Children as young as 11 who demonstrate misogynistic behaviour will be taught the difference between pornography and real relationships, as part of a multimillion-pound investment to tackle misogyny in England’s schools, the Guardian understands.
On the eve of the government publishing its long-awaited strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in a decade, David Lammy told the Guardian that the battle “begins with how we raise our boys”, adding that toxic masculinity and keeping girls and women safe were “bound together”.
As part of the government’s flagship strategy, which was initially expected in the spring, teachers will be able to send young people at risk of causing harm on behavioural courses, and will be trained to intervene if they witness disturbing or worrying behaviour.
That’s a strawman argument, and I assume you know that. I can remember being a kid and my mindset then. The point isn’t “the State is bad” (though it is), the point is “kids naturally rebel against institutional authority figures and the programs those authority figures conduct.”
Remind me how successful DARE was?
This is essentially a childhood version of trying to legislate personal behavior and beliefs without addressing the social and material conditions that give rise to those behaviors and beliefs.
Want to stop (or at least start to tackle) misogyny? Hold companies whose algorithms promote it financially responsible. Actually convict, or at least prosecute, high-profile creeps like Prince Andrew. Make DNA processing of rape kits a priority, and stop giving rapists lighter sentences than drug dealers. Prosecute companies like Roblox and Meta who knowingly allow creeps to hit on minors (though that isn’t limited to just girls, it still helps contribute to the social conditions and sense of impunity). Teach your own kids to shame their friends who behave in misogynistic ways, and to fight back if they’re pushed to accept such behavior. In particularly severe instances, like boys who actually physically assault girls, maybe consider having the state examine their home life and, if appropriate, pursue some type of action against fathers (or maybe mothers but… probably not often) who condone such behavior.
And even a lot of that is still surface-level stuff. For example, if you want parents to be able to raise their children more and have the algorithm raise them less, we need higher wages and lower costs of living (or, even better, the full surplus profits of our labor which we are rightfully entitled to). Ideally, we also need those parents to be given a good education so they can critically think about the material they are presented with online. As with basically everything, the problem is, at least partially, capitalism. If you want children to learn how to be functional, healthy humans, they need unsupervised places to play and learn on their own - a recent study showed that most kids would prefer unsupervised outdoor play (where generally there are no Andrew Tate-esque figures yelling misogynistic garbage at them) to unsupervised screen time (where there often are), but parents more often deny the former and allow the latter.
A stern institutional finger-wagging serves to make the institution feel like they’re doing something and like the broken system under which we all live is capable of being repaired and reformed. Hopefully I’m wrong and this program is a massive success, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Kids dont naturally rebel against authority figures. If they respect the authority figure, they are remarkably adaptable and can make great change quickly. If they dont respect the authority figure, they will do as you say.
Well, maybe I’m just projecting then, but as a child I had no inherent respect for any authority simply for authority’s sake. I trusted authorities to give me a sufficient explanation as to why something was, or had to be, a certain way. If they couldn’t do that, I didn’t care how much older they were than me or what their titles were, I did not listen to them.
The example my parents always give when recounting my childhood is that my dad could say, “Don’t run in the street,” and the first thing I would want to do would be to run in the street. But my mom could say, “You shouldn’t run in the street because cars are very heavy, very fast, and can’t stop quickly, so they could hurt you very much,” and I would accept that and not run in the street.
I liked (most of) my teachers as a kid and I would never be mean to them or intentionally make their lives harder, but that’s not the same thing as listening to them or respecting their authority. Even in elementary school, I understood things like Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” policy and how that resulted in me being given work far below my level that wasted my life and potential. There is no reason for a child to respect any authority derived from the public school system, to be frank.
Granted that’s a very American perspective, but I can’t imagine it’s too much different in Britain given the near-analogous nature of our political parties.