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.
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.
I characterised self defense as self defense. The person in the quote thinks taking karate lessons involves punching back and it’ll boost the kid’s ego, I’m pointing out that’s not real and what martial arts lessons really are. Self defense and martial arts lessons will teach the opposite. Don’t teach kids self defense means hitting back.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
You’re in the feminism comm what tf are you talking about
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.
And if your post was about violence supporting patriarchy I’d be giving you full throated support.
I didn’t rewrite it to remove gender out of any specific intent nor does it change my position. It was shorthand because I’m on a phone. Language is imprecise. I shared my interpretation of their words. You are entitled to your own.
Children hitting children is wrong. That is a much more defensible position than specifically saying “boys hitting girls is wrong”.
Many men fear the appearance of power abuse. I find it very likely that the op was overcompensating for that fear by calling out that they’re children, not adults, thus minimizing any element of physical strength disparity. That leaves only the “children hitting children” problem.
I appreciate where you’re coming from but I do not agree with your interpretation 🤷♀️
Removed by mod
Nah. It’s only this one user. The rest of Lemmy is reasonable feminist
deleted by creator