I've always admired a father who's willing to protect his children.
And I have to admit, there's something satisfying about watching a bully finally encounter someone who isn't intimidated by him.
Especially when the bully is a grown man who has been encouraging his own child to mistreat other children.
Part of me wants to see that fellow get exactly what's coming to him.
Preferably delivered by a father who's had just about enough.
But then I remember something.
The purpose of confronting a bully isn't to prove that you're the bigger bully. It's to stop the behavior and protect the person who's being hurt.
And those aren't necessarily the same thing.
We've already explored the rather impressive fighting career of Charles Ingalls on Little House on the Prairie.
Then we looked at Al Bundy, Dan Conner, and other television fathers who occasionally expressed their family loyalty with their fists.
Now I'd like to talk about two fathers who faced the same temptation and, at critical moments, chose a different response.
We began with Charles Ingalls and his remarkable collection of fistfights, examining when Pa was protecting someone and when his temper simply got the better of him.
Then we explored the television fathers who threw punches for their families, including Al Bundy and Dan Conner, and why family loyalty doesn't always justify retaliation.
Mike Brady on The Brady Bunch.
And Dr. Jason Seaver on Growing Pains.
Both men encountered arrogant fathers who seemed to believe that intimidation was a perfectly acceptable way to raise children.
Both had legitimate reasons to be furious.
And both resisted the temptation to turn a disagreement into another fistfight.
Well, Jason eventually resisted.
His first encounter with the hockey coach wasn't exactly a shining example of peaceful conflict resolution.
But what interests me is that he recognized his mistake and tried to teach his son something better.
As for Mike Brady, I still remember his confrontation with Buddy Hinton's father.
The man was obnoxious.
He was threatening.
And he was raising a son who was making other children's lives miserable.
Mike could have punched him.
And frankly, part of me wishes he had.
But I also admire the fact that he didn't.
Because sometimes the strongest lesson a father can teach his child is that he doesn't have to accept every invitation to fight.
And that's worth exploring.
Buddy Hinton Wasn't Just a Bully. He Was Learning From One.
The Brady Bunch episode is called "A Fistful of Reasons," and it aired November 13, 1970, during the show's second season.
It begins with Cindy Brady, played by Susan Olsen, being teased about her lisp.
Cindy is a little girl.
She's self-conscious about the way she speaks.
And Buddy Hinton, an older boy at school, thinks it's hilarious to imitate her.
He makes cruel remarks.
He calls her names.
And he embarrasses her in front of other children.
Now, I don't believe every unpleasant remark between children requires an emergency family meeting.
Children sometimes tease one another.
They argue.
They say thoughtless things.
And part of growing up involves learning how to handle ordinary disagreements.
But Buddy's behavior goes beyond an occasional unkind remark.
He's deliberately targeting something Cindy feels embarrassed about.
He enjoys watching her become upset.
And when Peter steps in to defend his younger sister, Buddy turns his attention toward him.
He calls Peter a coward.
He challenges him to fight.
And eventually he gives Peter a black eye.
That's no longer an ordinary childhood disagreement.
One child is repeatedly humiliating another, and now he's physically assaulting a third.
I think any responsible parent would be concerned.
But the episode becomes particularly interesting when Mike decides to speak with Buddy's father.
Because that's when we discover where Buddy may have learned his approach to other people.
Mike Brady Tried to Reason With Mr. Hinton
Mike Brady, played by Robert Reed, was generally a thoughtful father.
He could be firm.
He expected his children to behave responsibly.
And he wasn't afraid to correct them when they made mistakes.
But he usually preferred talking things through.
Which is precisely what he tries to do with Mr. Hinton.
Mike goes to the man's home and explains what's been happening.
Buddy has been teasing Cindy.
He's been threatening Peter.
And he's now given Peter a black eye.
I think Mike has every right to raise those concerns.
His children shouldn't have to tolerate repeated bullying simply because another parent considers it normal.
Unfortunately, Mr. Hinton isn't particularly interested.
He dismisses Buddy's behavior as ordinary childhood roughhousing.
He suggests Peter's problem is that he doesn't know how to fight.
And he makes it abundantly clear that he doesn't intend to interfere with his son's behavior.
In fact, he becomes increasingly hostile toward Mike.
