicative of a sexism problem on Lemmy.
Note that I’m NOT saying there is no sexism problem on Lemmy. I’m saying this is not a particularly good example of it.
I read the “it’s not like they’re adults” comment to be more about “its not like there is an obvious biochemistry difference that makes the power balance in strength especially problematic”.
The replies you screenshot tell me that we have a parenting problem on Lemmy (independent of whether there is also a sexism problem)
“It’s not like a grown man hitting a woman”.
They directly talk about how they’re advising a little boy to hit a little girl.
They gendered their comment purposefully.
They advised a child to hit another child. The specifics of their genders is irrelevant to the wrongness of the advice.
I addressed that quote in my reply directly. Did you ignore that?
No. That user very specifically used gendered language. When you rewrite their comment to take gender out, yeah, you can make it neutral. But that’s not how the comment was originally posted and you’re not the original commentator.
You don’t know their motivation any more or less than I do. What I see is the encouragement of teaching a little boy to meet violence with violence. That shit directly supports the patriarchy.
deleted by creator
“Vengeance is mine” sayeth little Timmy. /s
Sounds a lot more like fighting back and standing up for themself than “hitting girls”, no? I don’t know what the original post is, but if he was subjected to physical violence then responding with physical violence isn’t unreasonable. The same would be true if the genders were swapped.
With that said, the emphasis on about pride is odd… I can’t tell if they’re speaking from personal experience or if it’s some chud toxic masculinity expectation thing. In either case, that’s very flawed. The idea that his self-esteem has to be “repaired” through having a capacity for violence is what I take issue with the most.
Self defense is about protecting yourself and others, not about making you feel strong or improve your self-esteem. That’s some typical male power fantasy bullshit. Also bullying shouldn’t damage self-esteem: it’s a reflection on the bully, not the person they’re bullying; and that perspective needs to be taught. There’s a difference between “a bad thing happened to me”, and “I deserved the bad thing because I’m me;” the damage to self-esteem happens from the latter, the former isn’t a remark of character at all: merely a statement of fact. There’s also something in here about “victimhood” being stigmatized similarly, but I’ve rambled enough.
They’re talking about 4 year olds.
Then most of what I said probably couldn’t be comprehended and therefore can’t apply, and any physical violence is likely so inert that it probably wouldn’t warrant a response, and pride/self-esteem issues are pretty moot as well so their advice is doubly wrong.
Sounds like most of the comments should be aimed towards the grownups in the situation and not the kids.
“A person on this platform said something I don’t agree with, this platform is fucked.”
It’s one part of a pattern of behavior.
I mod a few different communities and am an outspoken feminist. You should see the type of vileness that is supported by a lot of users here.
I’ve seen it too, especially the shit posts
The shitposting comm on .world is one of the few communities I have blocked. Those mods allowed a lot of pedophilic conversation there and it was one of the more disgusting examples of lack of moderation I’ve seen on sites like these.
So far you haven’t shown a pattern.
And this one example is sexist as fuck.
Teaching 4 year old boys that they can restore their pride and self esteem by hitting others is horrible advice that only perpetuates more violence. And it hurts those boys when they aren’t taught to develop any other sort of conflict resolution than using their fists.
Debatable. In any case, there is nothing here to suggest a very sensational “Lemmy has a sexism problem”.
Lemmy does have a sexism/misogyny problem. It especially comes out whenever a woman isn’t on the left “team”. They bring out the classic misogynistic insults. Just look at any of the Nicki Minaj related posts. They’re filled with people laughing at sexual harassment and general misogyny, all because she’s not on the left.
Sexism and misogyny is never okay.
Doesn’t she also surround her self with pedophiles? It’s a little disingenuous to say that people were “mean” to her only for being on “the wrong team”.
Attacking how she looks or celebrating her being sexually harassed has nothing to do with criticism for her aligning herself with pedophiles.
There’s a difference.
Lemmy does have a misogyny problem, but I don’t think this is part of it. The advice would have been the same if the bully were a boy.
I think teaching boys to react with violence is part of upholding the patriarchy and feeds directly into sexism.
Is it sexist to suggest the answer should be different depending on the gender of the people involved?
I can see trying to emphasize de escalation and self defense that isn’t just hitting back harder, but I don’t think the gender of the children involved should change the answer.
My statement about teaching boys doesn’t mean girls should be taught to meet violence with violence in their stead. They’re not mutually exclusive statements.
Just referring to both sides, if the bully is a boy or a girl, the response should be similar.
