Little boys should not be taught specifically not to hit girls

I think I agree with you.

I'm just not sure about the "molestation" part. That's not a word that girls usually use when they're hit by a boy, in my experience. So that part makes me wonder a little bit if this is about an actual event, and whether it might be about more than just a boy hitting a girl in the course of regular roughhousing.

But yes, I agree there's nothing wrong with regular roughhousing, no matter what the gender of the kids involved.

And that being mean is a bad idea, no matter what the gender of the kids involved.

Interestingly enough, I think you'd find that men who hit women face more condemnation from other men for doing so than they do from women.

I have to say that I did instruct my son never to hit or 'man-handle' a female.
It's all well and good to try to pretend that girls are as 'rough' and 'tough' as boys, but the fact of the matter is that most females are smaller than most males and so at a physical disadvantage when it comes to 'fighting'.
If my son, who is eight inches taller and 60 pounds heavier than his sister, ever 'hit' her - he could knock her out and kill her.
Luckily, he's not a violent or aggressive soul - and I can't imagine an instance where he would hit a woman - but oh yes, for his own protection - I taught him -very specifically - never to hit a woman or anyone actually - but especially not girls.

It's as simple as not hitting someone who is smaller and not as strong as you are. From the time he was about eight - he was bigger and stronger than most of the girls his age.

Actually, as children, girls are usually stronger and bigger than boys because girls grow faster than boys.

In an event that a boy and a girl -- both around 10 years of age -- get into a physical alteration, hands down, the girl would defeat the boy even if he were allowed to hit her.

So if anything, girls should be taught not to hit boys, even if a boy hits first.

I notice most women usually treat kids in a gender-equitable manner. Men, however, often favor girls over boys.

Yes, this is true for about three years during puberty-girls tend to have their growth spurts earlier than boys - yes.


I wouldn't agree with this at all. But then maybe you and I have known different sorts of ten year old girls and boys.


Huh? So what should the girl be taught to do?



It's not only about height and weight.

As the mother of a son, I would feel remiss if I didn't teach my son that it is wrong to hit 'people' who are smaller and not as strong as he is. And as he has always been a big, strong, athletic boy - these 'people' included most females from the time he was five years old.

For his own protection, he needed to be taught and understand that if he hit a female, the cultural backlash would be swift and damning- whether she was two inches taller than him at the age of thirteen, or not- doesn't matter.

And if a boy has been raised, or conditioned to view this as a definite taboo in terms of his behavior as a 'man' from boyhood, he's much more likely, when he reaches the age of fifteen and has on average twenty pounds and more muscle than most females his age, to adhere to this admonition and keep himself safe from maybe even inadvertently hurting someone smaller and weaker than himself and ever being the agent of abuse and harm to any of the women in his life.

You know - I'm all for gender equality - but let's be real. Most boys are stronger than most girls.
Have you ever arm-wrestled a twelve year old boy as compared to a twelve year old girl? I have. There IS a difference in strength in the average boy and the average girl.

I think little boys should be taught not to hit either boys or girls.

Walk away and take it "like a girl". Seriously if a weaker kid hits a stronger kid, the latter should not retaliate -- regardless of gender.





Society is to blame for this evil anti-boy sexism.

Men/boys should not be raised to treat little girls much differently from little boys. Chivalry and gentleness towards females should be reserved for adult women.

Have you ever thought of the consequences of such sexism-against-little boys? How it can actually be counter-productive to the protection-of-little-girls?

Here is an example of how.

Let's say a little boy notices men treating little girls better than little boys. He feels extreme indignation because -- if the adults in charge are men -- girls have a free pass to do pretty much whatever they want to that poor helpless boy. If the boy hits back, then men admonish him for "hitting a girl". If the boy reports the bullying, the men admonish him for being weak enough to be "beat up by a girl". This no-win situation can drive a child crazy. It can make the little boy hate men and the little girls they defer to. What if the boy grows up with such repressed rage against men, society, and little girls? There is a high-risk that he will become depressed and contemplate suicide. Realizing that he might end his life, then he will figure he has nothing to lose by retaliating against society. In his retaliation against the macho male culture, he might end up heinously-abusing and killing many little girls before taking his own life. He might also end up injuring/killing even more girls in the process of committing suicide.

Sorry if this is disturbing but it's reality. Discrimination against one group of children can indirectly lead to danger to the other group of children.

You all may want to ask, if the boy grows up hating men for treating girls better than him, then why does he target little girls to "get even" with society? Why doesn't he limit his physical attacks to macho men?

Here is why. The little boy grows up thinking that the only way to punish the men who ruined his early-childhood is to hurt little girls. Is this fair or right? Absolutely not. However, this is the psychological state in which the little boy grows up with.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of the "abuse excuse". However, if a little boy is abused by men who favor little girls, he will likely develop the belief that the only way to give himself justice against those evil men is to abuse little girls.

At the end of the day, anyone being mistreated by anyone is wrong and [ideally] should never happen. Sadly, society isn't the perfect society we all wish it would be.

Well now that's just crazy talk. I suppose next you'll suggest people ought to treat others as they'd prefer to be treated. You're a lose cannon chai

I'm boggling at the sexism inherent in your concept of "chivalry."

What if a grown woman hits a grown man? Should he be allowed to "retaliate?"

And a grown woman should be able to manage a child.




I've seen and heard about a lot of people who will teach their little boys to "hit them back" if they're hit by another kid. That approach just baffles me. If the only tool you have is a fist, every problem looks like a nose to be punched.

Absolutely not. As adults, women aren't as strong and hard as men. A man hitting a woman can cause more damage than a woman hitting a man. To further complicate things, the woman could be pregnant without the gestation being visible. This puts two lives at risk when a man hits a woman.



Most women are better at childcare than men. Women usually treat kids in a gender-neutral manner. Men, however, usually treat girls better than boys.

In a word... bullshit.

Boys and girls were both to be taught not to hit anyone especially those kids that are inferior to them. I think that is the simplest thing we could do. Remind our children not to hurt anyone because it is wrong.

The OP's posts are rife with unsubstantiated and often hilarious claims and assumptions. This . . .



. . . is the closest approach to a succinct, sensible approach offered, with the minor quibble that " . . . little children should be taught not to hit . . . "

By the way, well-bred children (in the sense of how they are educated at home) are taught not to resort to violence, not to indulge meanness and pettiness, and to remain silent or walk away in the face of provocation. This has always been so, and this thread offers no innovation or profound insights. I see no reason to cast it in terms of gender.

I only disagree with the bit about "remain silent or walk away." A verbal confrontation often works wonders. "Be gentle with my body." "I don't like that."

We've always taught our kids that if someone's being a bully, it's OK to be "fierce like a lion."

One great moment was when 3-year-old Yaya was going down a slide, and big kid (9?) was walking up it. They met in the middle, and the big kid tried to bully Yaya. Yaya firmly said, "No! You're going the wrong way!" Big kid looked non-plussed, then turned around and got out of Yaya's way.

Go Yaya!

I don't see anything wrong with that--i also don't see what the kid was doing as willful provocation, just ordinary dumb kid stufff.

I agree with Drew Dad completely.

Cliff, inferior really? Since when are any kids inferior, weaker maybe, but not inferior.

I'm not sure that bullying necessarily has to be "willful provocation."

"Willful" in terms of being stubborn, and trying to get your way at the expense of others, maybe.

But a big kid trying to push around a little kid is definitely a form of bullying.

I did not get the sense from your post that that was what was going on. Of course, i was not there, so, whatever you say.