Why is it ever appropriate to hit back, boy or girl? What if the instigator is a boy but smaller than your son, still okay to hit back? Why not just teach them not to hit and get a grown up to help them?
Because a grown up isn't always going to be there to bail them out.
So what is the line then, only boys their size or its fine to hit back as long as its a boy?
Why can't it be about both genders getting something out of it?
Because it's not accurate to say that both genders get something out of it. I don't get anything out of it. Quite a few women in this thread have said they don't get anything out of it, and most of the women I know in real life prefer common courtesy over genital-based preferential treatment in such trivial matters as who opens the door for whom. When a man's chosen method of demonstrating respect for me has the actual effect of making me feel less respected, what's the point? And along the lines of what eponinepontmercy said, if a man lacks a sense of purpose in life because women aren't bothered by not having their chairs pulled out for them, he's not much of a man to begin with.
I guess it all boils down to women viewing chivalry differently. The women who think men are doing it because they think we are weak are going to find it offensive. The women who think men are doing it because they think we are to be respected and revered are going to find it empowering.
I mean this half in jest - Poor men, how are they to know what kind of woman they are going to encounter in public today - the one who is offended that they offered them the seat or the one who is offended they didn't? They can't win. Lol.
Because a grown up isn't always going to be there to bail them out.
So what is the line then, only boys their size or its fine to hit back as long as its a boy?
This is silly. Of course my older boys would get in trouble for hitting a younger child that is obviously weaker than them. Most people have a sense of whether or not ot is going to be a fair fight. There's no honor in hurting someone weaker than you. There is honor in defending yourself against a physical threat.
Because it's not accurate to say that both genders get something out of it. I don't get anything out of it. Quite a few women in this thread have said they don't get anything out of it, and most of the women I know in real life prefer common courtesy over genital-based preferential treatment in such trivial matters as who opens the door for whom. When a man's chosen method of demonstrating respect for me has the actual effect of making me feel less respected, what's the point? And along the lines of what eponinepontmercy said, if a man lacks a sense of purpose in life because women aren't bothered by not having their chairs pulled out for them, he's not much of a man to begin with.
I guess it all boils down to women viewing chivalry differently. The women who think men are doing it because they think we are weak are going to find it offensive. The women who think men are doing it because they think we are to be respected and revered are going to find it empowering.
I mean this half in jest - Poor men, how are they to know what kind of woman they are going to encounter in public today - the one who is offended that they offered them the seat or the one who is offended they didn't? They can't win. Lol.
But that's just part of living in human society. Every single person you encounter in public is different, and that's something everyone has to deal with regardless of gender. That's why I think the safest "default" way to behave in public is to be polite and kind to everyone, no matter what they have between their legs.
I mean this half in jest - Poor men, how are they to know what kind of woman they are going to encounter in public today - the one who is offended that they offered them the seat or the one who is offended they didn't? They can't win. Lol.
i completely disagree that someone holding the door for me lessens me in any way, at all, ever. i don't think there's a rational person alive that thinks a woman can't hold open a door for herself. doing something kind for someone is not opression.
*i say this with the expectation that we all know the bathroom example is stupid.
No, it's not.
We teach kindness and politeness in our house. To all people and all things. This is the foundation of civilized society. We are kind. We are polite. We are gentle and thoughtful and care for everyone.
It is not, however, an expectation based on their gender or the gender of another person.
It becomes oppressive when it's framed in gendered roles and expectations - that men are polite to women and that women are grateful for that politeness. That's the full, historical cycle of gentlemen/lady social interaction that she never quite gets to.
THAT should have been the argument. Not some bizarre amalgamation of "women expect men to be polite! That's terrible for men" and "Whalebone corsets! Equal pay!"
If your point is "don't be a dick. Hold the door for man too!" Then i'm down with that. I'm not above teaching my sons to be a little nicer to their date than the average Joe Schmoe on the street.
That said, I still don't have a problem with someone holding the door for me.
No sane women is going to be offended because a man allows her through a door first or doesn't let it slam in her face. I'll only be offended if it's accompanied by a sexist comment or the implication that he only does it for women, or if a man is REALLY INSISTENT that I take his seat on a bus after I politely decline.
So what is the line then, only boys their size or its fine to hit back as long as its a boy?