Now, here's what I find particularly revealing.
Mike is attempting to discuss the conduct of two children.
Mr. Hinton responds by behaving almost exactly like the child Mike is complaining about.
He becomes aggressive.
He insults Mike.
And eventually he orders him off the property, suggesting that he can physically remove him if necessary.
Well, isn't that a lovely demonstration of parental maturity?
Buddy has apparently inherited the family philosophy.
If somebody disagrees with you, threaten him.
If he won't fight, call him a coward.
And if he complains about your behavior, tell him to get lost.
I can't say I'm surprised Buddy was behaving the way he was.
Children don't learn only from what their parents tell them. They also learn from how their parents treat people.
And Mr. Hinton was providing a rather unfortunate example.
I Wanted Mike to Punch Mr. Hinton. But I'm Glad He Didn't.
Now, here's where I have to admit my own contradictory feelings.
Watching Mr. Hinton threaten Mike Brady makes me angry.
The man's son has hurt two children.
And instead of showing concern, he essentially blames Peter for not being a better fighter.
Then he has the nerve to threaten Peter's father.
Part of me wanted Mike to knock him on his backside.
Just once.
Perhaps it would have introduced Mr. Hinton to the concept that other people don't particularly enjoy being threatened.
But what would that actually have accomplished?
Would Mr. Hinton have apologized?
Would he have gone inside and explained to Buddy that bullying was wrong?
Would he have become a kinder, more reasonable parent?
I rather doubt it.
More likely, he'd have become angrier.
He might have retaliated.
Buddy might have taken his father's humiliation out on Peter or Cindy.
And Mike could have created an entirely new problem for his family.
That's what I appreciate about his decision not to fight.
He isn't afraid to confront the man.
He's willing to stand there and tell him that Buddy's behavior is unacceptable.
But he doesn't allow Mr. Hinton to dictate how the confrontation ends.
Refusing to fight someone who wants a fight isn't necessarily surrender. Sometimes it's refusing to participate in the other person's foolishness.
And I think Mike demonstrated that.
Although I still wouldn't have minded watching Mr. Hinton trip over his own front steps.
Accidentally, of course.
Carol Tried Talking to Buddy's Mother, and That Didn't Work Either
Now, the episode doesn't suggest that Mike's refusal to fight immediately solved everything.
It didn't.
Buddy was still a bully.
Mr. Hinton remained unreasonable.
And Peter and Cindy were still dealing with the situation.
So Carol decides to speak with Buddy's mother.
She believes two mothers may be able to discuss the problem more calmly.
Unfortunately, Mrs. Hinton has an entirely different difficulty.
She doesn't seem willing to challenge her husband.
She believes decisions about raising Buddy are his responsibility.
And she makes it clear that she isn't going to interfere.
I think that's sad.
Because now we have two parents who aren't effectively addressing their son's behavior.
The father approves of intimidation.
The mother defers to the father.
And Buddy continues doing what he wants.
Meanwhile, the Brady children are left dealing with the consequences.
I don't think Mrs. Hinton needed to become confrontational.
But she did have a responsibility to care about what her son was doing to other children.
And I don't believe that responsibility disappears simply because a spouse has stronger opinions.
A parent who refuses to challenge a child's cruelty because another parent approves of it is still making a choice.
And sometimes that choice allows the cruelty to continue.
I think that was another lesson hidden beneath the comedy.
Mike Didn't Fight Buddy's Father, but He Taught Peter to Fight Buddy
Here's where the episode becomes morally complicated.
After attempts to reason with Buddy's parents fail, Mike decides Peter needs to learn how to defend himself.
He doesn't want his son becoming a bully.
But he also doesn't want Peter feeling helpless whenever Buddy threatens him.
So Mike begins teaching Peter how to box.
He shows him how to move.
How to avoid getting hit.
And how to protect himself if Buddy becomes physically aggressive again.
Now, I have mixed feelings about that.
I don't object to children learning self-defense in an appropriate setting.
There's nothing wrong with developing confidence, physical coordination, and the ability to protect yourself from an immediate attack.
But I wouldn't want a child believing that the only way to stop bullying is to become a better fighter than the bully.
That places an enormous burden on the child.
