When - if ever- do you feel that hitting back is not an unreasonable solution?

[Hoopin' Mama]

I am a "violence is never the answer" kind of gal. Recent events have me pondering this question, though.

DS (almost 7) is at a day camp for child care that I'm not thrilled with and on two separate occasions he has been punched in the stomach and pushed down by basically being kicked in the back. Both times the perp was pulled out of play time, and DH has discussed this with the teachers. Another older child has been calling him names. We are pulling him out of the camp after his field trip - which DH is going along on.

I was completely hopeless at standing up for myself when I was in elementary school and I was bullied pretty badly by my "best friends", who were twins, until 3rd grade. I often struggle with how to advise my child on this.

And before people jump down my throat, please note that I do not condone violence, nor did I tell my child to hit another child. I am curious if other parents get that little voice that wants to say give it back to the bully, and how you address that voice in yourself.

[swd12422]

First of all, hugs to you that you and DS have to go through this at all.

My son is only 3, so we're not there yet, but I think about it A LOT b/c he is so much smaller than most kids his age, and even those half his age. We have talked about having him involved in some sort of martial arts when he is older, so that he will feel equipped to handle unwanted physical interactions should any occur. (I'm having a hard time deciphering how much of the "bullying" trend is media hype b/c of a few extreme cases and how much is really a horrible epidemic, so I figure it can't hurt to be prepared.)

My parents are of the "eye for an eye" mentality and think he should hit back if someone hits him first. That'll teach the other kid not to mess with him, b/c he's not going to back down from a challenge. While I agree with that mentality, I don't think violence is completely necessary. I have read a few threads here and elsewhere where the kid who is being bullied simply confronts the bully and says, "That's enough" in a firm enough voice that the kid realizes there's no fun left in doing what they've been doing.

That being said, I think martial arts training can't hurt, in case things do get out of hand. There are ways to take down someone who is attacking you without hurting them. (My friend demonstrated this to me when I was 10, and I'll never forget it. I was messing around with him, just annoying the daylights out of him. He told me to knock it off and I didn't, so he swept me off my feet and laid me out on the ground so fast I had no idea what happened. I didn't feel a thing. So it seems like a good way to go, where your son can defend himself without simply hitting back and causing injury. If he can maneuver to avoid swings and never need to take a swing in return, they will leave him alone.)

[Hoopin' Mama]

Thanks for your kind reply.

Ds does take kung fu and takes the oath not to use it on the playground very seriously. I've been pondering this and the principles he is learning in kung fu, and I think since it is one-time event (ie a single punch), it doesn't give him time for self defense mode to kick in. He was taught in preschool to find an adult if he can't solve a conflict, and when he got hit he told the teacher. He then got called a tattletale the next day by the boy and an older boy.

I don't know why this has been such a bad experience, We don't often have these problems. Maybe because the other boys have been there all summer and he just started last week.

[swd12422]

I have mixed feelings about the "tell a teacher" thing. Yeah, it helps the kids to have an adult to supervise and help sort things out, and of course the adults in charge need to be made aware of problems like this. BUT.... There's the "tattling" thing. First, it only exacerbates the problem (unless there is a zero-tolerance policy and the kid will be sent home immediately with no chance to return, and we all know how often THAT happens) and second, it doesn't teach the kids to work things out on their own. It teaches them to "tell on" people and let someone else fix the problem. That was the way our schools handled it when I was growing up, and as a result, I have very few problem-solving skills when it comes to stuff like this, b/c I never had to do it myself. Now I have to figure it out for my kids so they don't end up the same way.

I'm not familiar with kung fu and how it's taught, but if he's been targeted by the same kid(s) more than once already, maybe he can be more aware when they are near him, in case they try anything else. Then he can either be prepared to block them or move out of their way, if he doesn't have time to move away from them completely.

[SweetSilver]

There is a difference between condoning and encouraging a violent reaction and understanding it when it happens, especially with kids.  I wouldn't be too upset if my kid got into a tussle in reaction to what you described.  I'd use it as a jumping off point to talk about other options, and I hope the other parent would too.  I've seen my daughter get into a wrestling tussle at a playground with a boy who should have known better.  I felt incredibly angry, my girl was so distraught, but I kept my cool.  While she didn't deserve to get into this fight, she was being competitive and was bragging in a confrontational way (so was he).  We talked about this later, how when you talk with other kids like this it's a pretty fair bet that someone will feel like fighting.  We talked about other possibilities.  In the moment, though, she just needed comforting.

