I can see a situation in which physical violence among boys, instead of being productively diffused (boys being explained this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, looking into environmental clues as to why that boy has that violent behaviour, while being given tools such as counselling, sports, martial arts, to deal with this violent energy and channel it into constructive focus), is treated as a "0 tolerance policy" type thing where the boy is removed from his class/school, moved to a different environment, socially ostracised, and starts believing that he's simply a violent person as a matter of fact, and that there's nothing he can do about it. Potentially being also put together with other kids in similar situations, which eventually reinforce each other, maybe fall into a rabbit hole of petty crimes, state/police interactions, early institutionalisation, and basically put in a never ending spiral which lead to a maladjusted adult in the best scenario, and a criminal in the worse one.

This. Young boys don't necessarily have the tools to control their behavior just because they are told to --they are developing such tools and need help with that. The same impulses are likely to make them fight the consequences, and so make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Umm... this is one reason we send kids to school. To learn how to play with others.

We are talking about effective ways of doing so.

> boys being explained this sort of behaviour is unacceptable, looking into environmental clues as to why that boy has that violent behaviour, while being given tools such as counselling, sports, martial arts, to deal with this violent energy and channel it into constructive focus

Isn't this a family thing?

> Isn't this a family thing?

Is fighting back when you are assaulted a family thing?

Schools simply DO NOT take bullying seriously. Does my son deserve to be expelled because your son decided to physically bully my child, and my son punched him a couple of times for it?

My position as the adult is "Fighting is not a good thing. You can get seriously hurt. You're going to get punished for it regardless of whether you deserve it. So there had best be physical damage at stake before you start fighting. Words and name calling are insufficient."

However, zero tolerance policies are stupid. I would have been expelled on them as a child.

I was an honor student and "geek" so the "undesirables" thought they had carte blanche to pick on the "geek" group--including me (Schools do nothing about bullying, remember?) Even though I was over 6 foot and lettered in sports, I was the "brain".

About once a year, one of the idiots would take my walking away as cowardice, corner me and would actually physically assault me, and that would be my signal that it was time to clean his clock to stay safe. And I would have an in-school detention for three days (which was annoying as I had homework for three days and the dipshit just slept).

This is a reasonable response as long as nobody got seriously injured. As the geek, it's annoying, but you don't want to incentivize fighting even when it's justified. And you certainly don't want to incentivize taking the fight to real, permanent damage.

HOWEVER, the school allowing the situation to reach that point is the failure. It's not like the school didn't know who the troublemakers were and what they were doing. When you have teachers quietly thanking a student for assaulting another student, there's a systemic problem with the school administration--not the children.

Certainly it is, as well. Though only inasmuch as family is one of the building blocks of society. As they say, "it takes a village" to raise a child. Also, what to do when the family itself is part of the problem?

> Also, what to do when the family itself is part of the problem?

In my experience, almost nothing saves you from that. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's why we call them exceptions.

Therapy saves you from that.

Nothing, it’s just a go-to item for people that want to talk about the good old days.

I think it’s effective because it’s an unexpected negative, like a clickbait headline: “Fighting is actually good for growing boys!” but the simple truth is that physically fighting with someone over a disagreement is a very bad habit to encourage.

>simple truth is that physically fighting with someone over a disagreement is a very bad habit to encourage.

I'm not sure physical altercations are worse than the alternatives. I remember as a kid you would fight with your friend and next day be friends again. No big deal really.

Would you rather have a fight or have insults/passive aggressiveness/social ostracization. I'm really not convinced mental pain is much better than physical pain.

> I'm really not convinced mental pain is much better than physical pain.

Yeah because it's a ridiculous conclusion you jumped to, where the only two options are violence vs "insults/passive aggressiveness/social ostracization". Those are not the only two options.

Teach your kids to listen to, understand and communicate their feelings properly.

I'm not sure this is a realistic expectation. Of course you want your kids to be perfect, but I have yet to see any parent succeed in such an endeavour.

I don't even think most adults can handle their emotions well enough for what you're suggesting.