And in this case, Peter has already been hit while following his father's advice to reason with Buddy.
He's tried talking.
It didn't work.
He's been physically hurt.
And now the solution is for him to prepare for another confrontation.
I think the adults should have considered involving the school more directly.
Buddy's behavior was occurring among students.
He was threatening children.
And he had already injured Peter.
That should have been addressed by responsible adults, not simply left for the boys to settle.
Teaching a child to protect himself is valuable. Making him responsible for stopping a persistent bully because the adults haven't succeeded is something else.
And that's where I question Mike's decision.
Peter Finally Hits Buddy—and Then Teaches Cindy Something Better
Eventually, Peter encounters Buddy again.
Buddy resumes the teasing.
Peter attempts to reason with him.
But Buddy insists on fighting.
And when the confrontation becomes physical, Peter uses what his father taught him.
He ducks Buddy's attempted punch and lands one of his own.
Buddy ends up on the ground with a loose tooth.
Well.
That certainly got his attention.
And I have to admit, I felt a little satisfaction watching the bully discover that Peter wasn't completely defenseless.
But the most important part of the scene happens afterward.
Buddy is now speaking differently because of his loose tooth.
And Cindy begins making fun of him.
She's finally getting an opportunity to give Buddy a taste of his own medicine.
After everything he's done to her, I can understand the temptation.
But Peter stops her.
He reminds Cindy how much she hated being teased.
And he explains that making fun of Buddy isn't right simply because Buddy had been cruel to her.
Now, that is the lesson I appreciate most.
Peter has defended himself.
He's established that Buddy can't simply push him around.
But he doesn't allow the situation to become an opportunity for humiliation.
And he doesn't encourage Cindy to take revenge.
He recognizes that the conduct was wrong when Buddy did it, and it would still be wrong if Cindy did it.
A person's bad behavior doesn't give us permission to abandon our own standards.
I think that's an excellent lesson.
And I would have liked to see it emphasized even more.
Because Peter's greatest accomplishment wasn't landing a punch.
It was refusing to become cruel after he'd gained the upper hand.
And Then Buddy Wants to Borrow Cindy's Tongue-Twister Book
The episode ends with Buddy visiting the Brady house.
His loose tooth has temporarily affected his speech.
And now he wants to borrow Cindy's tongue-twister book.
The irony is wonderful.
The boy who mocked Cindy for the way she spoke suddenly finds himself struggling with his own pronunciation.
And he wants help from the very child he humiliated.
Now, I appreciate the humor.
But I also have a reservation.
Buddy seems to have learned that Peter can fight.
Has he actually learned that bullying is wrong?
Those aren't necessarily the same lesson.
A person might stop threatening someone because he's afraid of being hit.
That doesn't automatically mean he's developed empathy.
It might simply mean he's found somebody he can't intimidate.
And I think that distinction matters.
I'd have liked Buddy to acknowledge how badly he'd treated Cindy.
I'd have liked him to apologize.
And I'd have liked the adults to make it clear that the problem wasn't simply that he'd picked on someone capable of fighting back.
The problem was that he'd been deliberately cruel.
Still, I appreciate Peter's refusal to humiliate him.
He demonstrated more maturity than Buddy's own father.
And perhaps that's why I find Mike's restraint meaningful even though the episode ultimately resolves the bullying through a child's punch.
Mike didn't need to beat up Mr. Hinton to demonstrate moral strength. Peter demonstrated moral strength when he refused to keep hurting Buddy after the fight was over.
And I think that's worth remembering.
Jason Seaver's Hockey-Coach Problem Was Even More Ridiculous
Now we move to Growing Pains.
The episode is called "First Blood," and it aired January 14, 1986, during the show's first season.
Dr. Jason Seaver, played by Alan Thicke, is a psychiatrist.
He's educated.
He's thoughtful.
And as someone trained to understand human behavior, you'd expect him to be particularly skilled at managing conflict.
Well, apparently even psychiatrists can lose their tempers.
His son Ben, played by Jeremy Miller, is having trouble with his hockey team.
A boy named Rodney Brockton keeps tripping him during practice.
And the coach, Rodney's father, seems perfectly comfortable with the behavior.
Coach Brockton, played by Dan Lauria, is obsessed with winning.
