[joefourier]

Boys and girls being different does not mean one sex deserves corporal punishment and one does not. Girls are equally capable of cyberbullying (which is covered by this law), why should they only get detention while a 9 year old boy has to suffer physical violence? What does this teach girls - that they can get away with more? That they're more fragile than even a prepubescent boy?

If the law punishes one demographic less severely for the same actions, that's injustice. No different in principle from pre-modern practices where if a noble maimed a commoner, they'd just need to pay a fine, while if a commoner did the same, they'd be put to death.

[xdennis]

> Boys and girls being different does not mean one sex deserves corporal punishment and one does not. Girls are equally capable of cyberbullying (which is covered by this law), why should they only get detention while a 9 year old boy has to suffer physical violence?

In many systems of law, the punishment should mirror the crime. You gouge out an eye -> the government gouges out one of your eyes.

In every country, men commit almost all violent crimes. In school, boys physically bully other boys. Hence the physical punishment for them.

> What does this teach girls - that they can get away with more? That they're more fragile than even a prepubescent boy?

Yes, for homo sapiens, the female is more fragile than the male. This is basic biology. I'm sure that in praying mantis society, females get harsher punishments.

[joefourier]

> In every country, men commit almost all violent crimes. In school, boys physically bully other boys. Hence the physical punishment for them.

As I've said, and @echoangle repeated, caning is used for cyberbullying, which girls do too (at a rate relatively close to boys actually). If the law was caning in response to physical bullying, and it just so happened that the vast majority of offenders were boys, I would not object on the basic of sexism (I still would not approve of schools being allowed to physically punish students).

> Yes, for homo sapiens, the female is more fragile than the male. This is basic biology. I'm sure that in praying mantis society, females get harsher punishments.

There's no way the typical 16 year old girl is more fragile than the typical 9 year old boy, yet only the latter is subject to this punishment. Until children reach the age of 12 or so the strength difference is quite minor (and there's even a brief period where girls are taller and heavier).

Also it's absurd to punish demographics differently based on their statistical averages. Redheads are less sensitive to pain, should your hair colour determine how many strokes of the cane you get?

[array_key_first]

Girls are not meaningfully more fragile than boys, especially before puberty. Before puberty they're practically indistinguishable. If it weren't for long hair and the color pink none of us would know.

That's just something people tell themselves. Yes, we socialize boys not to cry. That doesn't mean boys are "stronger", it means that they have a pathological fear of being perceived as weak which will cause them sexual and relationship problems until the day they die.

[echoangle]

> In many systems of law, the punishment should mirror the crime. You gouge out an eye -> the government gouges out one of your eyes.

Which systems aside form sharia law would that be?

And also the claim was that this law also applies to cyberbullying. So why should boys that cyberbully someone be caned and girls not?