Branching off to a topic I don’t normally cover here, but one I’ve talked about several times recently to friends & family – on the topic of violence.
With our children (2 boys and 2 girls), we’ve set up a few rules when it comes to fighting, which have worked pretty well (apart from siblings, but that’s another story for another day).
For the Boys
All you have to do is ask my boys “What is Rule #1 and Rule #2?”, and you will hear the following (which I don’t know who to credit , since it was ten-plus years ago when the rules were put in place):
Rule #1: Never, ever hit a girl.
Rule #2: If you ever think you really, really need to hit a girl, refer to Rule #1
(NOTE: To avoid incriminating anyone by name, I will just say that the rules came into being after a particularly embarrassing incident, at a Kindergarten/First Grade bus stop.)
Every girl they have dated has gotten to hear these two rules, usually in casual, light conversation, just so that they know what we expect of the boys, as well. While this is not the sum total of what we’ve taught them about respect for the opposite sex, because of the ever-increasing mixing of gender roles, we wanted this to be rather firmly established.
One of my sons, ever the looker-for-loopholes, asked “what if she’s hitting/kicking/scratching me?”
My response: If you deserve it, you’d best just take it. If you don’t, then I suspect you can run faster than she can. If she can run faster than you, then you probably shouldn’t have ticked her off in the first place…
Additionally, we’ve let the boys’ girlfriends know that our girls also have a rule (albeit a different one):
Rule for Girls
My girls also have a rule (which also has a similar #2, though for simplicity we pretty much treat it as a single rule):
Rule #1: One and done. (i.e. If a boy hits you, he’s done with you. Forever.)
Rule #2: Even if he’s sorry, refer to rule #1.
In this case, we’ve made it clear “You do have to forgive him, but that doesn’t eliminate the consequences of him never having the privilege of being in your inner-circle of friends again.” One of the nice things is that this has set up good conversation on the difference between forgiveness and earthly consequences.
In Conclusion
While I have no illusions of perfection as a parent, I can say that this has been one of those bits of parental folklore that has been successful in the Lyons household. I can also say that bringing these up on a regular basis (particularly when they’re dating someone new or if we see a man striking a woman in a movie or on TV) has led to some very insightful and helpful family conversations.
UPDATE
This should not imply that my girls are allowed to indiscriminately use violence against folks. Rather, they have the same expectation (”you don’t use physical violence, except in self-defense”), but I don’t hold them to a higher standard of chivalry.
24 Comments(+Add)
Nice.
FWIW… Ingrid, on her personal blog, has a very good and powerful series going right now on spousal abuse.
I highly recommend it, and that is coming from someone who was banned from commenting at Slice years ago.
Here are the links:
Inherit the Wind: When Men Hurt Their Own Part 1
Inherit the Wind: When Men Hurt Their Own Part 2
The comments have the occasional “blame the mega-church” thrown in there, but over all it is quite good and interesting.
What about no one can hit anyone?
I’ve seen too many girls use this particular “rule” about their “special” status to hit, kick, etc. with impunity.
I think this really perpetuates wrong thinking with what appears to be a “good” thing.
Your gender doesn’t make you special…sorry. It just doesn’t.
You’re both the image of God together.
No one should be laying hands on anyone else.
Period.
And I say this as a father of a daughter.
Rule #1: Don’t talk about Fight Club.
nc,
That is a general rule, but my kids have always been told they have every right to defend themselves out on the playground (keeping in mind one particular bully who stopped bullying when he got canned by my son).
With these particular rules, I was looking for something w/ no exceptions. And I don’t mind enforcing some gender roles which will mean more in adulthood than in childhood.
What’s this all say about us Christians ‘hitting’ each other. Is it okay because it’s in Jesus’ Name? If physical violence is not okay, then why do we as Christians let verbal violence go so far? Just some thoughts.
This was a cool post Chris. As a new parent (8 month old boy), I can see how these rules can really benefit the children.
Joe
I might add that verbal and emotional abuse are far more prevelent than physical abuse, and can leave just a deep and lasting scars. Many women, myself included, justified a lot of bad behavior by saying, “Well, he has never hit me.” as if that mattered.
I tell my boys that women are to be held in high regard, and not to be abused in any way, be it physical, emotional, verbal or psychological.
anon – I agree.
We deal with those sorts of things, as well. I totally agree. In these days of ‘zero tolerance’ in some schools, abuse has migrated to other forms, as well…
hmmm…
I agree about the verbal/emotional abuse thing too.
as an egalitarian, I’m going to teach my daughter that men are to be held in high regard and not be abused in any way and that it cuts both ways…
I just don’t think we’re doing something helpful to make this the “lesson” when it comes to respecting people.
Women don’t have a special status any more than men do. You can assert it all day long, but you can’t prove it or justify it.
