Was anyone slippered by the gym teacher at school?
Our gym teacher was a dab hand with the slipper!
70-79, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
smiler2012 · 61-69
Sharon that seemed a little unfair the boys had a cushion of there trousers to take the blows from the slipper where girls had the slipper on thin knickers where some girls may find that humiliating letting everybody see there underwear did the boys never get it trousers down then
Sharon · F
We were always flashing our knickers, both unintentionally and intentionally, so the fact that everyone could see them when we were slippered wasn't a consideration. Looking back, I agree it was unfair but we didn't think of that at the time.
Some schools were deliberately even more unfair by totally exempting girls from CP. I have no doubt teachers in those schools enjoyed spanking children. Teachers had to devise other methods of dealing with disobedient girls. Having devised those methods, they could have used them with boys too but they chose not to. The only logical explanation is that they got some form of pleasure from spanking boys.
Some schools were deliberately even more unfair by totally exempting girls from CP. I have no doubt teachers in those schools enjoyed spanking children. Teachers had to devise other methods of dealing with disobedient girls. Having devised those methods, they could have used them with boys too but they chose not to. The only logical explanation is that they got some form of pleasure from spanking boys.
jennypenny · 70-79, F
@Sharon: not necessarily. It was held by some that teenage girls should not get CP because of them being the weaker sex. There was no such problem with boys. Of course, going to an all girls school we were not considered the weaker sex by the (mainly female) teachers and got CP
Sharon · F
@jennypenny: That is only an argument for not using CP with girls, it doesn't explain why they did use it with boys. As I said, they had to develope other methods for dealing with girls. Having developed those methods, why not use them with boys too?
As you allude to, the idea that girls were the weaker sex was promulgated mainly by men.
As you allude to, the idea that girls were the weaker sex was promulgated mainly by men.
jennypenny · 70-79, F
@Sharon: yes it was. Of course it is true we are generally weaker physically so that gave rise to men not giving girls CP
Sharon · F
@jennypenny:
In general that's true but not in every case. That meant a frail boy would be severely beaten but an obviously much tougher girl would be considered too weak. It was pure prejudice flying straight into the face of reason.
Now, with respect, you still haven't offered an alternative reason for teachers using CP with boys when, having other methods that they already (one presumes successfully) used with girls, they knew it was unnecessary.
In general that's true but not in every case. That meant a frail boy would be severely beaten but an obviously much tougher girl would be considered too weak. It was pure prejudice flying straight into the face of reason.
Now, with respect, you still haven't offered an alternative reason for teachers using CP with boys when, having other methods that they already (one presumes successfully) used with girls, they knew it was unnecessary.
jennypenny · 70-79, F
@Sharon: teachers often used CP as it was easier and got it over with.
Sharon · F
@jennypenny:
That might be the reason in a few cases but not in others.
There are various reports of boys being caned (often requiring the involvement of a headteacher so not quick and simple) and equally guilty girls just being told off. It would have been easier to give them all a telling off but, for some reason, they chose not to. A telling off would have been effective because they wouldn't have used it with girls if it wasn't.
That might be the reason in a few cases but not in others.
There are various reports of boys being caned (often requiring the involvement of a headteacher so not quick and simple) and equally guilty girls just being told off. It would have been easier to give them all a telling off but, for some reason, they chose not to. A telling off would have been effective because they wouldn't have used it with girls if it wasn't.
MartinII · 70-79, M
@sharon, @jennypenny: May I join in this interesting exchange? Perhaps one explanation might be that teachers, or many of them, wanted to use cp on both boys and girls, but were prevented from using it on girls by the authorities - governors, local authorities. Faced with the choice of caning boys only or nobody, they chose boys - because they thought it was good for them, because they enjoyed it, or both
Sharon · F
@MartinII: My point is that they did it because they enjoyed it. They had other methods available (that they used with girls) but they deliberately chose not to use them with boys.
If they did it because they thought it was good for them, they would also have to think deliberately causing resentment by treating children unfairly was good for them. Is it likely a reasonable teacher, attempting to do his or her best, honestly believed that?
If they did it because they thought it was good for them, they would also have to think deliberately causing resentment by treating children unfairly was good for them. Is it likely a reasonable teacher, attempting to do his or her best, honestly believed that?