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.
I thought they blocked all the kids from watching porn. How are they going to know what they’re talking about in these classes?
Is porn really behind the misogyny? What about the tards in the so-called “manosphere” saying all sorts of crazy and immoral shit? Those have more reach than whatever extremely weird pornography is supposed to be at fault. Is this what not being able to say “this is objectively wrong/right” because of Western moral relativism leads to?
Lots of things feed into it. The porn is just one of them.
This is part of a big effort to combat misogyny right now, which will be for naught when Reform rolls into power, declares it all “woke” and makes the problem 10 times worse.
It’s in the article and it’s very good. You should read it.
Preventing young men being harmed by “manosphere” influencers such as Andrew Tate.
That was one line in a whole article focusing on knowing porn isn’t realistic and whatnot… I just feel like if they had any hard moral beliefs (could be as simple and basic as the Ten Commandments, idk), they could build on them, this feels very inefficient.
I’d prefer teaching morals outside of any religion
That should be the default position for everything, including education and law making.
Let’s be real, they’re mainly decorative in the West. You don’t BELIEVE in them, and if you could without believing in God then (some) Western societies wouldn’t be imperialistic, militaristic, materialistic, hedonistically nihilistic “societies” of amoral, lonely strangers. It doesn’t work, hence people like Andrew Tate are still allowed to have any sort of reach/exposure and porn is even a thing, just legal and everywhere. And American kids keep dying in schools while brown people get legally kidnapped and they are mostly “meh” about the whole thing one way or another because football is still on/Wicked 2 just came out…
It’s almost like religion isn’t a good replacement for morals and personal values. Who could have imagined that?
I have no idea why you thought this was a good place to start a theological discussion; but this is about porn and young men. There isn’t anything magical about this, it’s actually one of the base, most human topics and young men have been talking about sex amongst themselves since language was put to use. I don’t see any place for you or anyone to inject dogma into it.
Religion is not a replacement but the foundation for those very moral beliefs, lol. And it’s not a theological discussion, I just put out a basic set of moral tenets one can live their life through, perhaps I should’ve mentioned “the golden rule” or something like that (even if it is part of Jesus’ message too, lol). Regardless, the point is the following: whatever values the West claims to believe is never actualized into actions (freedom whilst enslaving the world, enlightenment whilst being the most legally and culturally accepted degenerate and hedonistic folks, equality while… LOL) and that’s the core of the issue, you guys don’t actually believe in anything (generally speaking, I’m sure some of you will feel attacked but if it’s not you, you know your neighbour, else MAGA and Tommy Robinson and all that shit simply wouldn’t exist) and as such your values are decorative at best, a spin usually. And maybe getting into righteous monotheism (if your religion comes from the Romans fucking with the Abrahamic faith, this isn’t your case and never has been) could be the solution. But if you figure out a way to continue being essentially nihilists (what do you collectively believe in?! Can I say that Americans think greed is a sin, for instance? Jesus thought so but the society reflects the opposite, so what exactly do y’all believe in?!) but with deep moral understandings and a strong desire to do good and avoid evil, let me know!
Maybe the issues is they do believe in the bible and christianity? This is the religion that wiped out any others that were not aligned with it’s specific message and goals. It absorbed it’s morals, rituals and holidays from the others it destroyed. I mean, there was a fucking inquisition! Crusades. How many have been murdered by not following the ‘law of god’ or not being in the ‘right’ religion? Is it really morally right to treat and trade women like possessions or farm animals? To kill the firstborn of everyone who disagrees? ‘Oh, we dont follow that part anymore, we cherry pick what we want to use and believe in.’
It does not take religion to have morals. Being religious doctrine, does not make a thing moral.
Riiiight.
The world would be a better place if we worshipped Satan.
Hail Satan, the source of all knowledge, pleasure, and achievement, the antithesis of god, religion, and puritanical bullshit.
The West already does, lol, at least in practice. Can’t follow God and just go around murdering, raping, pillaging all willy nilly, and let’s not forget their nihilistic hedonism, extreme selfishness, resistance to self-restraint, etc. 🤷
You obviously can follow god and go around meting and raping and pillaging.
Source: the entire fucking history of Abraham’s religion.
God is also decorative in the West. The most religious people in the West are also imperialistic, militaristic, materialistic, hedonistically nihilistic “societies” of amoral, lonely strangers. Clearly the problem isn’t cultural, it’s something more fundamental.