This is silly. Of course my older boys would get in trouble for hitting a younger child that is obviously weaker than them. Most people have a sense of whether or not ot is going to be a fair fight. There's no honor in hurting someone weaker than you. There is honor in defending yourself against a physical threat.
Yes, I said honor.
I don't think it's silly at all. I'm trying to imagine teaching a kid when to hit someone and its boggling my mind. I have two boys and I guess I'm lucky because neither has ever been in any type of fight. I would be horrified if the hurt another kid, even self- defense. Recess aides and teachers are there for a reason.
So what is the line then, only boys their size or its fine to hit back as long as its a boy?
This is silly. Of course my older boys would get in trouble for hitting a younger child that is obviously weaker than them. Most people have a sense of whether or not ot is going to be a fair fight. There's no honor in hurting someone weaker than you. There is honor in defending yourself against a physical threat.
As far as boys not hitting girls goes, I don't see the harm in teaching that. Of course, you should teach your child not to hit anyone. But if my boy is on the playground and a girl starts hitting him, he needs to know that it is not OK to hit her back and he needs to walk away. If another boy is hitting him, he has my full permission to defend himself however necessary. Why the double standard? Because of basic physiology. Women ARE physically weaker. It is never OK to hit a woman and they need to learn that as children.
Once again, the lesson here is that you shouldn't hit anyone. But the rules for defending yourself against men and women are different. It may not be fair, but it's life. l
Do you teach your girls its OK to hit back if a boy hits them?
We teach kindness and politeness in our house. To all people and all things. This is the foundation of civilized society. We are kind. We are polite. We are gentle and thoughtful and care for everyone.
It is not, however, an expectation based on their gender or the gender of another person.
It becomes oppressive when it's framed in gendered roles and expectations - that men are polite to women and that women are grateful for that politeness. That's the full, historical cycle of gentlemen/lady social interaction that she never quite gets to.
THAT should have been the argument. Not some bizarre amalgamation of "women expect men to be polite! That's terrible for men" and "Whalebone corsets! Equal pay!"
If your point is "don't be a dick. Hold the door for man too!" Then i'm down with that. I'm not above teaching my sons to be a little nicer to their date than the average Joe Schmoe on the street.
That said, I still don't have a problem with someone holding the door for me.
Post by dawnzersong on Oct 13, 2015 14:45:59 GMT -5
I would also like to say that I have plenty of men in my life who manage to make me feel "respected and revered" without resorting to what I find to be patronizing gestures.
If your point is "don't be a dick. Hold the door for man too!" Then i'm down with that. I'm not above teaching my sons to be a little nicer to their date than the average Joe Schmoe on the street.
That said, I still don't have a problem with someone holding the door for me.
I was LITERALLY JUST GOOGLING Wheaton's Law. LOL
Lol!
I think I just feel like holding the door open for ladies is part of common courtesy. I'm not accompanying it with "because they need the help", just "it's a nice thing to do", KWIM? I can't imagine my boys will think that girls need help from boys based on my relationship with H so that's not where I see this going.
This is silly. Of course my older boys would get in trouble for hitting a younger child that is obviously weaker than them. Most people have a sense of whether or not ot is going to be a fair fight. There's no honor in hurting someone weaker than you. There is honor in defending yourself against a physical threat.
Yes, I said honor.
I don't think it's silly at all. I'm trying to imagine teaching a kid when to hit someone and its boggling my mind. I have two boys and I guess I'm lucky because neither has ever been in any type of fight. I would be horrified if the hurt another kid, even self- defense. Recess aides and teachers are there for a reason.
I don't see any honor in condoning violence.
My boys are 17 months apart and came out of the womb wrestling. At some point we decided to give them a healthy outlet for that energy and they now take boxing lessons with DH. With the lessons comes some basic house rules about fighting. But you're probably one of those people who thinks boxing is too violent, so whatever.
As far as Jesus being a pacifist. Wrong. In Luke 22 He tole His Apostles to sell even the clothes off their own backs to buy a sword to defend themselves against thr coming persecution. He was against violence, but not against defending oneself against it. Obviously He stopped the violence in the Garden of Gethsemane, but because He is God and knew what was coming had to happen. But pacifists don't order people to buy swords.