He encourages rough play.
He penalizes children financially for mistakes.
And he seems to consider intimidation a perfectly acceptable coaching method.
In other words, he's exactly the kind of adult I'd want nowhere near a youth sports program.
Ben is upset.
He wants to retaliate.
And Jason initially gives him sensible advice.
Fighting isn't the answer.
If there's a problem, talk to the coach.
But when Jason goes to hockey practice and meets Coach Brockton, he discovers that the man isn't particularly interested in discussing anything reasonably.
He wants to win.
He wants the children to play aggressively.
And he doesn't appreciate Jason questioning his methods.
So the conversation becomes heated.
And then?
The two men get into a fight.
So much for the psychiatrist.
Jason Won the First Fight—and Accidentally Taught Ben the Wrong Lesson
When Jason returns home, Ben is delighted.
His father has fought Coach Brockton.
And according to Ben, Dad won.
Now Ben has a new hero.
Jason the fighter.
Jason the champion.
Jason the man who showed Coach Brockton who was boss.
And Jason seems rather pleased with himself.
At least initially.
But Maggie, played by Joanna Kerns, isn't impressed.
She recognizes something Jason has apparently overlooked.
He went to the hockey rink to teach the coach about appropriate behavior.
Instead, he became involved in the very kind of fighting he'd been telling Ben to avoid.
And now Ben thinks his father is wonderful for doing it.
That's the problem.
Children don't necessarily remember the lecture when the adult's behavior contradicts it. They remember what the adult actually did.
Jason can tell Ben a hundred times that fighting isn't the answer.
But if Ben sees his father win a fistfight against someone he dislikes, which lesson is more likely to impress him?
The one about peaceful problem-solving?
Or the one where Dad becomes the family heavyweight champion?
We get our answer almost immediately.
Ben gets into a fight with Rodney at school.
He's proud of himself.
He even describes his behavior as following his father's example.
And suddenly Jason realizes that the situation has become more serious.
He's helped create the very behavior he wanted to discourage.
I think that realization is important.
Because adults sometimes underestimate how carefully children observe them.
A father can condemn aggression while behaving aggressively.
A mother can insist on honesty while lying whenever it's convenient.
And both may be surprised when their children imitate the behavior rather than the instruction.
If you want your child to handle conflict maturely, you have to demonstrate what maturity looks like when you're the person who's angry.
And Jason realizes he needs to do better.
Jason Returns to the Coach—and This Time He Apologizes
After Ben's fight with Rodney, Jason decides to confront Coach Brockton again.
But this time, he has a different plan.
He doesn't want another fight.
He wants to apologize for his contribution to the earlier confrontation.
And he wants to demonstrate something important to Ben.
The coach is still behaving disgracefully.
He's teaching the children to break rules and intimidate opponents.
He's encouraging dirty play.
And he's hardly receptive when Jason approaches him.
But Jason doesn't respond the same way he did before.
He acknowledges that he behaved badly.
He tries to explain that he came to apologize.
And he refuses to let Brockton turn the conversation into another physical contest.
Now, I appreciate that.
Because apologizing to someone you dislike can be difficult.
Especially when the other person has behaved badly, too.
It's tempting to insist that because the other fellow was worse, we have nothing to apologize for.
But that's not how responsibility works.
Two people can behave badly in the same confrontation.
And one person's misconduct doesn't excuse the other's.
You can be right about the problem and still be wrong about how you handled it.
Jason recognizes that.
And I think it's one of the episode's better lessons.
He doesn't have to pretend Coach Brockton is a good man.
He doesn't have to approve of his methods.
He simply has to take responsibility for his own conduct.
That's a standard I'd like to see more adults follow.
Coach Brockton Actually Punches Jason—and Jason Walks Away
Here's the scene that stayed with me.
Jason refuses to fight.
He explains that the children are watching and that adults have a responsibility to demonstrate better behavior.
He offers the coach an opportunity to end the confrontation peacefully.
Brockton isn't interested.
He insults Jason.
He challenges him.
And finally, he punches Jason in the stomach.
Now, I don't know about you, but this is where my patience would have been wearing awfully thin.
The man is mistreating children.
He's teaching them to cheat and play dirty.
He's already fought with Jason.
And now he's punched him again.
I'd have been tempted to ask whether Coach Brockton needed help finding the nearest emergency room.
But Jason doesn't retaliate.
He takes Ben and leaves.
And I admire that.
Because Jason has already proven he's capable of fighting Brockton.
He isn't walking away because he believes he has no chance of winning.
He's walking away because he has decided that winning another fight would teach Ben the wrong lesson.
That's an important distinction.
Restraint means more when the person exercising it is capable of doing the very thing he's choosing not to do.
Jason could have punched Brockton.
Instead, he demonstrated that the coach couldn't force him to abandon his principles.
And that was a lesson Ben desperately needed.
But I Wouldn't Tell a Child That Letting Someone Punch You Is the Ideal Solution
Now, here's where my admiration has limits.
I appreciate Jason's restraint.
I appreciate his willingness to acknowledge his earlier mistake.
And I appreciate that he didn't turn the situation into another brawl.
But I wouldn't want a child interpreting the scene as an instruction to stand there and let someone hit him.
There's a difference between refusing to retaliate and allowing another person to injure you unnecessarily.
If someone is physically threatening you, the sensible response is generally to create distance and seek safety when you can.
Not remain in place simply to prove how peaceful you are.
Jason was trying to make a point.
And on television, the scene works.
The bully punches him.
Jason refuses to respond.
The audience understands who's behaving maturely.
But in real life, someone who throws a punch can cause serious injury.
And I don't believe proving a moral principle requires offering yourself as a punching bag.
I also think the children on that hockey team deserved more than a demonstration of peaceful behavior.
They needed responsible adults to stop Coach Brockton from mistreating them.
At the end of the episode, Brockton is no longer coaching.
Jason has taken over the team.
Now, that's a meaningful outcome.
The children are no longer being subjected to Brockton's disgraceful methods.
And Jason has an opportunity to teach them a healthier approach to competition.
The best response to an abusive authority figure isn't simply refusing to fight him. It's making sure he can no longer misuse his authority.
That's the part I'd want to emphasize.
Restraint should be accompanied by appropriate action.
Otherwise, the bully may continue hurting other people.
Ben Thought His Father Had Become a Coward
When Jason returns home, Ben is furious.
He's embarrassed.
He can't believe his father allowed Coach Brockton to punch him without fighting back.
After seeing Jason win the first fight, Ben had begun thinking of him as a champion.
Now he's disappointed.
And I think that's a very realistic reaction.
Children sometimes confuse physical dominance with strength.
They admire the person who wins.
The person who gets the last word.
The person who makes everyone else back down.
And when an adult chooses restraint, the child may interpret that as weakness.
But Jason doesn't simply tell Ben that he was wrong.
He explains what would have happened if he'd retaliated.
Another fight.
Another act of revenge.
Another reason for the other side to strike back.
And then another.
Jason takes the idea to a ridiculous extreme, imagining the two families escalating their conflict until practically everyone has been destroyed.
It's funny.
But the point is serious.
Retaliation can create a cycle in which each person believes he's justified because the other person hurt him first.
And somewhere along the way, everyone forgets how the conflict began.
In this case?
A boy was being tripped during hockey practice.
That's it.
And now two fathers and their sons are treating the dispute as though they're preparing for an international war.
I appreciate the absurdity.
Because it reveals something important about human behavior.
People sometimes become so obsessed with getting even that they lose sight of what they originally wanted to accomplish.
Ben wanted to enjoy playing hockey without being bullied.
Jason wanted the coach to behave responsibly.
Neither goal required turning the Seaver household into an amateur boxing organization.
And Jason finally gets Ben to understand that.
The Adults Were Supposed to Be Teaching the Children, Not Competing With Them
There's something fascinating about placing these two episodes side by side.
Buddy Hinton's father behaved like an oversized schoolyard bully.
Coach Brockton behaved like someone who never emotionally graduated from the playground.
Both men used intimidation.
Both seemed to believe that physical aggression was evidence of strength.
And both were raising sons who had begun copying their behavior.
Buddy bullied Peter and Cindy.
Rodney bullied Ben.
The pattern wasn't particularly mysterious.
The boys were behaving in ways their fathers tolerated or encouraged.
Now, I don't believe children are simply miniature copies of their parents.
They make their own choices.
And parents shouldn't automatically be blamed for every mistake their children make.
But adults have an enormous influence on what children consider acceptable.
When a father treats bullying as amusing, his son may learn that cruelty is entertaining.
When a coach rewards dirty play, children may learn that winning matters more than fairness.
And when a parent uses violence to settle a disagreement, a child may conclude that physical aggression is an appropriate response to frustration.
That's what Mike Brady and Jason Seaver were trying to prevent.
Although Jason needed a rather painful reminder.
The responsibility of an adult isn't merely to defend a child. It's to demonstrate the kind of person that child should become.
And that's often the harder job.
Mike Brady and Jason Seaver Weren't Teaching Exactly the Same Lesson
Here's an important distinction I don't want to overlook.
Mike Brady refused to fight Buddy's father.
But he eventually taught Peter how to defend himself physically.
Jason Seaver initially fought Coach Brockton.
Then he refused to fight him again, even after being punched.
Those are not identical parenting decisions.
And I don't think we should pretend they are.
Mike was trying to balance two concerns.
He wanted Peter to resolve disagreements peacefully.
But he also recognized that Buddy had become physically aggressive and that Peter was frightened.
His solution was to teach Peter how to protect himself if another attack occurred.
Jason was trying to correct a different problem.
Ben had already watched his father fight.
He'd imitated him.
And Jason recognized that continuing the pattern would reinforce the wrong lesson.
So Jason deliberately chose restraint.
Both fathers were concerned about their sons.
Both wanted to teach good judgment.
But the circumstances required different considerations.
And I think that's important.
Because there isn't one simple rule that resolves every confrontation.
Sometimes a child needs help developing confidence.
Sometimes he needs protection from a dangerous situation.
Sometimes he needs to learn how to walk away.
And sometimes the adults responsible for his safety need to intervene before the situation becomes physical at all.
Teaching restraint doesn't mean teaching helplessness. Teaching self-defense doesn't mean encouraging revenge.
Those distinctions matter.
And I think the two episodes become more valuable when we examine them together.
I Still Wanted Somebody to Teach Those Fathers a Lesson
Now, I have to return to something that bothers me.
Buddy Hinton's father never seems particularly troubled by his son's cruelty.
Coach Brockton behaves outrageously until he's finally removed from his position.
And part of me wishes Mike or Jason had given these men a memorable physical reminder that they're not the toughest people in the world.
I admit it.
There's a certain satisfaction in seeing an arrogant bully discover that someone can stand up to him.
But then I ask myself what I actually want.
Do I want the bully hurt?
Or do I want the bullying stopped?
Because those aren't necessarily the same thing.
Mr. Hinton might have been beaten by Mike Brady and remained exactly the same kind of father afterward.
Coach Brockton might have lost another fight and continued teaching children to play dirty.
In fact, being humiliated could have made either man more determined to retaliate.
And the people most likely to suffer might have been the children.
Peter.
Cindy.
Ben.
The very people Mike and Jason were trying to protect.
That's where I think responsible adults need to exercise judgment.
Anger can be a perfectly understandable response to injustice.
But anger doesn't automatically tell us how to correct it.
Sometimes the punishment we'd enjoy watching isn't the solution that would actually protect the people being harmed.
And that's a lesson I have to remind myself of, too.
Even when the bully is so obnoxious that I wouldn't mind seeing him land in a mud puddle.
What Jewish Wisdom Says About Strength and Self-Control
There's a teaching in Pirkei Avot 4:1 that fits these episodes beautifully.
Ben Zoma asks who is truly strong.
And the answer is the person who can master his own impulses.
The teaching draws on Proverbs 16:32, which places self-control above the ability to conquer through force.
I love that distinction.
Because the question isn't simply whether Mike Brady or Jason Seaver could win a fight.
Maybe they could.
Maybe they couldn't.
But their moral strength depended on something else.
Could they control themselves when someone provoked them?
Could they distinguish between protecting their children and satisfying their anger?
And could they demonstrate that strength doesn't require humiliating another person?
Mike managed to resist the temptation to fight Mr. Hinton.
Jason failed during his first confrontation with Brockton, then recognized his mistake and behaved differently the second time.