Indeed. Modern society got rid of dueling to resolve disputes way before women were even allowed to vote. There is a trend that favours a more civil society and it has ties to the increased productivity of such a society as opposed to the increased effeminacy. In such a society eventually proved to offer more opportunities for women and this in turn improved the productivity of the whole society. So perhaps we're confusing cause and effect?

Throwaway! The credible threat of violence is useful and is certainly a skill to teach your sons.

Personal anecdata! My wife messed around once. We had young children who needed a mom and a non-broken home. I calmly visited the home of the other man. I told him that if my wife divorced me that was her choice and I would not stand in their way. I told him that if my wife did not divorce me and he continued to see her then I would beat the hell out of him. I left. Things turned out well for my children, over 5 years later, in that their parents remain married because the other dude stopped speaking to my wife.

This will sound tongue in cheek, but presumably, if a boy is allowed to beat other boys, then he feels better about school. I had the "opportunity" to watch how fighting and being rough played out in class where my daughter was. There were like two boys who attacked other boys, verbally or physically.

Majority of boys were unhappy about the situation, did not liked being insulted or pushed or being attacked. Their parents complained about issue, because their boys stopped liking going to school for that reason.

I really don't think the solution should be "boys are boys and therefore more aggressive one should be allowed to attack other boys". That literally harms boys that done nothing wrong. The thing about "boys fighting among themselves" is that pretty often, it is not consensual, it is one boy attacking another.

Sounds like they were bullying the other kids.

I've never been a fan of violence but as a kid I loved playing rough, especially wrestling and these days enjoy a bit of a judo; but have zero desire to get into a pub brawl. When it comes to kids I think people confuse unwanted and mutual roughhousing.

Yes, it was bullying. To the school credit, they did not just ignored the issue. They did called in psychologists etc. The kids had some kind of program about relationships / how to deal with issues / listening to each other program. It slowly got better.

Interestingly, the skills and attitudes they were teaching whole class were pretty much opposite of internet "fck the feelings, git gut looser, something bothering you is weakness" ethos.

Where do they teach you those skills on the internet?

I said "internet ethos" not "teach on internet".

Not OP but there was something centering about beating the shit out each other as kids. As long as you didn’t break anything or end up in the hospital it just was let be.

I’m sure if we had a PS4 or sweet gaming rig and the Internet it would have been different, but we didn’t so...

(Edit to watwut’s point this wasn’t bullying. We actually didn’t have a ton of that)

People who frown on children tussling take their young dogs to the dog park so the dog can "play" with other dogs. Because the dog needs it but the kids do not.

> As long as you didn’t break anything or end up in the hospital it just was let be.

You mean, as long as parents/adults/teachers don't notice it ?

Breaking a tooth doesn't land you in the hospital, a pellet gun shot 5mm under the eye doesn't land you in the hospital, etc.

(yeah, these are specific examples)

I was thinking more broken doors and flattened lampshades but body parts count too haha

Yeah, no, seems like it teaches that anything goes as long as you don't get caught.

I'm not sure about that, I remember, as a kid, being in a lot of altercations and I am pretty sure it hasn't affected me negatively.

I'm not sure I agree with the new prerogative where anything physical = bad, so people turn to other mechanisms to cope with their emotions which may be worse long-term (e.g. bullying, mental abuse/insults, passive aggressiveness, etc.).

You've illustrated the point exactly.

When boys play hard to discover the limits of their strength, balance and risk, often that is compared to how girls behave and is called violent, or Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD.) That results in punishment or expulsion for acting like a normal boy would have behaved 30 years ago. That sets back their education, causing a cycle of development problems.

This is called the feminization of boys. An extreme example of this was recently when teensage boys in juvenile halls were injected with estrogen to "control" them:

https://witnessla.com/new-lawsuit-tells-of-16-yr-old-boy-all...

Boys and men are being accused of "toxic masculinity" by academic (Marxist) feminists, where they really mean "being born as men." If you're more than 10 years older than your gf, you're labelled "creepy." It's an attempt to further seize power from men by discrediting them. So it's not just boys that should be concerned, it's all men in the West.

If you're not aware of this, you really should find out more. It's a culture war against men that will not turn out well for Western society in the long run.