I get that people think we should be beyond gender, but the fact is that men and women are different. I am not weak, but I am special. I grow people inside of my body and can feed them with it, too. That is worthy of the respect and admiration of men. I should be treated differently because of it.
Where does this leave women who can't or choose not to have kids? The implication here is that what makes women worthy of respect is that they give birth.
I don't think it's silly at all. I'm trying to imagine teaching a kid when to hit someone and its boggling my mind. I have two boys and I guess I'm lucky because neither has ever been in any type of fight. I would be horrified if the hurt another kid, even self- defense. Recess aides and teachers are there for a reason.
I don't see any honor in condoning violence.
My boys are 17 months apart and came out of the womb wrestling. At some point we decided to give them a healthy outlet for that energy and they now take boxing lessons with DH. With the lessons comes some basic house rules about fighting. But you're probably one of those people who thinks boxing is too violent, so whatever.
As far as Jesus being a pacifist. Wrong. In Luke 22 He tole His Apostles to sell even the clothes off their own backs to buy a sword to defend themselves against thr coming persecution. He was against violence, but not against defending oneself against it. Obviously He stopped the violence in the Garden of Gethsemane, but because He is God and knew what was coming had to happen. But pacifists don't order people to buy swords.
Post by dawnzersong on Oct 13, 2015 14:59:20 GMT -5
AW, did you see the post a few days ago in which eclaires described her kids' school's plan for an active shooter situation? Essentially, all of the girls are supposed to hide in the office and the boys are supposed to line up outside the office as kind of a human shield to protect the girls. I promise I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious to know how you feel about this.
AW, did you see the post a few days ago in which eclaires described her kids' school's plan for an active shooter situation? Essentially, all of the girls are supposed to hide in the office and the boys are supposed to line up outside the office as kind of a human shield to protect the girls. I promise I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious to know how you feel about this.
Not cool. They are all vulnerable children and worthy of being protected properly. If a school can't protect ALL children equally in these kinds of emergencies, they are failing. But given how I feel about public schools in general....
In my home, if there were an armed robber or something, my girls don't get preferential treatment. I try to save them all or in a true emergency, whoever I can get to first.
My boys are 17 months apart and came out of the womb wrestling. At some point we decided to give them a healthy outlet for that energy and they now take boxing lessons with DH. With the lessons comes some basic house rules about fighting. But you're probably one of those people who thinks boxing is too violent, so whatever.
As far as Jesus being a pacifist. Wrong. In Luke 22 He tole His Apostles to sell even the clothes off their own backs to buy a sword to defend themselves against thr coming persecution. He was against violence, but not against defending oneself against it. Obviously He stopped the violence in the Garden of Gethsemane, but because He is God and knew what was coming had to happen. But pacifists don't order people to buy swords.
I think I just feel like holding the door open for ladies is part of common courtesy. I'm not accompanying it with "because they need the help", just "it's a nice thing to do", KWIM? I can't imagine my boys will think that girls need help from boys based on my relationship with H so that's not where I see this going.
I just don't dress this conversation (or others like it) up in gender roles. Hold the door for people. Full stop. I don't care who started it, we don't hit. Full stop.
If I were the only person they'd be getting this message from.... I'm also battling all the other gendered nonsense they pick up from school, Disney Jr., their grandparents, uncles and aunts, people like AW, and god knows where else.
And it happens in the blink of an eye. In early August we were at a birthday party and B was telling me that he likes some princess stuff the birthday girl was getting. Not two months later: "that's only for girls" WTH? Where did that come from? Not my lips, that's for damn sure.
ETA: I think this is especially important as the larger cultural discussions about transgendered and gender non-conformity starts to come more to light. What do you teach in these discussions about someone who is femme gender non-conforming, for example?
AW, did you see the post a few days ago in which eclaires described her kids' school's plan for an active shooter situation? Essentially, all of the girls are supposed to hide in the office and the boys are supposed to line up outside the office as kind of a human shield to protect the girls. I promise I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm genuinely curious to know how you feel about this.
I almost posted about this when I first read the post! In theory, it is not set up for the boys to protect the girls as both are meant to be out of sight with the door locked. In practice, in an active shooter situation, it basically sets up a de facto shield situation.
