stern teacher750

Boy-shaming “sex education” campaign planned for UK schools

We need to be careful when we start singling out only one group of people based on their genetic code and demanding that they “respect” another entire group of people. The reasoning is quite simple: it’s mindlessly discriminatory. It also has the potential to turn into a condescending shamefest.

  1. Not everyone in one group needs to be taught to respect others because they already do.
  2. If we single out only one group to respect other groups, no one is teaching the others to respect that group.
  3. Not every individual in any birthgroup is entitled to respect.

Of course, no one should disrespect someone based solely upon their being men, or women, or white, or black, and so forth. But teaching such values doesn’t mean we have to single out any of those groups, either.

Which is exactly what is being advocated in the UK. From The Daily Mail:

Teenage boys are learning about relationships through internet pornography and need to be taught about how to respect women through compulsory sex education lessons in schools, campaigners have warned.

So…only boys need to be taught to respect others?

Boys are developing worrying sexual behaviours as a result of watching internet pornography, which is often sexually aggressive and easy to access, it has been claimed.

The group, which includes experts from online parenting forum Mumsnet, has said education in schools could also help girls learn how to protect themselves from abuse and harassment.

Apparently boys do not need to learn how to protect themselves from abuse and harassment. Or if they do, that need is invisible to these campaigners.

Mumsnet is a parenting organization with a significant Feminist slant, by the way.

In a letter to The Times today, the group said that one in three girls is groped or experiences unwanted advances at school.

This statistic is useless at best and dishonest at worst. How many of those “1 in 3″ are groped, as opposed to simply receiving “unwanted advances” (asked out by an unpopular guy)? One? Two? 0.00001?

For all we know, if 9,999 girls get asked out on a date by a guy they don’t like and only one gets groped, these people would say “10,000 girls experience unwanted advances or are groped.”

It’s a classic fearmongering tactic among Feminists:

  • Conflate two types of undesirable behavior, one of which is far more undesirable but also much, much rarer.
  • Assign those behaviors only to men, or only refer to women as victims.

We see more fearmongering tactics here:

Officials teaching literature for sex education lessons were last updated in 2000, and contain no mention of the internet.

‘In an age of one-click-away violent and degrading pornography online that is becoming the default sex education for some young people, this is woefully inadequate,’ the letter says.

I’m all for making education relevant to the modern age. But there are some problems here. First, violent pornography is not the “default” type of porn, let alone the default type of sex education. Second, a lot of violent porn involves violent women.

Just as these campaigners seem to assume men are never abused, apparently they also live in a fantasy world where women are never violent. I don’t see any reason to encourage those in the UK to throw their hard-earned tax dollars toward a condescending male-shaming campaign.

In September Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg warned sex education should include lessons in the ‘menacing’ impact on young girls.

Translation: teach young girls to distrust, fear, and resent boys.

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has warned that easy access to online pornography encourages teenage boys to see girls as sex objects and to engage in risky sexual behaviour.

Do women never engage in risky sexual behavior? Do they never say “don’t worry, I’m on the pill” when they are not? Do they never drink while intoxicated? Do women never deliberately manufacture themselves into sex objects to exploit the world around them? Do they never use beauty to manipulate others or ahead?

Here’s a new idea: we are all responsible for the culture in which we live. Both sexes feel pressure to act certain ways, but many in either sex have also made the choice to act in those ways when it has benefited them.

In a major report it lifted the lid on the corrosive effect of hardcore porn on children, concluding that those who access adult images and videos are more likely to lose their virginity at a younger age.

There were even indications that boys who look at violent porn are more likely to become sexually aggressive.

I’d like to see these “indications,” because almost all the credible studies out there demonstrate that rape has declined as porn consumption has increased. Indeed, it has actually made men less sexually aggressive and adventurous when it comes to real, live women. Feminist Naomi Wolf herself wrote an article about this.

The study called for urgent action by ministers, schools and parents to ‘develop children’s resilience to pornography’ after finding that a significant number have access to sexually explicit images.

