Skip to comments.Buy That Kid A Pair Of Western Boots
Posted on 12/03/2011 4:15:12 PM PST by Starman417
Liberalism Run Amuck
A seven year old boy takes the John Wayne image of manhood seriously, and is now in big trouble.
A 7-year-old boy is being investigated by his South Boston elementary school for possible sexual harassment after kicking another boy in the crotch.
A seven year old boy was being choked and robbed of his gloves, when he kicked his attacker in the nuts. Thus he ended the assault and prevented the theft.
The school system now claims that the response was an example of sexual assault and they are conducting an investigation.
The mother of first grader, Tasha Lynch:
Hes 7 years old. He doesnt know anything about sexual harassment.
Mark Curran the perpetrator, said his attacker had been bullying him all week on the bus.
His mother says the boy reported to her:
He just all of a sudden came up to him, choked him. He wanted to take his gloves, and my son said, I couldnt breathe, so I kicked him in the testicles,'"
He couldnt breathe. He was trying to defend himself, I dont find that sexual harassment. I find that defending himself.
Ms Lynch says she received a phone call informing her that the incident will be treated as sexual harassment because of inappropriate touching.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
They were all females in one position or another and their victim seems to be young boys that are called sexual harassers for just being young boys...I am talking elementary school age kids and if the woman carries it far enough, a child ends up on a sex offender list....its not just a silly thing when some one calls a kid a sexual predator for hitting some little girl on the playground on the butt and a female prosecutor is charging the boy as a criminal sex offender at age 7. Prosecutor and principal are both females...as I said they should be embarrassed by the way they perform their jobs. I could cry for those boys. Hey but no big deal let these women stay in their jobs and lets just shut up cause they are females and some females can do a good job... I never meant an indictment against all females. When I was in school, 99.9% of all teachers were females and I loved my teachers as most kids do. I am a retired nurse so worked in a profession with mostly females...
But it seems a lot of the story's about boys being harassers is coming from schools run by a female principal. Again I am speaking of elementary age kids.... Hope you never have a son in a school like this boy has... Thats the kind of crap I am talking about....and its always the boys fault isn't it...
So is the school also investigating the punk for attempted murder and grand theft?
It's not that men "leave the seat up" as you say: that's where it SHOULD be, so that it doesn't get urine sprayed all over it.
Women keep putting the seat *down*.
Which makes no sense unless you think of men as merely sitzpinklers.
Consider that line STOLEN. I'm going to use it at the next opportunity.
Thanks, goat granny.
G.K. Chesterton was against women's suffrage because he felt they were too easily swayed by emotion reliably to vote rationally (note the awkwardness engendered by the lack of a split infinitive); and that their political influence should be used on their husbands at home.
God only knows what he would have said given the demographics of the single-mother vote as a monolithic lib-Democrat constituency.
If we treat kids like prisoners, herd them into prison-like buildings, and provide insufficient adult supervision, we **will** see PRISON SOCIAL PATHOLOGY!
Fundamentally, I believe that our human ancestors, all 150,000 years of them, would be both amused and horrified that we treat children as cruelly as we do. I doubt that there is any documented account of any historical culture educating children as we do now. Even in my father's day, it was more likely that children attended extremely small one-room-schools of mixed aged children and they were finished by the 8th grade. The very idea of kindergarten did not exist. ( He was born in 1913.)
I've been going to the beach since I was an infant. As they say in Philly, “Down the shore!”. One day I was watching my children and the other children playing on the beach and it occurred to me that I had never, in more than 40 years, seen bullying on the beach among the elementary or middle school aged children, or experienced it myself. Why was that I wondered. I observed the following:
** There was more than enough adult supervision. Drowning is always a danger on a beach, and because of this there are enough adult eyes watching what is going on. I suspect that the children subconsciously know this.
** The older children were eager to teach the younger children the new skills they had mastered on a year or two before. One afternoon I watched a ten year old work with a 6 year old for literally the entire day on doing cartwheels. Geeze! That trashes the idea that children have short attention spans, or that children are only interested in their narrow age group.
** Mixed ages of children commonly played together. The most common range seemed to be within 4 years.
** When children were tired or hungry, they freely left the play group and took a rest.
** When younger children threw sand or accidentally stepped on a sand project, the older children gently taught them beach manners.
** Older children organized team games, and agreed upon rules. I concluded that the “real world” team skills and cooperation are learned in **PLAY** not in any hot house, school-created, and artificially created project.
Please, metmom, you KNOW that only straight kids are capable of bullying and only gay kids can be bullied. /s
A straight kid bullying a straight kid is not noteworthy, sadly. Bullying is only an issue if a minority is the victim.
Besides, I find myself wondering, not to be racist or anything, just being realistic: was the attacker a minority? Black? Muslim? Or even—gay? (can 7yr olds be gay, even?) Because if the attacker was a minority and the defender was white, then you know the school board is going to make a big deal over it.
And if the attacker is a minority, it’s almost certain that this fact will not be in the news.
Please read my post, #67.
I completely agree on all points.
Spot on observation.
Choking someone isn’t “inappropriate touching?”
Philosophically it is because the criminal is not responsible for his actions, he is a product of society or reacting to being dissed, the unforgivable sin, and is not rational- therefore blameless. It is rational to resist when attacked so that makes any harm to the attacker a product of a rational act, thus the resister deliberately harmed the person who "couldn't help it."
Practically, liberals fear a population that reacts against abuse because liberals are determined to be the Rulers and they will brook no opposition. They believe a totally passive population is required for a peaceful society that can be molded into Utopia. The only way they can get this totally passive society, however, or the nearest to it they can get, is in use of The Terror, not what is officially termed terrorism but classic Terror as deployed by Le Directoire during the French Revolution and by the USSR during most of the 206h century and by China and various other communist regimes.
Philosophically it is because the criminal is not responsible for his actions, he is a product of society or reacting to being dissed, the unforgivable sin and is not rational. It is rational to resist when attacked so that makes any harm to the attacker a product of a rational act, thus the resister deliberately harmed the person who "couldn't help it."
Practically, liberals fear a population that reacts against abuse because liberals are determined to be the Rulers and they will brook no opposition. They believe a totally passive population is required for a peaceful society that can be molded into Utopia. The only way they can get this totally passive society, however, or the nearest to it they can get, is in use of The Terror, not what is officially termed terrorism but classic Terror as deployed by the Le Directoire during the French Revolution and by the USSR during 70 years and by China.
Putting ones children in public school is prima facie child abuse, especially in Massachusetts.
Tell me about Windmill Technique.
Bullies, thugs, and criminals are not dangerous to the State. People who resist bullies, thugs, and criminals are dangerous to the State and therefore are much more serious problems for society than mere murderers and thieves.
See the video link at about post #15. We did it a little differently, but that’s the main technique on that video link.
Let me be perfectly clear. In no way, shape or form did I in any way take up for this evil, sick person.
All I said was that you should not have used a blanket statement about women.
Personally, I’d have killed the demon for laying a hand on any member of my family, but that’s just me.
Blanket statements is not the best way to word something...but as I said, FR has had several articles posted about young boys being put on sexual offender lists
. The principals names were females, not males...This idea of 7 year olds being sexual offenders is stupid and they should all be fired...I feel sorry for the young child that gets one of these idiots for teachers or principals.. It appears to me that they are out to prove something and the boy is the one these vicious females descend on.
Once on the offenders list, you stay on. This effects the boys future totally..and he will be stuck with being on that list the rest of his life...including his getting a job...that is criminal and these sick females are totally responsible for that....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.