• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lessons about wife-beating at five years old

Laila

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
10,101
Reaction score
2,990
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of 'wife beating' and the need to form healthy relationships.

The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls.

They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

Last night, critics warned that ministers are cramming the already over-stuffed National Curriculum with lessons that should be taught in the home or in the community.

Others say the plan is part of the feminist agenda led by Harriet Harman in her role as Equalities Minister.

They pointed out the new classes will not cover violence against men, who are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime.

In the past few days alone, Miss Harman has blamed men for the banking crisis, and suggested the Labour Party should always have a female in one of its top two posts.

In the week Harriet Harman takes charge, yet another feminist initiative | Mail Online

At 5?
What a negative assumption to begin with, that all children will need lessons on this as if they destined to be either abused or the abusers.

The most in danger group in this society is young Black men. Harperson needs to lay down the crack.
 
What's wrong with this? I see nothing wrong with implementing morals of this kind at a young age. There's a psychological pattern in wife beaters that usually follows on from their fathers beating their mothers, a lack of empathy for the pain of others, a need for control etc etc. Teach them that these are illogical and wrong and you can potentially reap the benefits.
 
What's wrong with this? I see nothing wrong with implementing morals of this kind at a young age. There's a psychological pattern in wife beaters that usually follows on from their fathers beating their mothers, a lack of empathy for the pain of others, a need for control etc etc. Teach them that these are illogical and wrong and you can potentially reap the benefits.

I think it is stupid and a waste of time.
How about creating more safe housing? Increase the law enabling police to act sooner on domestic abuses even if the partner refuses to testify?

Just this weak a absolutely shocking survey came about our schools and instead of teaching how to read and write we are teaching them this nonsense.
Instil this in PHSCE at secondary level if need be.

They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

And what about women who beat up Men? Are girls not going to be taught not to beat up their partner?
 
Last edited:
I think it is stupid and a waste of time.
How about creating more safe housing? Increase the law enabling police to act sooner on domestic abuses even if the partner refuses to testify?

Psychology creates criminals and sadists not housing. I grew up in a rough area full of heroin addiction but I turned out fine. It's about upbringing. Of course the environment doesn't help but 'safe housing' is a lot harder to achieve than influencing the sponge mind of a child.

I'd support such laws but you can't force someone to do something they don't want to do. It's why most domestic violence goes on for a long time. Ridiculous, I know.

Just this weak a absolutely shocking survey came about our schools and instead of teaching how to read and write we are teaching them this nonsense.
Instil this in PHSCE at secondary level if need be.

Most children have three hours a week where they don't do any core subjects. It's why they have bike safety and road safety and anti-smoking classes.


And what about women who beat up Men? Are girls not going to be taught not to beat up their partner?

That's not as large a problem as male on female violence as females typically aren't strong or violent enough to beat up a fully grown man. It happens, of course, but not as often as the other.
 
I agree that laws shouldn't be sexist and women abusing men is just as big of a problem as men who beat up women (I don't want to be insensitive here, but a woman who is beat up by a man isn't always innocent).

That being said, I think change requires teaching our youth the proper societal ideals. It's obvious that trying to change an older person is difficult than trying to change a child. That being said, I don't know how cost-effective this program is. Should we teach every child not to abuse women when only a small percentage would do it anyway? Does the program even work? Is it better to only react to bad behavior instead of trying to teach a certain behavior to every child? That allows some to go "through the cracks" and teaches cure over prevention, but is it worth it?
 
In the week Harriet Harman takes charge, yet another feminist initiative | Mail Online

At 5?
What a negative assumption to begin with, that all children will need lessons on this as if they destined to be either abused or the abusers.

The most in danger group in this society is young Black men. Harperson needs to lay down the crack.

I hate to point this out but I think mothers are more often than fathers to dish out mental abuse to their children.

No matter which way it goes, it shouldn't be taught to such young children and it should be gender neutral.
 
My only problem with it is it's focus.

There are females that can physically hurt males also.

So I think it should be focused in generalities.
i.e.: It's never ok to hit unless you are being hit or threatened with physical violence.
 
