The (all-boys) school I attended for ninth grade had the attitude that “boys will be boys”. I was subjected to constant bullying, yes, including pantsing, and the administration did nothing, because after all, there wasn’t much bullying going on, and you’re always going to have some. And yes, the pantsing absolutely did appear to be sexual in motivation, in that the bullies used the fact that I was not pulling down other boys’ pants as evidence that I was supposedly gay.
The (also all-boys) school I transferred to for 10th-12th said outright that no, boys will not be boys. Boys are boys, but what they will be is men, and they are expected to act as such. Oddly enough, there wasn’t any bullying at that school.
I disagree that violence is never acceptable. It’s rarely acceptable. From my viewpoint, if you’re being violently assaulted or your life is in danger violence may well be your best option. Of course, that level of danger is not what we’re talking about here.
I consider pantsing someone at about the same level as being slapped in the face without warning. It’s not life-or-death and no one has to respond in a physical manner but I would consider that a proportional response.
Given that we’re talking about immature human beings, that is children, it may be more effective than trying to lecture them on wrong-doing or delayed punishment. I don’t want to lay down a prescription for every possible event because context and the parties involved are also factors to consider.
Note, however, this is NOT about teachers or school officials administering corporal punishment, this is about the offended party doing do. If one child pants another and the victim knees the perpetrator or open-hand slaps them across the face I don’t see a need to punish the victim, and likely not to further punish the perpetrator (unless the perpetrator is a chronic offender).
You are all free to differ in your opinions, of course.
Several years ago, I was at a meetup and the woman sitting next to me, instead of addressing me by my name, would pinch my shoulder. The third time she did it, I said, “Please do not grab my shoulder. I don’t know you, and you’re really violating my personal space by doing that.” I found out later that she does this to everybody, and I should also have told her that she was hurting me (yes, it was painful!). What makes people think they can do that, anyway?
You’re allowed to yell back as loud as you want to, but unless she touches you, you aren’t allowed to touch her. If she hauls off and gut-punches you or something, though, I certainly support your right to defend yourself with a proportional response. As far as I’m concerned “No hitting women” is revoked as soon as the women starts the hitting/physical violence.
Because of statements like the following.
If you’re in a culture where this sort of behavior is considered acceptable/tolerable among boys but not among (or to) girls then yes, it’s not as big a deal to the boys.
Why is that acceptable? If an adult did any of those things they’d be charged with assault. If an adult ripped someone’s clothing off they’d be charged with sexual assault because it is obviously sexual in nature. The bullying I observed in high school was major crime level if adults did it. I have no idea why it was excused and overlooked and hope it won’t be in future.
You haven’t established a rational basis for saying that men and men “need to be approached differently,” but regardless, I don’t see how that’s relevant.
You haven’t established a rational basis for saying that “boys and girls think differently” that’s independent of learned behavior, but again I don’t see how that’s relevant.
You’re the one who somehow connected the equal status of men and women in society as leading to a “boys will be boys” attitude. It’s up to you to explain the connection.
So far as I can tell, “boys will be boys” is an attitude that went along with the idea of male domination of society. Now that we have less of one, we have less of the other. So your conclusion seems entirely backwards to me.
I just asked my husband if he ever pantsed anyone as a child. He said yes, in kindergarten or 1st grade. And it was a girl - because he liked her. And that he got into a massive amount of trouble as a result.
My statement that men and woman are equal is a strongly held belief made to show that there is no bias.
People far better qualified than myself have established that the thought process between men and woman can be different, both come to the same conclusion but by different paths.
I did not say that the equal status between men and woman was causing the boys will be boys attitude, I did say that the one size fits all does not take into consideration the difference in thought processes. In the UK state education system the majority of teachers are woman and there is a concern that boys are not keeping up with the girls. My own grandson age sixteen and intelligent has had problems understanding the thought process of some of his female teachers. Through youth work I have spoken to boys who are not doing well at school, they are succeeding in classes that are held my male teachers, but are failing in classes held by female teachers, the usual comment is I do not know what the hell she is going on about and tend to loose interest, the girls in the same class are doing well so it is not a question of the teaching being sub standard. This may not be the absolute proof that you are looking for, but I believe that it is a valid line of thought.
Attitudes are created through a learning process if the learning process does not match the thought process then the attitudes become confused
Now you can understand why I started by saying that I believe that men and woman are equal. At no time are my comments derogatory towards woman.
Who says it’s acceptable/tolerable among boys? The boys who perpetrate violence against other boys, and the boys who are afraid to talk about how it makes them feel and/or internalize habits of victimhood because people like you say “it’s not a big deal to boys”.
Consent is equally important to all genders, and suggesting that it matters less to boys or girls is way off base, and is exactly the kind of “boys will be boys” thinking that you’re arguing against in this thread.
We’ve told our kids not to hit people unless they are in danger, then they can do whatever they want to them. I would see someone trying to take off my daughter’s pants as “in danger.” I’m not going to require her to verify their motive and age before screaming and punching them.
Unless the age and motive don’t matter? Maybe there’s a specific age where it goes from “prank” to “crime?”