Which religion? What do they believe in? Certainly not the words of Jesus, the anti-imperialistic proto-feminist monotheist preacher of peace and righteousness, lol. The problem is sociocultural, the West hasn’t gone through their character arc, going from raiders, pillagers and murderers to the same but with tanks and bombs, and of course the Paulian Trinitarian, “faith without acts” nonsense that we call Roman Catholicism which was pushed by the powers that be at the time and is the basis for what remained in the West as a religion could never change that. This is like dating one abusive, gaslighting man and thinking that’s all love can be!
Really living up to your name, lol
I try. 😅
Idk if you are jewish,christian or whatever else. But as a muslim i must applaud you for trying.
Western moral relativism
this is called post-structuralism btw, just so you can give a name to it
the idea that there is no (absolute) right or wrong, only subjective interpretations of the world
Thank you! I think I still prefer the way I put it, as I feel like the term “post-structuralism” kind of gives more weight to/normalizes this sort of nonsense, lol. 😅👋
Thing is the specific guy we’re all thinking of ran a porn company. One with little consent.
I do think porn is a symptom not a cause and targetting it wont actually help. Mistreatment of women wasnt exactly rare in say the 50s, even if it wasnt filmed for money.
Well, you know all the humiliation porn, hardcore porn, rape porn and such?
That’s not a very nice representation of sex that can be considered safe for anyone, especially young humans with a developing brain.
Can we say that is objectively wrong? Or are we all so addicted to porn that we get angry as soon as it comes up in such discussions?
Of course it is, it’s grotesque! But it’s faaaaaaar from the core of the issue. Men can be/are misogynistic way before they get a girl in bed consensually… like I said in another reply, very inefficient, like ice on broken leg.
It’s funny because your religion is deeply misogynistic too and that is blatant even in the cringe commandments.
I’m not Christian/Catholic/Trinitarian, I just mentioned the commandments because they stand on their own and they’re closer to the West…
So close that they shaped the patriarchal society we live in.
No, thanks.
The “patriarchy” is not why women are mistreated and porn is rampant… What kind of father wants his daughter to be abused or become a prostitute?! Your framework is all wonky and the words are all wrong.
Patriarch != father
Today you learned.
What world is it that you live in? Maybe trump didn’t want his daughters to become prostitutes, but that didn’t stop him and many other men with daughters to abuse children younger or the same age as their own daughters. Maybe if you spent some time in the real world, and less in a magical one; you could see that many things exist in it.
Let’s not pretend other religions’ adherents don’t also indulge in/participate in/create porn, human trafficking, and other horrific abuses of adults and children. From Buddhists to taoists to Hindus and monotheists and everyone else.
And to keep it fair, even atheists.
Human beings make mistakes and are sinful/antisocial at times, of course, but not every sociocultural group condones, excuses and even legalises these failures of character.
When it keeps happening by people in positions of an authority, it’s a pattern of abuse, not a mistake. And predators are really good at masking and positioning as authority figures or other power positions.
I’m not sure if your arguments are conditioning/naïveté, gaslighting, plain ignorance, or gaslighting, but they sound a lot like abusers I’ve encountered, inside societal institutions. I invite you to reflect rather than deflect and excuse the inexcusable.
that’s porn
it’s not real lifeA simple web search will prove you wrong.
… humiliation porn, hardcore porn, rape porn …
the porn is porn
the real life incidents are real lifeI’m not talking about the tragic endings of the process, but about the process itself.
More violent porn being consumed leads to more demand of the same. It basically rewires your brain, like drugs. Look it up if you have any doubt.
Educating about porn should be mandatory like educating about drugs and all similarly harmful stuff.
So, rough sex is inherently bad?
That’s a pretty wild stretch to back bigotry.
And teaching young kids about the difference is important, because you are 100% right but kids don’t realize unless taught.
“Young humans” sure. Not young humans, you absolutely do you.
There’s a bit of an emerging trend in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal and wrong and we’re not ready for how much anti-porn is going to be the new terfism yet. This is going to suck a lot, and not in a good way.
in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal and wrong and
i would just like to point out that not everybody sees it like that. i identify as leftist and don’t see things that way, even though porn often is exploitative. but that has nothing to do with the porn itself, but with the economic coercion that is at play when the thing is created: for money. that’s the problem, that it happens for money, and not voluntarily. and that’s an economic problem, not one of porn itself.
There’s a bit of an emerging trend in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal
So long as women choose to do it to fulfill capitalist needs (which is to say, to avoid the implicit violence of homelessness and/or incarceration), rather than simply because they enjoy it, then it kind of is.