I think it is fine to begin to teach everyone as early as possible about respect, honesty, ethics, commitment, personal responsibility, and moral values. Forget about religion it doesn't have to be about the teachings in the Bible just the basics of what is right and wrong. Today just about all of these things in society hold little or no real meaning anymore. Before the 60s divorce was shunned and looked down on cheating on your taxes was fairly rare, as were family violence calls to the police. Anyone who hit a woman faced the real possibility of getting an ass kicking from a real man who would never consider such an outrageous act. So why do we hear about it so much today? I believe it's because we let began to let TV raise our children and moved into day care and then to video games and computers to do the job of caring for our most precious assets. We don't set good examples everyday for our children to live by. Look at the number of divorced people who rather than work on a relationship just jump into bed with a new partner because it's convenient and there is no real down side in society.
I can assure you that even if you live up to the standards set by those who came before us it is no guarantee that one of your children won't end up a pregnant teen or that your wife or husband won't cheat on you, or that you will never hear about family violence. But I can also assure you that if it were the standard that everyone lived by and passed on to their children as they raise them themselves these things would be less prevalent than they are today.
 
Last edited:

So I think it should be focused in generalities.
i.e.: It's never ok to hit unless you are being hit or threatened with physical violence.

Shouldn't parents be doing this?

Why foist it onto the teachers. They are there to teach imo
 
Shouldn't parents be doing this?

Why foist it onto the teachers. They are there to teach imo
Sure they should.
But I see no problem with them teaching generalities like I suggested because as we all know many parents do not carry through with their responsibilities.
 
By the time my son was 5, he already knew that it was not okay to beat up on, or even play too rough with, little girls or smaller children. He'd also been taught that it is not ok to injure someone except in self-defense, and had a working knowlege of what "self-defense" meant.

On the other hand, "roughhousing", or play-fighting, was acceptible between boys who were approximate physical equals and willing participants, according to what I taught him. I don't see anything wrong with it, it is perfectly natural and it toughens them up, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. When someone starts crying or loses their temper and goes ape****, then its out of hand and time for an adult to put a stop to it.

All his childhood he's been taught to treat those smaller/weaker/younger/etc (especially females) with compassion and protectiveness, and never with abuse. At 13, he is (in my admittedly biased opinion) a pretty good balance of being a tough kid who can take care of himself, while at the same time being gentlemanly towards ladies and trustworthy to watch after small children responsibly.

One of the real challenges to this was his younger half-sister. She was not raised with the kind of discipline that I raised him in, and was a bit of a problem. She knew exactly how to aggravate him beyond his endurance, just which buttons to push to infuriate him, and did so with a will...including some minor violence. He had to be restrained a couple of times from putting a big smack-down on her when she'd pushed it a few gazillion light-years too far.

Fortunately she seems to be growing out of that lately. :doh

Boys have to be taught to be gentlemanly towards girls, it isn't a natural trait. I'd rather see it done at home, myself.

Violent femmes are a problem, moreso these days than used to be the case. A good many men who are in jail for domestic violence don't necessarily deserve it... they are there because they finally retaliated physically after months or years of physical and psychological abuse by their wife/SO. I'm not overgeneralizing, it isn't so in all cases...but it is so in maybe 30-50% in my rather experienced opinion.

As an aside, I'd like to throw out a smidgeon of advice for the ladies: when you and your man have been having a big loud argument, and he's angry and red in the face and fuming, that is NOT a good time to slap him, grab him, or otherwise engage in any rough physical contact. His temper is up, along with his instinctive defenses, and if you provoke him physically just then, even a normally mild-mannered man might deck you.

G.
 
What's wrong with this? I see nothing wrong with implementing morals of this kind at a young age. There's a psychological pattern in wife beaters that usually follows on from their fathers beating their mothers, a lack of empathy for the pain of others, a need for control etc etc. Teach them that these are illogical and wrong and you can potentially reap the benefits.

The problem is that domestic violence is far more complex than males = violent abusers and females = victims.

Women tend to assault men just as frequently as men assault women, but men almost never report it as abuse.

So, this is perpetuating a feminist stereotype about men, and is not based on facts.

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
Sure they should.
But I see no problem with them teaching generalities like I suggested because as we all know many parents do not carry through with their responsibilities.

Then maybe the children shouldn't be with the parents.

And one of the things that makes me especially angry is that witch i call a DPM is forcing this through and shelves plans on rape law reform.
 
One of the real challenges to this was his younger half-sister. She was not raised with the kind of discipline that I raised him in, and was a bit of a problem. She knew exactly how to aggravate him beyond his endurance, just which buttons to push to infuriate him, and did so with a will...including some minor violence. He had to be restrained a couple of times from putting a big smack-down on her when she'd pushed it a few gazillion light-years too far.