I was a children's Aikido teacher for 3 years.  I worked on footwork and some very specific moves, but I also spent a lot of time working on the "big shapes": ways kids can move that were far from perfect but gave them a feel for where they were going.  A few months later, a student told me that while playing foursquare another kid charged at him.  My student's reaction was automatic.  He stepped to the side and raised his arms up and out, like a big "Y".  (Kokyunage for all those familiar with Aikido.)  The kid ran into the back of his arm, near the shoulder and fell.  My student had a "talking to" about the raising of his arms part, which could be construed as a strike in our zero-tolerance schools, but didn't get in trouble.  His movements had become a part of him.  He didn't fight back.  He didn't run away.  He moved aside and centered himself.  He saved himself from injury, I am sure.

[Linda on the move]

I'm sorry you are dealing with this.

I don't know the answer. I don't know how we both teach our children to be strong in themselves, to not let others use them to work out their issues, while also teaching them to be non-violent.

It does sound like the camp handled it as well as possible, that you have an exit plan, and a plan to keep your sweet little safe until the program is over.

My husband grew up in another country where the streets were a lot rougher than what we see here. Everyone I know from there got into fights regularly growing up.  The line from parents (who truly couldn't stop it) was, "It's character building."

[LynnS6]

Originally Posted by SweetSilver 

There is a difference between condoning and encouraging a violent reaction and understanding it when it happens, especially with kids.  I wouldn't be too upset if my kid got into a tussle in reaction to what you described.  I'd use it as a jumping off point to talk about other options, and I hope the other parent would too. 

I think this is a good point. I would never tell, or even condone, using violence, but I might not come down too harshly if it was in response to being hit. I will confess that I've had the fleeting thought  of telling ds that if his sister hits him again, he should hit her back. She's younger than he is and lashes out, and it's getting old. I haven't done it and I won't, because I do want to maintain a firm no violence rule.

I have found this article on How to Stop Bullying to very helpful for both me and my kids: http://www.bullies2buddies.com/who-we-help/students/161-how-to-stop-being-teased-and-bullied-without-really-trying-intro. It's really helped me to explain to my kids (dd in particular) that kids who are teasing her are playing a 'game'. The 'game' is: Can we get her to explode? She can help the game disappear by minimizing her reactions. Now, if it continues, if it escalates or it involves physical violence, then I want to know and I'll talk to the other parents in the neighborhood (it's a neighborhood problem for us, not a school one). I had to talk to the other parents when ds was about that age, and I worked with ds on not being so reactive and giving the kids the 'thrill' of making him mad. With ds, it was pretty easy, because while he's pretty reactive, he's naturally pretty understated. With dd it's a lot harder because Drama is her middle name.

However, your situation sounds like it's just plain not a safe one. I'm always a bit leery of daycamps and after school care because the supervision isn't always what it should be, or it's not being done by people who are well trained. Often it's high school kids doing the supervising, and it's OK for some things, but not others, and they're often not great at preventative discipline.

[mtiger]

When my daughter was little, she had a situation where there was a boy in her preschool who was regularly pushing and hitting the girls. I told her to give him three warnings. The third one being "if you push me again, I will punch you in the nose". And told her that I would deal with the consequences from the school for her standing up for herself.

Not long after, I went to pick her up and was met my the Director. "Ms. T... I need to speak with you about an incident with your daughter." Long story short? He ignored her warnings and pushed her a third time. She punched him in the nose and made him bleed. They called it a day. I can tell ya, though - neither that kid, nor any other, has messed with her since.

[cappuccinosmom]

For me, there is a big difference between violence for revenge/getting back/venting anger and defensive force.

I don't care what awful names somebody calls my kid, hitting is not acceptable as a response.  If they can move away, and if they can get help, there is no need for violence.

But I have told them clearly that if they are being physically abused, or being taken somewhere they don't want to go (abducted, forced away), they have my full and complete permission to do whatever they need to do to keep safe.  Hit, kick, bite, push, etc.  Scream, too.

The purpose is not to injure or retaliate, but to stop the physical abuse and give them an opportunity to get the heck away from the abuser.  Run away, when you can.  But you can't very well run if you're pinned to the ground being pummeled. 

[hildare]

... we as a family are pretty unusual by mdc standards.  philisophically, we don't really believe in non-violence.  if violence is being used as a tool for oppression or for bullying, a non-violent reaction is hardly ever going to achieve results. 

just from personal experience, as a "hard" kid, i did find that bullies -- and everyone else-- were more likely to not confront or provoke if they understood that they would receive what they got. 

of course, it depends on the situation, too.. a violent reaction could escalate in a group situation, too, and cause other folks to get involved.  however, we'll encourage our kids to defend themselves in whatever way a situation may call for, and not necessarily passively.  there's a lot to be said for dialogue, too, but that's not always effective either.  in any case, i personally feel that an "involve an authority figure" approach is not teaching kids to problem solve for themselves.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by hildare 

... philisophically, we don't really believe in non-violence.  if violence is being used as a tool for oppression or for bullying, a non-violent reaction is hardly ever going to achieve results. 