If not specifically patriarchal, then at least evil and exploitative in some capacity.
I don’t disagree with you, but if you’re going to take that position you have to include work as a whole, not just sex work. There are difference, sure, but we’re all selling our minds, bodies, and time just to stay alive.
Oh I absolutely do apply that position to all work. But I would do so with the caveat that if you have a career which helps people even despite the reality that you’re being exploited while doing so - like taking care of kids or special needs people or the environment or something - then that might provide you with more happiness than purely selling access to your body.
That’s not at all intended as a judgement of the mere fact, though. If you genuinely prefer sex work to the available alternatives to you, get that bag. Or maybe you even help people in your capacity as a sex worker, I don’t know.
So educating children about porn equals being anti-porn?
I want education about drugs as well as liberalization of the same.
You know, the world is not black and white, left and right, like they have led you to believe.
Think with your own mind and exercise some objectivity, especially on important topics like education.
That’s a cool argument you’re having with a thing nobody said.
Educating children about sex in general is educating children about sex (and nobody here has argued against it or equated it with being anti-porn).
There is a rising trend in European lefitsm, and particularly in European feminism, that argues that all porn is inherently pernicious and ultimately should not exist.
Note those are two separate statements.
You definitely dabbled in the second of those statements when you claimed that “that [can’t] be considered safe for anyone”. Whether you meant to say what you said is in your head, but as presented that slope is both mighty slippery AND very consistent with some of the very anti sex-work trend I’m talking about. The false equivalence and misquote at the top of your response doesn’t lead me to believe you’re treating this “objectively”, either.
LOL
As I said already, if you have any doubt you can do your own research like I did instead of trying to confirm your beliefs in a random comments section.
Also I’ll point out that your arguing about leftism, feminism, terfism and whatnot like you feel persecuted when we are only talking about educating children on the difference between porn and reality and about factual (that, again, you can look up) psychological implications of consuming porn, is all incredibly weird.
Is porn that important for you? Is it such a meaningful part of your life that you can’t even stand criticism?
Or do you think porn is some kind of free expression of sexuality that should be protected?
I like drugs and I use them, but I don’t lose my mind whenever a study finds out that this or the other substance is harming me.
What the actual fuck mate?
I, once again, did not say or imply that I am persecuted in any way.
I do think porn is free expression, of sexuality and otherwise, and should be protected about as much as any other form of free expression. Which is not universally and without limit, before you try that one.
And all of that is not the same as saying I “can’t stand criticism” about it. Which I didn’t say or think. I will actively, aggressively criticise actual porn, both as a media product and as an industry.
Once again, the strawmanning and talking points aren’t doing much to disprove the notion that anti-porn activism will become the new TERF-like trojan horse wedge among ostensible leftist movements going forward. People don’t like to talk about those, but they are bad and this is incoming.
Again you keep talking about leftism and such, but you should invest the time you are wasting with this empty walls of text in reading some research on porn.
Would be definitely healthier than watching porn itself or fueling your paranoia against whoever you think is your enemy.
Good luck!
Why doesn’t the British government tackle their organizational transphobia problem first?
Oh what about Prince Andrew, how many girls did he do worse too? Maybe arrest him while you’re at it.
Devils advocate here:
- trans people are far, far fewer
- trans people are a lot less socially accepted
- trans people are not objectively required for the continued existence of a society and/or country
- trans people make for great social lightning rods because they are so controversial
As for the royal pervert, you know as well as i that nothing will happen in that regard. The man is literally royalty.
Removed by mod
Okay in case this was not entirely clear, this isnt my opinion, supposedly evident from the term devils advocate. I was merely illustrating the thought processes involved in making women a bigger political priority than trans people.
Leave it to lemmy to read everything in the most antagonistic way possible. Really getting fucking tired of this place
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Isn’t it former royal pevert now?
Is this called whataboutism?
Removed by mod
Thought this was The Onion for a moment…
Onion articles make more sense.
And yet, as with every article discussing schooling, or exams, it’s illustrated with a photograph of schoolgirls in short skirts. I think that’s a bit weird, personally.
Edit, as there seems to be some misunderstanding: people can wear whatever they want - I find it weird that the newspapers always illustrate their articles about schools and exams with pictures of school girls in short skirts. It’s never boys, and never girls in trousers. This is especially ironic in an article about how boys view girls.
What a girl or woman wears should not be important to the issue at hand.
Practice some self-control.
I’ve edited my comment, as I think I didn’t communicate clearly enough.