Lmao, you grow out of it? :p

My brothers restrain themselves very very well (even when they deserve a smack) against my younger sisters, they both love pushing their buttons and one day it'll tip my brothers off the edge and they are going to get a smack they won't forget and rightly so
 
Male domestic abuse is one of those things that is never discussed and it is a problem and should be addressed.

The evidence is quite clear that women have just as many violent tendencies as men, and that they play a definite role in the cycle of abuse.

Only women with an anti-man agenda would ignore the research on the issue....Only women who really hate men would try to push their anti-male agenda on 5 year old boys.
 
I think it is fine to begin to teach everyone as early as possible about respect, honesty, ethics, commitment, personal responsibility, and moral values.

Good so teaching kids that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual is ok with you then, good to know. Oh wait, or is it you just want to teach the moral values YOU agree with?
 
I think this research study, in particular, had an interesting finding:

Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young at-risk couples. Journal of Family Therapy, 22 (2) 101-111. (A longitudinal study using subjects from the Oregon Youth and Couples Study. <see above> Subjects were assessed 4 times across a 9 year period from late adolescence to mid-20's. Findings reveal that young women's rate of initiation of physical violence was "two times higher than men's during late adolescence and young adulthood." By mid-20's the rate of initiation was about equal. Mutual aggression increased the likelihood of injury for both men and women.)
 
The evidence is quite clear that women have just as many violent tendencies as men, and that they play a definite role in the cycle of abuse.

Only women with an anti-man agenda would ignore the research on the issue....Only women who really hate men would try to push their anti-male agenda on 5 year old boys.

But ofc, i mean we only have to remember back to our highschool/secondary school days and recall how truly spiteful, manipulative, violent some of the girls were.

Not surprising tho is it? There is always some
 
But ofc, i mean we only have to remember back to our highschool/secondary school days and recall how truly spiteful, manipulative, violent some of the girls were.

Not surprising tho is it? There is always some

I really hate, hate, hate the way that domestic violence is sold as a "men are evil" package. That is NOT how these relationships work.
 
I really hate, hate, hate the way that domestic violence is sold as a "men are evil" package. That is NOT how these relationships work.

Indeed.

I have seen some of my girlfriends smack their partners in anger.
And i always think, if he hit her back he'd be in jail probably or done for assault.

I think it's BS.
If i was a guy and a girl smacked me, i'd hit her back. I'm not going to lie
 
I think this research study, in particular, had an interesting finding:

Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young at-risk couples. Journal of Family Therapy, 22 (2) 101-111. (A longitudinal study using subjects from the Oregon Youth and Couples Study. <see above> Subjects were assessed 4 times across a 9 year period from late adolescence to mid-20's. Findings reveal that young women's rate of initiation of physical violence was "two times higher than men's during late adolescence and young adulthood." By mid-20's the rate of initiation was about equal. Mutual aggression increased the likelihood of injury for both men and women.)

Its kind of like car accidents. Girls have more, but they are smaller nicks and dings. Men have less, but when we do the level of damage is much greater.

I'm not basing that on any statistics, and completely making it up, but it seems like it fits, right? :2razz:
 
Indeed.

I have seen some of my girlfriends smack their partners in anger.
And i always think, if he hit her back he'd be in jail probably or done for assault.

I think it's BS.
If i was a guy and a girl smacked me, i'd hit her back. I'm not going to lie

With all of the emphasis placed on teaching boys not to hit girls, it might be helpful if more girls were taught not to hit.

And yes. I was raised to hit back.
 
Last edited:
Its kind of like car accidents. Girls have more, but they are smaller nicks and dings. Men have less, but when we do the level of damage is much greater.

I'm not basing that on any statistics, and completely making it up, but it seems like it fits, right? :2razz:

Of course, men are capable of doing damage because, in general, men are stronger and larger than women. However, there is a clear double standard on this issue.
 
Indeed.

I have seen some of my girlfriends smack their partners in anger.
And i always think, if he hit her back he'd be in jail probably or done for assault.

I think it's BS.
If i was a guy and a girl smacked me, i'd hit her back. I'm not going to lie

I've let my wife hit me in my shoulder, as hard as she could. I realize that sometimes, you just need to punch something. So rather than wake up tied to the bed with my penis glued, I'll just let her throw a weak ass punch to an area where its not going to hurt me too much.
 
Back
Top Bottom