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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 1 week ago (54 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (23 children)

    Literally says "and to hit back" right there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago* (22 children)

    Hitting back implies getting hit first, but apparently context is for losers, so who will ever know what we aren't told.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 6 days ago (20 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (12 children)

    Perhaps you look inward and consider why you think DEFENSE means violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 6 days ago (9 children)

    Don't change your tune now. We can see your other comments clearly supporting teaching children to hit back. You even compared these 5 year olds to Palestinians fighting back against Israel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (8 children)

    We can see your other comments clearly supporting teaching children to hit back.

    I said "hitting back means getting hit first", and then I talked about defending yourself when you talked about unnecessary violence. You quote the part calling for both self defense and hitting back and you're focusing on the hitting back part calling it unnecessary violence. You are ignoring half the sentence you quoted, I'm pointing out the part you tossed away. I'm sure you can see my other comment explaining what the karate classes will do in opposition to what the person quoted thinks, I'm not changing anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (5 children)

    You're departing from the thing we're actually talking about to try and justify your point of view, and we're not letting you drag it off that way. The person who is pictured in the OP is not encouraging someone to take karate lessons and learn peaceful means of self defense or self discipline. They are suggesting a kindergartner be taught to hit back. That is the thing that was said and that is what we're discussing. Deal with that or just stop replying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    I quite enjoy running into your comments. I know we haven't always agreed in the past on some small things, but I do very much view you as an ally around here <3

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago* (1 child)

    To be honest, I just felt like some things needed to be pointed out, that we need to still be careful about some things even while we're finally finding something hopeful to hold on to. Now that I've done that "civic duty" I'm ready to shut up about it, give my support to the best choices available, and hope my fears don't come to pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 days ago

    I completely agree, we should always be careful and vigilant. Thank you for looking out for that regardless of where we each end up in our personal opinions.

    Sending all the good luck and hopes into the world today <3

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    The person who is pictured in the OP is not encouraging someone to take karate lessons and learn peaceful means of self defense or self discipline.

    And I'm explaining that that person is wrong and the lessons will do the opposite of what they think. They think the kid will be taught to hit back, I'm saying they will be taught actual defense, not to hit back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    You should have been replying to the person I was replying to above, then, and not to me. You didn't make your position clear, you just came out swinging with overblown sarcasm and dragging Israel into it. Chill out; we're probably on the same side of this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Teaching 5 year old children to hit back is teaching them unnecessary violence.

    And you clearly missed the other conversations around this topic. The problem isn't karate. It's asserting that this little boy can gain his pride and self-esteem back by hitting this little girl.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    I have seen the other comments disagreeing with your take that handling a bully who happens to be a girl goes back to misogyny, yes, because you focus on "teaching a boy to use violence against girls is bad" while refusing to deal with the initial violence and are also completely blanking on the self defense part. How should a boy protect himself against a girl who's hitting him? And no, I am not saying "punch back duh". I agree that actually karate classes will teach a 4 year old to avoid getting hurt and keep control and will, in fact, boost his confidence, just not the way the other asshole person you were responding to thinks, and punching back won't go well, short term or long term. The other person may be an ass thinking "they're kids, it's totally fine to hit a girl", but learning how to handle a violent bully, girl or not, is not misogyny.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    Don't tell kids that self-defense is violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 week ago (29 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 week ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    he needs to overcome this to restore his pride

    I think its pretty fucking clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (22 children)

    Teaching ___ to hit ____ to restore their pride is sexist immoral 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 week ago (21 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (20 children)

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago* (19 children)

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (18 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (16 children)

    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 🤷‍♀️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    That is a much more defensible position than specifically saying “boys hitting girls is wrong”.

    Is it? We really splitting hairs here on encouraging violence in children?

    Teaching boys to respond with violence is sexist. It hurts those boys to be taught to hit instead of other forms of conflict management. It stunts their growth and development to encourage that they lean into toxic masculine traits like using violence to get what you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (14 children)

    I do not disagree with this comment in any way.

    But this is a very different comment than your OP.

    If your OP had talked about "teaching violence supports patriarchy" I wouldn't be here discussing this.

    "This kid should hit back" is not an overtly sexist position. It is a position that supports patriarchy, for sure, by reinforcing violence culture which advantages men in individual conflicts and harms their growth and development.

    "This kid should hit back; it's not like they're a grown man and woman" is, IMO, a position of "it's not like they're physically mismatched". Not one of "it's okay/encouraged because of their genders".

    I'm sorry that people on Lemmy continue to do stupid shit that enables and supports patriarchy. That is certainly a form of systemic sexism.

    I still don't think this is a particularly good example of "Lemmy has a sexism problem".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    That boys can only regain their pride and self esteem by hitting girls leads directly to more violence against women and girls.

    What the fuck do you think this sentence means?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Please quote the part where it says "boys regain their pride by hitting girls" specifically and NOT "kids regain their pride by fighting back against bullies".

    Because the latter is quite obviously what the OP was getting at, not the former.

    If you genuinely think OP was saying "hit girls to get your pride back" then we're done here and I'm just gonna move on with my day

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    then we’re done here and I’m just gonna move on with my day

    Fucking finally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Well THAT'S pretty fuckin toxic. Yikes.

    As someone who was bullied a lot, I frequently got told fighting back (against the boys at my all boys school) would restore my pride. I was never told "go find a girl to hit when she's mean to you, it'll restore your pride."

    Take that for what it's worth.

    Byeeeeeee.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Spend some energy calling out sexist comments instead of picking apart my wording on something that is rightfully outrageous.

    It's telling that you'd rather scold me over this issue than pushing back on the actual sexist comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (6 children)

    he needs to overcome this to regain his pride

    Please tell me where the picture says kid and not boy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago* (5 children)

    Specifically referred to as "children" and then exclusively uses pronouns as the only form of gendered language, in a language where it is standard to use gendered pronouns when referring to a specific individual.

    Yes, the comment could have used "they" instead of "he/his" but that is not yet common practice in English (though I wish we'd get there)

    Next question please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    What bruised pride if its not being beaten up by a girl....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

    You think boys don't lose pride when they're beaten up by another boy?

    This is real close to "Tell me you've never been bullied without telling me you've never been bullied".

    Grade-school fights are always about pride in some form or another.

    Seriously, I went to an all boys school, and by your logic no student in my entire school would ever have bruised pride since they never got beaten up by a girl.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    Were talking about 5-6 year olds. What pride?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago* (1 child)

    You're the one who was trying to make a point about the pride stuff here, not me. I'm just responding to your points.

    My only point was that the original comment in the screenshot is, in my opinion, pretty obviously talking about the (very flawed, and inappropriately applied) concept of "fighting back will restore pride" and not "hitting girls restores pride".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment