Yes. You also said it was no big deal. That’s where you’re wrong.
Being forcibly disrobed is threatening to a girl or a woman. It’s a bigger deal to them than to boys or men. You don’t seem to understand that. Maybe your mates, who had the unwritten rule of NOT doing that to a girl, had some understanding of that. It’s like going topless is almost expected of men at the beach but it would be scandalous in most places for a woman to do that.
Touching people without their consent, or in a manner they find objectionable, is wrong*. That applies just as much to children as to adults.
There are a few exceptions, such as restraining a violent person who’s a threat to others, but they’re an exception, not the rule.
Children are not sexless. They’re aware of gender, sex, and are curious. They also sometime use sex/gendered actions or word to bully each other.
Absolutely.
That is also unacceptable behavior.
Yes, yes I do think so. I wouldn’t condone breaking someone’s nose over the action but yes, a knee to the face seems appropriate. It’s direct, immediate, and sends a message.
This. There’s a few odd examples in this thread to the contrary, but I’ve NEVER heard this expression, or the general sentiment, to refer to anything other than simply as a response to why boys, or men in general, are typically rougher, more aggressive, than girls. It’s a fine “explanation” for why boys will roughhouse with each other, or name-call, and it’s a sign of affection and male bonding. Even as adults, my male friends and I are constantly ragging on each other, playing small pranks, even the ocassional not-so-gentle punch or push or whatever. This is the sort of thing “boys will be boys” is intended to describe.
That said, I’ll also be the first to tear down an instance if I see someone saying that as a way to defend a boy, and especially a man, if it’s anything even resembling sexual assault or if it’s with malice rather than playful, and it’s a pretty thick line in my experience, though sometimes it can go from playful roughhousing to fighting in the span of a few seconds if someone gets hurt.
Hold up–this is an incredibly ungenerous reading of what he’s said. First, he didn’t say “a female person”, he said, “someone.” Your gendered paraphrase is a misreading of his point, for no clear purpose: he’s including boys in the victims, which is the correct approach.
Second, he says that they might feel “embarrassed or humiliated.” That’s completely the opposite of saying they “should not object or feel threatened.”
Edit: and your later clarification, that he said it was “no big deal”? He did not say that. I don’t know what you misread to get that as a takeaway, but that’s not what he said.
It’s fine to disagree with someone, but to do so through a misreading of their words doesn’t help anyone.
So, corporal punishment is in again?
How about spanking, corrective slap?
We’ve had decades of drumming into us that any form of violence was never acceptable. Were we wrong?
Corporal punishment and self-defense are totally not the same thing.
Weirdly, Broomstick’s use of “mansplaining” is, as far as I can tell, spot-on. If a man explains to a woman why a girl shouldn’t feel threatened by an action, when the woman has said she’d have felt threatened as a girl, that’s pretty much exactly why “mansplaining” was neologized.
The problem isn’t the word’s use; the problem is that she completely misunderstood what you were saying. You WEREN’T saying that a girl shouldn’t feel threatened. The word’s fine; her understanding of your point was at fault.
Honestly, you should have fought for the administrator’s/teacher’s expulsion. Dismissing that action as “boys will be boys” is as disturbing as the action that brought on the event.
He tried to pull her trousers down from the front.
If you attempted to grab her waistband and yank down, you’d have to bend, your face would be in a perfect place for an instinctive knee to the nose.
You’ve just repeated the same violence is never the answer crap that the teacher attempted to feed my daughter and me.
If he had successfully pulled her trousers down, and she’d punched him an hour later in revenge, I’d have still defended her, but I’d see your point.
A knee in the moment?
Natural consequence.
Phrasing it the way that you have does not work. I said that men and woman are equal but needed to be approached differently, this is important when dealing with children, boys and girls think differently, to get them to understand about acceptable behaviour you have to tune in to their individual ways of thinking
OK.
How do you feel about some forms of violence against women?
An instinctual self defence where a woman screams in your face, an inch from your nose, for instance.
Forcibly removing someone’s pants as a “prank” is an inherently sexual act, no matter how much you want to deny it. The huge element of sexual humiliation of exposing someone’s genitals and anus (even if they’re wearing underwear, the region is being more exposed than it was) is blatant and obvious. Denying the obvious sexual nature of humiliating someone by removing cover from their genitals is just simple denial, like claiming that frat rituals involving holding genitals and/or anal penetration are absolutely ‘no homo’.
I don’t think that anyone is claiming that consensually or medically removing clothes is sexual assault, so this is a strawman.
I haven’t seen anyone give reasons for not thinking so that go beyond “I don’t want to admit that forcibly exposing people’s genital region is a sexually charged assault,” or “They’re kids so nothing they do could possibly be sexual”, neither of which I’d qualify as ‘reasons’.
You’d push her away forcefully.
If she got a knee to the face because she was trying to pull your trousers down against your will, I’d entirely support you.
Boys will be boys pisses me off because it defends some shitty behaviour, it doesn’t mean that I’m advocating for female on male beatings.
Re: the bigger point. No, pantsing is not necessarily sexual. But it is a malicious use of power to abridge consent. Letting it go as ‘not a big deal’ or ‘a prank’ is exactly the sort of thing that the term ‘rape culture’ is meant to describe, in both in how it reinforces/encourages aggressors and how it shames and silences victims.
Your generalization of girls’ vs. boys’ behavior is inaccurate.
BTW, apparently another problem in UK schools is that they don’t teach the difference between “their” and “there.” Also, it’s a “role model” (as in a role an actor plays), not a “roll model.”
No, thank you for another inappropriate use of the term “mansplaining”.
We pants’d each other as well in the Midwest in the 90s. Nothing as extrem as Gary and Wyatt in Weird science in front of the cheerleading team. We didn’t do it to girls, just like we didn’t knock the books out of girls hands in the middle of the hallway, or punch girls in the arm. Boys socialize with each other different than girls. Girls can be just as cruel only more subtle.