There are boys in trousers in the picture, though. And no real “short” skirts.
I mean… you do you, but some of this may be an eye of the beholder situation.
School girls should be wearing a niqab, that’ll teach the boys not to stare. /s
Don’t blame girls for what they wear, blame the media that’s tried to sexualize such an outfit.
That’s exactly what I am blaming…
So you’re sexualizing girls in short skirts but blaming a news source for posting a picture of girls in school uniforms?
C’mon dude.
What? I’m commenting on the sexualisation of schoolgirls by the media…
Because you see the schoolgirls as a sexual object.
Maybe try looking at them as human beings instead.
No, I don’t.
Your view on how children; specifically girls should be portrayed is absolute proof you are sexualizing them. I’m sure there isn’t anything a little boy can wear for you to view it as improper, is there? You should work on that.
No, you’re not. The articles photo is of real kids going to school, thats nothing to be upset about.
Be upset at the sick fucks who put musicians in school girl outfits for sex appeal, etc.
Fuckn AC/DC
Right, and out of all the real kids going to school, they always manage to find the girls in short skirts to photograph. Not girls in trousers. not boys.
Because that’s what most girls are wearing?
And the photo in the article has more boys than girls.
It’s very sad to see negative comments like “I’m against everything the State does because the State is bad.” Basically, these are people who deny the harmful effects of porn and the porn industry. I assume they’re just a bunch of porn addicts who can’t handle criticism of their drug.
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.
I think it is overall a good thing that the UK is trying to make some progress. It is disappointing that it’s come to teaching 11 year olds about pornography.
As much as porn may be a factor, there’s a lot more beyond that single factor that is involved - reminiscent of video games causing mass shootings.
Parenting and parental examples are a huge component of teaching kids to be responsible adults. When I was a kid, parental controls if they existed were a challenge that I worked on learning to circumvent (and I learned a lot about computers), but today they’re pretty bulletproof. But parents don’t use them at all. There’s not even an attempt made to limit screen time or exposure to pornography.
It’s not just parents of course; tech companies are absolutely responsible as well. It’s a complex issue.
reminiscent of video games causing mass shootings
None of the many scientific studies into this claim has found any evidence of its validity.
Instead there is evidence that it is a byproduct of good ol’ racism, as it is used most often to try to explain why a white child would walk into a school and start killing. Because there must be an external reason right? It’s not like Timmy was one of those inherently violent blacks.
Yes that’s my point.
I think any time they could be exposed to something is the time to educate them about it. If that was even younger, that would be fine. Even very basic sex education can be taught to very young children to help keep them safe from abuse. Not talking about things openly, using scientific vocabulary, is a big problem.
Parental controls are excellent to stop “accidental” discovery, but at some point they will seek stuff out, and proper education should exist before that point. If parents are too embarrassed? ashamed? to have that conversation, it falls to the school/state/etc.
Parents not using parental controls are in my mind the same ones who would have been similarly oblivious or negligent in the past, I don’t think the technology has anything to do with it, except statistically volume and ease of access increases necessity. I don’t think I would blame tech companies any more than magazine publishers.
To be clear, it’s not that I oppose teaching sex ed at all. It needs to happen, because kids find it on their own. It’s just that it’s disappointing that society has come to the point where we need to discuss kinks with prepubescents. I don’t think their brains are developed enough to comprehend the complex decision process behind getting tied up and whipped, which I think partly this article is seeking to address.
It’s just a sad comment on society, I think. I want to have a healthy open dialogue with my kids about sex. The porn genie isn’t going back in the bottle.
It’s been my limited experience that parental controls are pretty strong these days. I think that a really key difference circles back to the social media exposure discussion. Sure, they seek it out eventually, but with always on social media they’re going to find out about things a lot earlier than they need to, which is why I also called out the social media companies for their unethical behaviour.
Removed by mod
“Can’t talk now lads, I’m off to porn class!”
monty_python_meaning_of_life_scene.mp4
Tbh the threat of being labeled a gooner might do more to prevent misogyny than anything else
We gonna have a class for girls on the difference between romance stories and real relationships?
No, because we all know that men not living up to women’s fantasy ideals is their personal failing as men. These boys need to learn that if they aren’t BDSM billionaires they don’t deserve a woman.
And men having fantasy ideals about women, is hateful and bigoted. We can’t have that, and since porn is mostly male sex fantasies it is wrong and bad.
Found the incel
These boys need to learn that if they aren’t BDSM billionaires they don’t deserve a woman.