I appreciate both examples.
Especially Jason's.
Because there's something valuable about watching an adult admit, through his actions, that his earlier response was wrong.
Jewish tradition also emphasizes our responsibility not to stand idly by when someone faces serious danger.
Leviticus 19:16 is an important reminder that refusing unnecessary violence doesn't mean abandoning people who need protection.
Those principles belong together.
We should act when someone is endangered.
But we should also exercise restraint and judgment about how we act.
I also think of the teaching in Shabbat 88b praising those who endure insult without responding with insult.
That doesn't mean every insult must be tolerated indefinitely or that an abused person should remain in danger.
But it recognizes that refusing to retaliate can demonstrate considerable strength.
And there's another lesson I find especially important in Peter Brady's behavior.
After defeating Buddy, Peter stops Cindy from mocking him.
He recognizes that humiliation is wrong even when the person being humiliated has behaved badly.
That's the kind of moral consistency I admire.
Being a mensch means knowing when to stand up for someone, when to control your anger, and when to refuse the temptation to hurt someone simply because you can.
And sometimes the person who needs that lesson most is the adult.
Children Shouldn't Have to Be Braver Than the Adults Responsible for Them
There's one aspect of these stories that I think deserves more criticism.
Why were the children left dealing with so much of this?
Cindy was being repeatedly mocked.
Peter was physically assaulted.
Ben was being mistreated during hockey practice.
And the adults responsible for stopping the behavior weren't always effective.
Mike and Carol attempted to speak with Buddy's parents.
That was reasonable.
But once those attempts failed, the solution became teaching Peter how to fight.
Jason confronted the coach.
That was reasonable.
But his first confrontation became a fistfight, and Ben ended up copying his behavior.
I think both families needed a more deliberate plan.
The children deserved to know that the adults were taking their concerns seriously.
They deserved protection from repeated intimidation.
And they deserved to understand that asking for help wasn't evidence of cowardice.
I wouldn't want Peter believing he had to defeat Buddy physically to prove he was a good brother.
And I wouldn't want Ben believing he had to become more aggressive to earn his father's approval.
I'd want both boys to understand that their safety mattered.
And that adults had a responsibility to intervene appropriately.
I also think schools and youth organizations should take bullying seriously rather than leaving children to settle repeated aggression among themselves.
That doesn't mean every disagreement requires a dramatic disciplinary procedure.
But when intimidation becomes persistent or physical, responsible adults need to act.
Teaching a child to be brave shouldn't become an excuse for adults to avoid protecting him.
And that's a distinction these old television episodes didn't always examine thoroughly.
What I Would Have Told Peter and Ben
If Peter Brady were sitting across from me, telling me he'd been given a black eye for defending Cindy, I wouldn't call him a coward.
I wouldn't suggest he should have fought harder.
And I certainly wouldn't tell him that the entire problem could be solved if he'd simply learned to throw a better punch.
I'd tell him I was proud that he cared about his little sister.
I'd explain that he shouldn't have to tolerate physical aggression.
And I'd make sure he knew the adults were going to address what happened.
If he wanted appropriate self-defense training, I wouldn't object.
But I'd also teach him that knowing how to defend himself doesn't mean he has to prove it every time someone insults him.
And I'd explain that protecting Cindy could involve seeking help rather than confronting Buddy alone.
As for Ben?
I'd tell him his father's first fight with Coach Brockton wasn't a model worth copying.
I'd explain that a person can have legitimate complaints about someone's behavior and still respond inappropriately.
And I'd want him to understand why Jason's second response was more responsible.
Not because Jason had become weak.
But because he recognized that another fight wouldn't solve the problem.
I'd also want Ben to know that an adult who encourages children to hurt one another is not behaving appropriately.
The children on the hockey team deserved better coaching.
And I'm glad they eventually received it.
Most importantly, I'd want both boys to understand something that adults sometimes struggle to communicate.
You don't prove your courage by fighting every person who challenges you. You prove it by doing what's right even when someone is trying to frighten or humiliate you.
Sometimes that may involve defending yourself from an immediate threat.
Sometimes it means walking away.
And sometimes it means speaking up and demanding that the people responsible for protecting children do their jobs.
