Entry tags:
Insight
While talking about a number of things with ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alatefeline last night a couple of things came up.
One was unconscious assumptions. The other was the old canard "it takes two to make a fight".
While reading this article, the two ideas bashed together in my head.
The problem with "it takes two to fight" is the horribly inaccurate assumption it makes about "male" interactions in childhood. Namely that the choice is "fight"/"don't fight".
In reality, the choice is "get beat up"/"try to protect yourself". so it's actually unconscious gaslighting.
I mentioned "male" above because in my experience, it's always the female authority figures spouting this nonsensical piece of "wisdom". I suspect that is because of the differences in "male" and "female" socialization. Boys are expected to have fights. girls are "trained" to attack in less physical ways.
Though come to think of it, "it takes to to have a fight" *should* be equally applicable (and wrong) to the social sniping among girls, which can get *really* nasty by high school.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me" is another horrible example of gaslighting kids and is another bit of "wisdom" that should be stomped on *hard*.
Name calling can do *more* damage than physical assault, Bruises, even broken bones heal a lot faster than the emotional damage those "harmless" words can inflict.
I know I'm far from the only person to have PTSD from *emotional* abuse.
alatefeline last night a couple of things came up.One was unconscious assumptions. The other was the old canard "it takes two to make a fight".
While reading this article, the two ideas bashed together in my head.
The problem with "it takes two to fight" is the horribly inaccurate assumption it makes about "male" interactions in childhood. Namely that the choice is "fight"/"don't fight".
In reality, the choice is "get beat up"/"try to protect yourself". so it's actually unconscious gaslighting.
I mentioned "male" above because in my experience, it's always the female authority figures spouting this nonsensical piece of "wisdom". I suspect that is because of the differences in "male" and "female" socialization. Boys are expected to have fights. girls are "trained" to attack in less physical ways.
Though come to think of it, "it takes to to have a fight" *should* be equally applicable (and wrong) to the social sniping among girls, which can get *really* nasty by high school.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me" is another horrible example of gaslighting kids and is another bit of "wisdom" that should be stomped on *hard*.
Name calling can do *more* damage than physical assault, Bruises, even broken bones heal a lot faster than the emotional damage those "harmless" words can inflict.
I know I'm far from the only person to have PTSD from *emotional* abuse.
no subject
In many schools, fighting back is considered "prolonging the violence" and officially banned. Of course, what prolongs the violence is letting bullies get away with hurting other kids.
I have over 30 years of self-defense martial arts training and even taught a few friends. Propper self-defense can be something as simple as easily breaking the grip of someone trying to intimidate you, or blocking a punch without hitting back. Yet in some schools such actions will get the defender in more trouble from authorities than that levied upon the attacker.
no subject
Back in 8th or 9th grade, I was walking home with a friend. A guy who'd been giving me trouble for *years* came up to us and sprayed me in the face with a tear gas pen he'd shoplifted.
I went back to school and filed a complaint with one of the counselors. My friend tried to talk me out of it, pointing out that I'd be ostracized etc.
I pointed that that that wouldn't be any worse than what was already going on. He accompanied me back to the school anyway.
Both I and the guy who attacked me were suspended for 3 days. (note that this had happened several blocks from the school).
If I knew then what I know now, I'd just have called the police and left the school out of it.
Note, the police *were* contacted and he did have something legal happen to him.
But if I'd left the school out of it, I'd not have missed three days of school.
Or I could have gone to the school and reported like I did and told them what they could do with my suspension. "I'm sure the [local paper & TV] would be *very* interested in why you are suspending the *victim*."