Certainly agree that the advice emphasizes the value of violence rather than accepting it as a last resort and measured response, but I’m not so sure it is a sexist sentiment, as could easily see that comment going the same way if it were two boys or two girls or the genders reversed.
It’s the language he chose like “it’s not like a grown man hitting a woman”
Do you think the same about teaching girls self defence? Genuinely curious. Ive gleaned from the context that these are 4 year olds so the whole conversation is a little dumb, but if it was a 7 year old girl getting hit by a boy would teaching her to hit back be wrong? What if it was a girl being bullied by a girl? Violence should be a last resort in conflict resolution but there definitely is a time for the application of violence in defense of yours or others safety.
What would you advocate for in this situation? Only girls are allowed to defend themselves? neither can?
Teaching children that, while they should never start the violence, the use of proportional, controlled, violence to defend themselves is reasonable.
A girl should be taught that a boy (or girl) hitting them, can be responded to in kind, if they’ve not got another reasonable option. The reverse also applies. Up until puberty, the ability to fight is fairly symmetrical.
I suspect the hidden context is key.
Boys are often taught Never hit a girl. If they are then repeatedly attacked by a girl, then they can end up in a no win situation. Particularly at 4, this can be very black and white. That unacknowledged helplessness is a classic precursor to later bullying, and needs to be nipped in the bud.
The use of proportional violence is actually reasonable at times. A hard shove to get them clear, and so unable to hit you. Even just active blocking (hitting their limbs away). It doesn’t matter the gender of those involved.
I’m an advocate of children (boys and girls) doing martial arts. It builds confidence and body control. It also teaches quick proportional defence. Those combine to both keep them safe, and let them protect others.
Saying boys shouldn’t be taught to hit totally means girls are allowed to hit all the time! /s
Neither should, both can and do.
However, from a lot of parents, with boys, the “do NOT hit girls” message is massively amplified.
Both genders will break the rules, to some extent. When a boy does it to them, by hitting, they can respond, if required. A girl who does the same can find a convenient physical and emotional punching bag, when the “do not hit girls” training ends up locking up their defensive response.
4-5 year olds shouldn’t be taught to hit back at all.
Hitting back can include shoving away, and defensive blocks.
My minion was learning to use and moderate themselves at around that age. They started martial arts not long after. I would never punish or argue against proportionate self defense. Even if it’s just to signal that it’s not appropriate play, and an adult’s attention is needed ASAP.
I don’t know why you’re trying to argue with me and nitpick about how society views boys and girls hitting differently.
This comment is pushing that this little boy can regain his self-esteem and pride by hitting this little girl. And that comment was pretty highly upvoted when I came across it.
That’s it. That’s the issue. The users on this site love to glorify men and boys using violence against women and girls.
Especially because personalities and habits are formed directly because of what they learn, directly and indirectly, in years 0-6 or 7. Teaching them to hit at all in these years is how domestic abusers happen.
Knowing how, and using it aggressively are very different things.
It’s cliche, but people often become what they wanted/needed growing up. If you leave someone powerless, they often try and claw back some power, often in a similar way to what they suffered. Someone who is hit by someone they love will often lash out in the same way against others including those they “love”. The school bully is/was often the victim of bullying elsewhere.
Knowing how to use force to defend yourself, and using it to get your way are 2 VERY different things, mentally. Martial arts etc also teach a centering of thought. You’re not lashing out with emotion. You’re methodically stopping a situation that is unacceptable.
Crazy “debate”. I rarely see people uphold those kinds of positions. Sure, let the kids fight like in some kind of medieval rooster fight and see who comes out on top. That’s probably gonna solve the underlying issue??? I don’t think so.
(Mental. The adults should cheer for him being more clever than that. And they should help him and make it stop. Mostly because they’re the adults in the situation. Especially the ones with a background in education and handling/teaching kids.)
Removed by mod
At least you should hang out less in the feminism community if you don’t like feminists?!?
If you ask me, there’s a good chance school bullies are indeed victims themselves. I mean they then don’t get to play the victim card, and it has nothing to do with gender at that age. But I can pretty much guarantee you there’s something wrong in that girl’s life if she’s 4 and has a reason to pick violence as a strategy.
Gender is a concept that kids are just learning about at that age. I don’t read this as a “fix your problems by hitting girls” and I don’t think that’s the message that would be received. The received message, by a 4 year old, is “hitting people is ok” and that’s unacceptable.
Any self defence trainer will make it clear that it’s not acceptable to hit anyone who isn’t a threat or consenting.
The context (post was a day or two ago) is that the girl in question routinely physically attacks the boy, the teachers aren’t stopping it, and it’s gone on long enough that the boy is expressing a fear of going to school/kindergarten/whatever to their parent.