The Difference Between Being a Peacemaker and Being a Pushover
I think some people hear the word restraint and immediately imagine weakness.
They picture someone standing there while another person humiliates him.
Someone who's too frightened to speak up.
Someone who tolerates mistreatment because he's afraid of confrontation.
That's not what I admire about Mike Brady or Jason Seaver.
Mike confronted Mr. Hinton.
He explained why Buddy's behavior was unacceptable.
And he refused to abandon the issue simply because the other father was hostile.
Jason confronted Coach Brockton twice.
He challenged the coach's methods.
He acknowledged his own mistake.
And he eventually helped create a better environment for the children.
Neither man simply ignored the problem.
They acted.
The question was how.
And that's where I think the lesson becomes useful.
A person can establish boundaries without becoming violent.
He can challenge someone who's behaving badly without accepting an invitation to fight.
He can refuse to cooperate with an abusive authority figure.
And he can insist that a situation be corrected through appropriate channels.
None of that is weakness.
In fact, it may require more discipline than simply losing your temper.
A peacemaker tries to stop harm. A pushover allows harm to continue because confronting it feels uncomfortable.
Those aren't the same thing.
And I think children deserve to understand the difference.
My Verdict: They Didn't Win the Fights, but They Taught Something More Valuable
I still appreciate a television father who stands up for his family.
I appreciated Charles Ingalls when he protected Albert from an armed threat.
I appreciated Dan Conner's outrage when he discovered Jackie had been abused, even though I question his decision to go after Fisher.
And I appreciated Al Bundy's willingness to defend his family despite spending most of his time complaining about them.
But there's something different about Mike Brady and Jason Seaver.
These men demonstrated that a father doesn't always need to establish his strength by physically overpowering another man.
Mike stood up to Buddy Hinton's father without throwing a punch.
And although I question parts of the solution he later offered Peter, I admire the way he tried to distinguish between aggression and self-defense.
Jason's example is even more meaningful to me.
He made the mistake first.
He fought Coach Brockton.
He enjoyed the recognition.
And then he saw his son imitate him.
That's when he realized that his actions had consequences beyond the fight itself.
So he changed his approach.
He apologized.
He refused to fight again.
And when Brockton punched him, he chose to leave rather than escalate the confrontation.
I wouldn't recommend deliberately allowing someone to strike you.
And I think it's important that the story ultimately removes Brockton from his coaching position.
But I appreciate what Jason was trying to teach.
A father who knows how to fight has a responsibility to teach his child when fighting isn't the answer.
And I think that's the lesson that completes this little television trilogy.
We've seen fathers who fought because they were angry.
Fathers who fought because someone threatened their families.
And fathers who recognized that another punch wouldn't necessarily make their children safer.
At fifty-one, I've come to believe that maturity isn't measured by how much anger a person can express.
It's measured partly by how wisely that person handles anger when he has every reason to feel it.
And I'll admit, there are times when I still enjoy seeing a television bully get knocked down.
Especially a particularly obnoxious one.
But real life isn't a sitcom.
A single punch can cause serious injury.
A confrontation can escalate.
And a person who begins with a perfectly legitimate grievance can end up creating a far more serious problem.
That's why I admire people who can stand their ground without feeling compelled to prove their physical superiority.
People who protect others without seeking revenge.
And people who recognize that sometimes the hardest thing to do is walk away from a fight you might actually win.
Mike Brady didn't need to punch Mr. Hinton to demonstrate that he cared about Peter and Cindy.
Jason Seaver didn't need to defeat Coach Brockton a second time to demonstrate that Ben deserved better treatment.
And Peter's finest moment wasn't knocking Buddy down.
It was refusing to humiliate him afterward.
That's what I want children to learn.
Real strength isn't having the power to hurt someone. It's having the judgment to know when protecting someone requires action—and when your anger is asking you to do something that won't help at all.
And if I were choosing between a father who won every fight and a father who taught his children how to live responsibly, I'd choose the second one.
Every time.
Although I wouldn't object if Mr. Hinton and Coach Brockton were forced to sit through a very long seminar on manners, sportsmanship, and decent parenting.
Preferably taught by Mr. Feeny.
With mandatory attendance.
And absolutely no recess.
