[AudioDwebe]

I would really appreciate your opinion on this:
 
Is it ever okay for a five year old child to hit someone back who hit him first?
 
I just had a lengthy conversation with a Bahavioral Intervention Counselor at my son's grade school (pretty cool that they've got such a position).  She pretty much said that the school has a zero tolerance for hitting or fighting of any sort, and that they teach the kids to use their "words" and "voices" to express their displeasure in being hit.  And then they're supposed to tell the teacher that someone hit them.
 
"Don't hit me", walk away and tell the teacher.
 
Which sounds okay, but...
 
I've always instilled in my son that hitting first, for any reason, is totally wrong.  I've also always told him that if he gets hit, it's okay to hit back. 
 
This I've done for two reasons:  One, I don't ever want my son to feel afraid to stand up for himself, and two, I felt that if someone were to hit him, the mere act of getting hit in return might persuade that person to stop the action (at least with where my son is concerned).
 
What is your opinion on this subject?
 
Thanks.
 
Mamoru
 
 
 

 

[rmp459]

Imho, your right and the school system is wrong. No one should ever be forced to take any form of insult or assault, either verbal or physical, and be forced to stand there and do nothing, even if said person is 5 years old.

And lets be honest, words can hurt a whole lot more than a punch or a kick. Anyone that says otherwise is either lying or so full of themselves they probably don't know which way is up.

At an age like five a kid is also very impressionable. Let him/her be pushed around too much without any thing to do about it and they will turn that grief inward.

I think its about being mature and responsible enough to know not to hit someone first for any reason, but to be proud and smart enough to push back to defend oneself in a given situation.

Sounds like your on the right track to me.

Two cents.

 

[Graphicism]

Wow 5-years old, they start young!
 
The problem I have with this stand-off approach is that more often than not the bully gets away with it, and every time they do the bullying get's worse. Perhaps if schools were stricter in that name calling resulted with a week of disciplinary action it wouldn't happen as much. As it is kids feel they have to take care of the situation themselves which lands them in as much trouble as the bully.
 
I don't have kids yet so no advice for you there.
 

 

[alv4426]

I think this is totally the right way to go, as long as you dont push "if you fight back you better win" that could lead to some issues as it did with me some 15years ago in grade school. Then again I was most likely the instigator back in those days

.

 

[marvin]

Tell your kid not to fight back at school if he's going to get caught by teachers. Think of it as a life lesson on the nature of authority.
 
Whether the school is right or wrong doesn't matter much. They got the bigger stick and that's that.

 

[robm321]

Quote:

Imho, your right and the school system is wrong.

+1

 

[HiGHFLYiN9]

Agreed, a child should be able to stand up for themselves, otherwise they'll have to deal with bullying, which I believe would be much more detrimental than having to take a day or two off of school due to a suspension. 

 

[Guidostrunk]

Both of my girls 6 & 9 are both taught to defend themselves. No tolerance for bullies. I grew up in the rough streets of Pittsburgh PA.and that's how i was taught. didn't waste time with words either, you got knocked out!

 

[AudioDwebe]

It's a bit of a contrary system they've got at the school, actually.  In speaking with the counselor, she essentially stated that if a child strikes back, that's wrong, as they should have told the person to stop, walked (or ran) away, and told a teacher.  In striking back, they'd be subjected to some sort of punishment for the offense, though not as severe as the child who threw the first punch. 
 
But then she went on to say that a child does, however, have a right to protect themselves at all times.  The example she gave me is if a child is on the ground, being hit, then that child has a right to strike back.  I then asked her "If a child gets hit, tells the other child to stop hitting, then is hit again, could that warrant striking back in retaliation?" to which she replied that the child who retaliated could still get into trouble. 
 
Huh?!?!  At this point in the conversation I felt were were talking in circles so I thanked her for her time and hung up the phone.
 
Where's the line drawn between "self-defense" and "retaliation"? 
 
 
 
 

 

[marvin]

Quote:

It's a bit of a contrary system they've got at the school, actually. 
 
...
 
Where's the line drawn between "self-defense" and "retaliation"? 

Believe it or not, that's how self defense works in real (adult) life. It's rarely a bright line, black and white sort of deal.
 
Take the following hypotheticals:

1. A punches B in the chest and walks away. B fights back.
2. A punches B in the chest and keeps punching. B fights back until A stops punching.

 
In the former case, B's actions may not fall under the self defense exceptions for the use of force. There may be serious legal consequences for B.
 
In the latter case, B's actions likely fall under the self defense exceptions for the use of force. B is likely in the clear legally.
 
There's also the fun "duty to retreat" requirement that many states have, which is analogous to the "run and tell a teacher unless you can't" option that the school wants kids to exercise.

 

[Byakushiki]

Quote:

Tell your kid not to fight back at school if he's going to get caught by teachers. Think of it as a life lesson on the nature of authority.
 
Whether the school is right or wrong doesn't matter much. They got the bigger stick and that's that.

"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!" — Jim Malone
I'd say a bit of disproportionate retribution is called for against the school there.
 
Rephrased earlier quote...They expel/suspend your kid, you shut down the school system. Capice?
 
Schools nowadays blur the line way too much between retaliation/self defense. I got caught in the latter of the two situations listed, and guess what? I nearly get expelled. You can tell I've got issues with my school system. I probably need a psych workup at this point.
 

 

[nikp]

I think the school is just trying to teach forgiveness. But anyway, a kid must stand up for himself. If he's bullied (hit/abused more than once), I say give the bully a good lesson. 

 

[fabio-fi]

If they are constantly hit by someone its okay to defend themselves. 

 

[appophylite]

I grew up here in the US for Elementary School with the hands-off 'If 'A' punches 'B', 'B' can't punch back, but should tell a teacher..." which never really seemed to work out that well because 'B' would get punched, 'A' would get into some trouble, but by the end of the week, 'A' would have gotten 'B' back after school and off of school grounds. I never did care for the system. Now on the other hand, growing up in India, if two guys got into a fight, in more cases than not, it was a verbal fight, in which case, if one party went to the teacher, either the other party or both parties would get into trouble, so most fights just degraded into punching and kicking because everyone knew that they were going to get into trouble anyway so there was nothing left to lose (save teeth or clothes). Personally, having grown up now, I'd rather kids not fight physically, but if one kid corners another and punches/kicks him/her, I'd rather the second kid defend themselves physically back.

 

[Guidostrunk]

I believe the counselor needs counseling, her herself probably got beat up her whole life and the thought of violence terrifies her. whether it's self defense or retaliation , if my kid gets hit , shes gonna hit back. Taught my girls how to fight since they started walking. 4 years of boxing and 4 years of wrestling under my belt, i feel pretty confident in my girls handling themselves. Times have changed since i was in school ( 20yrs) and kids these days are brutal with bullying. IMO give your child the green light to HIT back......
Quote:

It's a bit of a contrary system they've got at the school, actually.  In speaking with the counselor, she essentially stated that if a child strikes back, that's wrong, as they should have told the person to stop, walked (or ran) away, and told a teacher.  In striking back, they'd be subjected to some sort of punishment for the offense, though not as severe as the child who threw the first punch. 
 
But then she went on to say that a child does, however, have a right to protect themselves at all times.  The example she gave me is if a child is on the ground, being hit, then that child has a right to strike back.  I then asked her "If a child gets hit, tells the other child to stop hitting, then is hit again, could that warrant striking back in retaliation?" to which she replied that the child who retaliated could still get into trouble. 
 
Huh?!?!  At this point in the conversation I felt were were talking in circles so I thanked her for her time and hung up the phone.
 
Where's the line drawn between "self-defense" and "retaliation"?