Gandhi would disagree

"For Gandhi, ahimsa (non-violence) was the expression of the deepest love for all humans, including one’s opponents; this non-violence therefore included not only a lack of physical harm to them, but also a lack of hatred or ill-will towards them. Gandhi rejected the traditional dichotomy between one’s own side and the “enemy;” he believed in the need to convince opponents of their injustice, not to punish them, and in this way one could win their friendship and one’s own freedom. If need be, one might need to suffer or die in order that they may be converted to love (Shepard 4)."  http://socialchangenow.ca/mypages/gandhi.htm

He brought British rule in India to an end, and paved for the for the end of colonialism around the world. He would have said that it wasn't about the results. His religious beliefs taught to act for the sake of taking the right action, but to surrender the outcome.

I don't know how applicable this is to one's own child, though. I'm just pointing out that your statement isn't necessarily true.

Peace

[meemee]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom 

For me, there is a big difference between violence for revenge/getting back/venting anger and defensive force.

The purpose is not to injure or retaliate, but to stop the physical abuse and give them an opportunity to get the heck away from the abuser.  Run away, when you can.  But you can't very well run if you're pinned to the ground being pummeled. 

This. absolutely when there is no one to protect you and you are getting beaten up you do everything possible to run away. the key is running away. not jumping on those other kids and 'becoming' them. 

i am sorry that it had to happen twice. i hope the camp took those two incidents v. seriously. that kind of physical attack is grounds for expulsion after a warning - in my book and also at school. 

however i want to point out about the name calling. it is better to use that as a jumping point to prepare ur son with coping strategies. it will happen. even in a school that has 0 tolerance policy with bullying. i feel this is a life long skill to have because you will face it all through your life. someone calling names is not a reason to remove your son from that situation (talking generally here, not about this camp because u DO have a reason to pull him out since he is not safe). initially yes. i know it has helped dd immensely learning how to cope with name calling. 
 

[ashtak]

Originally Posted by meemee 

This. absolutely when there is no one to protect you and you are getting beaten up you do everything possible to run away. the key is running away. not jumping on those other kids and 'becoming' them. 

i am sorry that it had to happen twice. i hope the camp took those two incidents v. seriously. that kind of physical attack is grounds for expulsion after a warning - in my book and also at school. 

however i want to point out about the name calling. it is better to use that as a jumping point to prepare ur son with coping strategies. it will happen. even in a school that has 0 tolerance policy with bullying. i feel this is a life long skill to have because you will face it all through your life. someone calling names is not a reason to remove your son from that situation (talking generally here, not about this camp because u DO have a reason to pull him out since he is not safe). initially yes. i know it has helped dd immensely learning how to cope with name calling. 
 

hmm... just curious, but wouldn't "becoming them" happen if he was the one to initiate an attack? IMO acting in defense is a qualitative difference that defines the act itself. 

I honestly don't really know how i feel about this topic and i suppose i would look at any situation that arose within its own unique context, however i do feel that while running away is going to avoid physical injury it has the potential to really hurt a kids self esteem almost as much as the bullying itself. it reinforces the bully's sense that the victim is inferior/weaker and makes them an ideal target for further confrontations because a new game develops around 'not letting him get away next time'. does that sound too morbid? 

obviously a child's self-esteem has its bedrock in a lifetime of interactions with loving care givers, but these kinds of playground humiliations are corrosive and there must be a good way to empower a child to truly handle this kind of situation and, ideally, end it. perhaps the articles mentioned by PP have good ideas on that.  

[meemee]

Originally Posted by ashtak 

hmm... just curious, but wouldn't "becoming them" happen if he was the one to initiate an attack? IMO acting in defense is a qualitative difference that defines the act itself. 

i agree this is a grey area. but if you are down and being kicked and punched, wouldnt you try to stop the blows IF you cant get away? that is the basis of self defense isnt it. to 'knock-out' the attacker. you are not inflicting pain for your enjoyment. u r trying to minimally hit at the special points to stop the person from hitting you and then finally you running away. 

my dd will definitely be trained in this when she is the right age. http://www.rad-systems.com/ i've taken this class. intention makes the difference. not necessarily the act. 

[captain optimism]

I want to echo what Linda on the Move said. Sometimes non-violence is a very effective tool against violent oppression. Under what conditions does non-violent resistance work? Well, there has to be a lot of scrutiny. You can't resist non-violently in private--you have to expose the other person's violent actions. You also can't resist non-violently if you have no allies. I'm drawing on the non-violent civil rights movement in the US--a lot of civil rights activists were willing to use violence, but they thought it would not be an effective means to gain their rights as citizens. 