Anyway, most parents were horrified when we talked about this. One - who has four boys - was like, "awwwwwww."
And I was like... ^o)
I'm seeing some of the fifth grade parents on Friday, can't wait to ask them about it. Since my son's classroom does not have this set up, there is no separation by gender, so I'm saving my complaint and possible demands until I hear what the 5th grade parents (kids affected) accomplish.
I did find out, btw, that in some of the 5th grade classrooms, both boys and girls were in the office. But in that classroom, the girl told me that the boys were supposed to line up outside the classroom but the teacher had them go in the office.
But then the "nice guys" assume that they deserve love and affection and sex merely for treating women like human beings. Women should be grateful to them for holding doors and paying on dates so they owe them sex.
If you no longer have a purpose in life because I want to open my own door, I can't help you.
I have to come back to this because I can't get my thoughts together for a response.
That was a fascinating thread and one take away was that black women and white women have very different opinions on "chivalry" and how that relates to feminism.
Can I get a summary on this point? I want to know if I fall on the "right" side.
I do NOT think I'm qualified - lol. Uh, basically what AW said, except that AW feels respected and cherished because she's special and deserves it, whereas black women feel respected and cherished because they have a long history of being treated as workhorses who come last and damnit they deserve someone to hold open the fucking door! I probably butchered that....
ETA: there is no "right" side, or rather, both sides are right. White and black women historically have just had vastly different experiences.
I just can't get upset at teaching boys that violence against girls is not allowed, ever. I don't see why I can't teach this, and also encourage them to walk away from any fight when possible.
I do NOT think I'm qualified - lol. Uh, basically what AW said, except that AW feels respected and cherished because she's special and deserves it, whereas black women feel respected and cherished because they have a long history of being treated as workhorses who come last and damnit they deserve someone to hold open the fucking door! I probably butchered that....
pennypenny, I remember it in the context of the feminist backlash to D'Jango Unchained, in that how dare Kerry Washington play the literal damsel in distressed rescued at the end by a prince on horseback and the answer was that black women have NEVER been given the image of a delicate, beautiful woman worthy of protection so YES GODDAMN IT! black women should celebrate the damsel in distress trope and let rich, white women fight over the proper feminism of it.
Really? I don't even remember that being mentioned in the intersectional feminism thread, although I never saw the movie, so maybe I was just oblivious to that part.
Anyway, I agree with some of the rest. I just feel like this isn't my issue and that article has nothing to do with me. I consider myself a feminist, but I am very clear that I'm a black feminist and that there is a difference. I like being catered to and that's how my husband was raised, and how we've raised DS. If we'd raised a young woman, we would have raised her to have those expectations. When your son isn't automatically viewed as a thug just for walking down the street with a shirt that has a hood attached, then I guess you have the luxury of not caring whether he is a gentlemen or not. Frankly, I wouldn't know. When the world puts you on a pedestal and thinks of you as femininity personified, then I guess you have the luxury of not caring whether men open doors for you. I wouldn't have a clue. So I guess good for everyone that has the luxury of not rearing their boys to be more respectful toward women, because ultimately, those boys probably rarely deal with women clutching their purses when they step on an elevator, so it doesn't matter how they act on one either way *shrug*.
Also, I did teach my son to hit back if he was hit, but that rule did not apply to girls/women. Our rule is you don't hit unless someone hits you first and if that someone is a girl, then you still don't hit. I'll be damned if my kid stands around to be some bad ass kid's punching bag, but hey, good for all the pacifists out there--the world needs more of you lol. I do know this is flameful on GBCN, but guess how many fucks I give? Hint: It's a low, round number.
I was going to say, do we need to dig up some threads because I feel like this has come up on multiple occasions.
My son is taught not to hit back at his sister while I tell him he can hit back at other kids (which never happens, because he's just not that type of personality - it takes a lot) who may start shit with him or other kids (I teach him he should stand up to bullies on behalf of himself and other kids preferably with words but he knows he won't be in trouble if someone physically starts something and he retaliates). But his sister is four years younger and half his size. I'm 100% okay with teaching him to walk away from her and anyone else that is substantially/significantly weaker than he is. Not just because of the law or consequences but because I don't want him to really hurt someone and have that on his conscience. I feel like this is common sense.