The received message, by a 4 year old, is “hitting people is ok” and that’s unacceptable.
Yes it’s unacceptable. And it was entirely unnecessary to add in “It’s not like a grown man hitting a woman” and then talk about repairing this boy’s self-esteem.
It’s incel talk to equate hitting a girl with restoring pride and self-esteem for this little boy.
Maybe I’m just not in comms that have this sort of behavior… But you’ve also provided zero examples of comms where this is happening. Even your example just sounds like someone out of touch or unaware of raising kids?
I’ve taught my 5yo to not be afraid of pushing back if he’s getting physically harassed by anyone. But that’s in addition to getting a teacher involved ASAP.
I don’t doubt there are vile users on Lemmy. But maybe you could highlight where you are seeing this kind of behavior?
Take a gander at the mod log for the !womensstuff@piefed.blahaj.zone community. You’ll find plenty of it.
I am and I’m confused. 2 weeks ago mods remove a comment complaining about units of measure.
But on the vile men side, 1 for threats of tape ~25 days ago.
Seems to be at least a handful of awful posts/comments a month. This last 30 days was quietish. While it would be nice if there was zero, I feel lemmy has been a significant improvement over other forums/platforms.
Also, why not use one of the other clear examples of misogyny over the example you posted?
Oh only 1 threat of rape less than a month ago. Definitely not an example of misogyny on this site, no way /s
It’s been quiet recently because ZDL and myself have shamed these men into shutting the fuck up in a women’s only community.
It takes constant vigilance and a lot of work from our moderators to keep men who insist on their presence in a women’s only community away from us.
Peace, if I’m coming off as combative, I apologize. I’m trying to message in the most neutral way I can. I know being a mod sucks, and you get to see the worst in the community. You save others from having to experience that same level of vitriol.
Like I said. Zero would be nice. I have high hopes that we can achieve that.
It’s still SOOOO much better than other platforms. It’s one of the primary reasons I only use Lemmy.
It’s still SOOOO much better than other platforms. It’s one of the primary reasons I only use Lemmy.
That hasn’t been my experience here.
There have been multiple conversations openly talking about how “willing and consensual” 14 year old girls are that were never moderated like they would have been on Reddit for example.
There is a problem with sexism here because misogyny is on the rise everywhere. And I’m going to continue to call it out because it is real, it does exist here, and no amount of “Oh I dunno, I don’t see it…” changes what I experience directly.
I’m definitely a little wound up about this subject this morning (and the midterms aren’t helping atm), so I do apologize for how blunt I’m being.
Totally. I’m not discounting that it exists. In my original comment I just wanted to know what comms this was happening in, and just like you gave an anecdote about your experience, I gave my anecdote.
I’ve had so much worse of an experience on Reddit, but I had been on Reddit since ~2010.
I promise that I ALWAYS call out misogynistic posts/comments that I find. Need to make an effort to change the culture 1 step at a time.
I promise that I ALWAYS call out misogynistic posts/comments that I find. Need to make an effort to change the culture 1 step at a time.
<3
It does have a wider problem. But IMO Not so much on this comment but more the general leery style posts that are frequent and upvoted.
I notice a lot more memes or ‘question’ that are angled slightly more towards sexualising or hating women, followed by jokey comments. Women are used it it, it registers, but it’s slight so it’s tolerated (because that’s life as a female…don’t rock the boat).
A majority of the Men do a reasonable job at calling it out here but only usually when it’s more blatant or obvious. The fact the kinda posts are upvoted and seem to be increasing disheartening.
Lemmy.world, especially, is really bad about this. I try to avoid comms on that server, other than the animal and food groups, which are noticeably more reasonable.
I hate this kind of instance-ism. It’s just a very unjust way of looking at your fellow lemmings.
Instances mean basically nothing.
I’m on .world because it’s the first instance I came across when I joined and my experience has been fine.
Before you join lemmy: “It’s super easy! Just choose an instance, it doesn’t really matter which!”
After you join lemmy: “Damn you, damn you to hell, for daring to consider choosing that instance!”
I’m on .world because it’s the first instance I came across when I joined and my experience has been fine.
which is exactly the reason why it is more of a problem there than on many other instwnces. more sexist normies. of course there are also instances where it is worse.
i understand where you are coming from, and i agree that it is wrong to say that lemmy.world has a specific culture that is problematic, becaude indeed, being on lemmy.world does not say much about you.
but, as is what imo is a good thing about federation, there are also definitely instances with specific cultures or specific groups of people represented more, like idk blahaj.zone or infamously lemmy.ml.