I’m sorry but that’s not why you don’t have a woman. It’s because your personality is insufferable, from what you’ve shown in this thread.
No mention of what behavior they are talking about, misogyny is a pretty wide and often vague subject. It’s almost like we’re not supposed to know the details so we can’t decide for ourselves if the behaviors need ‘correcting’ instead of taking their word at a claim of misogyny alone.
I’ve been called a misogynist a lot. Mostly when I am confronting a woman about her crappy behaviour towards other people or myself. It’s definable a term that is used to avoid accountability, or against anyone who doesn’t agree with benevolent sexism towards women.
TBF you are a tactless individual.
“I’ve been called a misogynist a lot”
i’ve also been called gay a lot. and yet i have no sexual interest in men. weird how other peoples perceptions of you may be totally incorrect.
it’s almost as if other people’s opinions have no bearing on what we really are.
to quote my uncle: “i’m not gay, i’m italian. it’s easy to mix that up.”
Yes, I am Italian.
People also assume I’m Jewish and argue with me when I tell them I am not. They insist that one of my parents must be Jewish and I’m just in denial or something.
lol
They insist that one of my parents must be Jewish and I’m just in denial or something.
u know that exact thought came to me so many times. That some of my grandparent must be jewish because … idk it’s just a vibe.
I’ve never been called a misogynist my entire life. People have made unfair criticisms, people have made fair criticisms, but nobody called me a misogynist.
I wonder what kind of rhetoric you consistently have for people to dig up for this word in particular when speaking about you. Should make you wonder, probably won’t.
They dig it up because our society, in america at least, sees women as children and thinks they should not be responsible for the consequences of their actions, nor should they be financially independent from men.
I get it the most from women when I tell them I am not interested in financially supporting a woman and tell them they should pay their own bills rather than be dependent on men for financial solvency. Turns out a lot of people HATE that idea and think if you don’t support women being financially dependent on men as a good life choice, you hate women.
I get it the most from women when I tell them I am not interested in financially supporting a woman and tell them they should pay their own bills rather than be dependent on men for financial solvency
I have a feeling that you were called a misogynist less because of this opinion in and of itself, and more because you probably bring this up unsolicited and seething at any opportunity.
Aaand there we go. The misogynist is called a misogynist for being an actual misogynist.
Quick and easy demonstration.
right, so if i don’t want to pay off my girlfriends college debt. i hate women?
yeah that’s exactly proving my point. according to you if I don’t want to pay $75K of someone else’s poor choices, and she is a woman… I hate women.
It can’t be that I just hate entitled deadbeat people or that I want a partner who contributes equally to a relationship.
Which is precisely why people view me as hating women. Because I treat them as equals and expect equality from them.
As if boys aren’t discriminated against enough in the education system already. Make it easier for good male teachers to stay in the system and provide good role models to follow.
Waaay better than the porn bans and online age verification schemes, honestly.
I question why this is just for “children who show mysoginistic behavior”, though. Sex ed should be universal, and this should be a major part of sex ed.
I assume the fear here is parents complaining about their kids being talked about porn, which may end up being a larger underlying issue than the porn itself. I guess you just have to trust that education professionals handle the opportunity well and this doesn’t become a stern talking to for problem kids, which is likely to do as much as stern talking tos have done historically.
Yeah, I agree with you on this
I agree, at least they’re actually focusing on an actual real world issue that widely impacts individuals. It is to point out, the highlight that only boys are talked about it - is oddly counter intuitive. If equality is the issue, then single sided efforts are going to further reinforce negative stereotypes.
And the point about sex-ed, is that it should be mandatory in education - it is a science like all and it prepares older children for when they become teenagers. Even so, stereotypical differences could be abolished if sexuality was formally talked in schools - after all we are all human, no matter what we have under there.
This isn’t about sex ed, it’s about behavioural courses, which wouldn’t be appropriate for most children, just as it wouldn’t be appropriate to send every child who does something wrong to a referral unit.
This is great.
Guaranteed the ‘Manosphere’ find a single reference to transgender people or something and spend their time (and JK Rowling’s money) trying to shut it down.
Removed by mod
That’s some deep seated racism innit.
Removed by mod
Black ppl can be racist genius. Odds are your either pretending to be Black anyway or an Uncle Tom and honestly I don’t know which one is worse
Removed by mod
Sad that it is required and that parents are unwilling to do it
“Step-bro mom and dad wanna talk to us.”
(I’m so sorry. I couldn’t not)