Honestly, I think these kinds of “corollary” rules are fundamentally sexist–no matter how “good” they sound.
The bottom line for me is that you don’t solve the problem of sexism by essentializing women positively as opposed to negatively.
People don’t talk about this, but sexism–patriarchy–hurts men too…we just don’t take the time to see it.
As a father of both sexes, I can tell you that – sexist or not – there are fundamental differences in behavior and psychology between girls and boys, and that oft-times the differences in ‘treatment’ are based on the different tendencies.
Even if you take an egalitarian view, we are given difference Scriptural mandates based on sex – husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and women are to submit to their husbands. While this has been abused (in both directions), the difference still exists.
Female-on-male abuse tends to take different forms than male-on-female, and in the case of dating and physical abuse, I’ve only given one example. We’ve had a number of discussions on other aspects of romantic relationships, with a few hard-and-fast rules (particularly regarding physical intimacy) and others which are more guidelines (regarding emotional/verbal – particularly volume, a problem for one child – behavior).
As for the OP – when it comes to physical abuse, we made the sexual distinction at a young age (primarily because of the same-sex bullying aspect, in which I do not expect my kids to play the role of ‘doormat’) because of the linkage between male-on-female aggression in youth and wife-abuse and because of the linkage between abuse-enabling behavior (”it was my fault”) as a youth and as an adult for females.
There is a difference between the sexes, and I think it’s best recognized. I also acknowledge I come from a background which believes in a certain level of chivalry, and I expect my sons to follow suit and my daughters to marry someone who would, as well. Call me old fashioned, but I really don’t care…
Chris L,
Maybe you could clarify something. What’s your position on your daughters hitting people? I’m not being funny. The way the original post was presented, I could see how some might intrepret what you are saying differently than I assume you meant it. Personally, as a father of three girls, I intend to teach my girls how to break an arm, if it hits them. That will be better than me hunting down the boy and his family.
however, my girls and I would have a long long long long talk if they are the one’s that started the fight.
Difference does not mean a higher value…I argue that’s exactly what that “rule” implicitly teaches.
My point stands.
You can achieve exactly what you hope for about “agression”, etc. by simply teaching and enforcing that no one gets violent with anyone of any gender.
Regardless of what you punish/enforce, by “gendering” the issue you implicitly teach that somehow girls are materially allowed to sin against males by virtue of their plumbing.
You can do what you want with your kids…obviously…I’m just saying that “gendering” these kinds of issues isn’t the answer.
I hope you don’t feel like I’m trying to “lay the wood to you”…
Your position just doesn’t make sense to me…
It’s pretty consistent that they should not, unless it is in self-defense (from either sex).
To my point.
To the point above – my girls aren’t allowed to ‘hit’ folks either, but I’m not worried that a) they might break someone else’s bone (on accident) by hitting back in defense; or b) that it would have a long-term effect in their dating relationships and marriage.
While I believe it may be ’sexist’ to some, my boys understand that their role is as a protector, and when they marry, loving their wife like Christ loved the church may mean laying down their life for her. So, holding them to a higher standard (above the baseline “you shouldn’t hit people, except in self-defense”) isn’t an issue for me…
I don’t hit anyone, especially 300 lb ex Biker groupies that live in Billings Mt.
Joe,
What if some ignorant Boston Red Sox Fan came up, got in your girls’ face, and said “YANKEES SUCK”
Would their striking of them constitute self defense?
Looking at this from another perspective, in the world we have, too many women can take that “you can’t hit me, I’m girl” thing way into adulthood and are horrified when they discover other people don’t play by that rule.
You really have to decide if you’re prepared to face what’s likely to come if you “hit” someone, or what you may have to do if you are the one struck.
In one way or another, all of us will get hit. What matters is what you do after that.
Having a sister four years older than myself, a brother six years older, and having been a runt until age 14, convinced me early on that anyone who initiates violence against someone else has, for a time, placed themselves beyond needing anyone’s protection, which was all I needed. A scrap here or there showed I played for keeps and demonstrated how much damage I could inflict; I made it through high school with people pretty much leaving me alone.
It’s different now as an adult, because a physical confrontation with a man or woman can be one of those life-changing experiences I just don’t need. “Don’t ask for none, won’t be none” works nicely now. Some mistakes you can’t bounce back from.
PB,
I would totally say that to Joe M.
“YANKEES SUCK!”
Watched “61*” for the first time this week…thought of Joe M.
Great movie!
I hear where you’re coming from Chris…
Still think you should consider the “long term effects” in a relationship if a man is getting hit too.
Chivalry for men was precisely developed because women already were expected to act a certain way.
It was never developed to let women act with impunity while having men show they “are the bigger person” who can “take it”.
Haha, My daughter would just laugh at them and ask them why they were so ignorant. Then of course she’d probably say something about 26 and 4.
61* is a great movie. I own it. Go figure.