How this works for an individual kid sticking up for herself is pretty tricky. You don't want to be a huge tattle-tale, but on the other hand, you can't stick up for yourself with no backup. You either have to have other friends who are peers on the playground, who will hear you when you say loudly, "Why are you picking on me, are you some kind of BULLY? No one likes a BULLY!" and will respond with appropriate social shunning, scorn, or whatever. Or, you have to have an adult who cares about what happens to you present who will hear you confront the person picking on you. I think this is different from tattling, because it's not private.

Non-violent resistance isn't resistance if you don't actually stand up to the hazing. 

Originally Posted by hildare 

... we as a family are pretty unusual by mdc standards.  philisophically, we don't really believe in non-violence.  if violence is being used as a tool for oppression or for bullying, a non-violent reaction is hardly ever going to achieve results. 

just from personal experience, as a "hard" kid, i did find that bullies -- and everyone else-- were more likely to not confront or provoke if they understood that they would receive what they got. 

of course, it depends on the situation, too.. a violent reaction could escalate in a group situation, too, and cause other folks to get involved.  however, we'll encourage our kids to defend themselves in whatever way a situation may call for, and not necessarily passively.  there's a lot to be said for dialogue, too, but that's not always effective either.  in any case, i personally feel that an "involve an authority figure" approach is not teaching kids to problem solve for themselves.

[SweetSilver]

To get something "right" in the moment (and a stressful moment at that!) one needs to have practice keeping calm while the anger flurries around you.  Not something you can just be told to do and then to do it, at least not easily.  Advice given to an adult might be overwhelming difficult for a child, I know this as this was the story of my childhood.  Somehow, this is a lesson that needs to be taught often enough for it too sink in deep enough, so it can be there without thinking about it.  

[NiteNicole]

I think defending yourself is fine.  I have ZERO issue with it.  The idea of asking a child to just take a punch and not stick up for himself seems asinine to me. I would never encourage my daughter to go out and start a fight (and have never been in a physical altercation in my whole life, or even really a shouting match) but I wouldn't tell her to just take it, either.  Protecting yourself is a natural instinct for a reason.

[Hoopin' Mama]

Thanks for sharing all your perspectives, it's an interesting topic.

I think, for now, I'll just keep DS going with his self-defense training, which is a combination of kung fu principles and also learning how to deal with an adult grabbing you. During the "lecture" portion of the class, the principles that are taught are downright beautiful. I did have a talk with him about how no one is allowed to lay hands on him and he is always permitted to defend himself.

I found in preschool the tell an adult strategy was a good thing because of the way it was handled. The teacher would then get the two kids together to talk to each other about what happened, ask each other if they were okay, etc. I feel like it taught the kids that they can rely on the adults in their lives to help them through situations they don't yet know how to navigate. But in this older age group they need to learn other solutions.

The mother of the one of the boys was also on the field trip and told DH that she had to come to make sure he behaved, so I think the camp is handling it well.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by Hoopin' Mama 

Thanks for sharing all your perspectives, it's an interesting topic.

I think, for now, I'll just keep DS going with his self-defense training, which is a combination of kung fu principles and also learning how to deal with an adult grabbing you. During the "lecture" portion of the class, the principles that are taught are downright beautiful. I did have a talk with him about how no one is allowed to lay hands on him and he is always permitted to defend himself.

I found in preschool the tell an adult strategy was a good thing because of the way it was handled. The teacher would then get the two kids together to talk to each other about what happened, ask each other if they were okay, etc. I feel like it taught the kids that they can rely on the adults in their lives to help them through situations they don't yet know how to navigate. But in this older age group they need to learn other solutions.

The mother of the one of the boys was also on the field trip and told DH that she had to come to make sure he behaved, so I think the camp is handling it well.

That's all really wonderful. As much as I do find the ideal of non-violence inspiring, I also have taught my kids that no one is allowed to touch them without permission. It's a paradox, and what philosophically works as an adult is completely different to me that works IRL for a child or teen.

It sounds like the camp did handle it well, and that the other parent is doing they best they can to make sure it doesn't happen again. That's all really good to. For some children, treating others with dignity comes more naturally than others. It's wonderful that this other child has a parent who is aware and is working on it with them.

[SweetSilver]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

That's all really wonderful. As much as I do find the ideal of non-violence inspiring, I also have taught my kids that no one is allowed to touch them without permission. It's a paradox, and what philosophically works as an adult is completely different to me that works IRL for a child or teen.

I think the reason this is true is that non-violence, among other practices and philosophies, are best understood-- and more authentically experienced?-- when one has experienced the opposite. (I hope I explained that clearly enough.....)