If children are viewing pornography at home, especially violent pornography, that is the fault the parents (or whoever is taking care of the children).

In September Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg warned sex education should include lessons in the ‘menacing’ impact on young girls, but revealed his call for guidance to teachers to be updated for the digital age was being blocked by Education Secretary Michael Gove.

Yes: unlike what we would see in the United States, the secretary of education in the UK has the courage to question the dogma of Feminism. Well done, Mr. Grove.

In response, Mr Gove insisted he takes the ‘whole question of sex education very seriously’.

Speaking at a Policy Exchange event, he added: ‘We conducted a review recently of personal, social, health and economic education and one of the conclusions we drew from that is that the right thing to do it to trust teachers.

Did you see that? A politician said that we should trust teachers more than lofty and disconnected government officials. When’s the last time you heard a politician say that in the U.S.?

Seeing the other side, and a brief digression

On a basic, conceptual level there is something missing from the minds of these campaigners. Are women never taught to objectify men by our culture? Are men and boys never under pressure to act a certain way to please women? Shouldn’t we be including the distinctive experiences of men and boys and trying to understand them?

The reality, of course, is that women are taught through all sorts of cultural influences to regard men as their providers, and to use their beauty to attract men in order to gain access through their resources. While some men may do this, it tends to be far rarer among them.

Here’s what Disney teaches young men about how to attract women. Try to find the common denominator:

Disney-how-to-attract-women

Yes, men: if you ever want to attract a quality woman, you have to be rich. Preferably a good-looking man with smooth moves, but at the end of the day rich really is where it’s at.

Some may say these phenomena are simply symptoms of evolutionary psychology: the philosophy that much of human behavior is influenced by millennia of humans selectively deciding with whom they will reproduce, with the overall purpose being the survival of the tribe, nation, or species.

Thus men would have more of a natural tendency to desire women who are physically beautiful because such a metric is a good index of fertility. Women, by contrast, would have a greater natural tendency to desire men who are able to provide for them when they are vulnerable during pregnancy.

If we’re going to behave as though men’s “base desires” are crude and unrefined,we shouldn’t pretend that women don’t have them as well, or that their own are somehow morally superior.

 

Editor’s note: this item originally appeared on A Voice for Male Students. –DE

About Jonathan Taylor

Jonathan Taylor, sometimes known as "TCM" ("The Common Man") is a long time reader of A Voice for Men who has decided to make contributions here for the men's movement. He is now the proprietor of "A Voice for Male Students."

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

    Very good – we’ll put up a link to this now. The stat that one in three schoolgirls is ‘sexually harassed’ comes from a government report which shows that many boys are too. But here’s the thing. Even ONE instance of ‘sexual harassment’ – and you’re right, the definition of ‘sexual harassment’ is now so diluted as to be almost meaningless – OVER THE ENTIRE COURSE OF A SCHOOL CAREER will count towards the figures. In a Channel 4 News programme Kat Banyard said to Jon Snow something along the lines of, ‘What we do know is that one in three schoolgirls faces sexual harassment ALMOST EVERY DAY’ (my emphasis). Snow of course didn’t challenge the astonishing claim, so we publicly challenged Banyard, and of course she’s never responded.

    Mike Buchanan

    JUSTICE FORM MEN & BOYS
    (and the women who love them)
    http://j4mb.org.uk

    • http://stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ angelo

      I’ve linked this and added your great additional comments Mike. Sterling work chaps.

      Has anyone challenged the lame-stream gate keeper Snow and channel 4 for their big mess up, being out of touch or else colluding?

      If addressed to them formally, they may be compelled to make an announcement to rectify the misleading statement publicly.

      • http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com Mike Buchanan

        Hi Angelo. If we had a staff of 100 monitoring mainstream media and challenging its feminist narratives, we wouldn’t come close to covering all of them. Channel 4 News – along with other MSM outlets – is a mouthpiece for feminist narratives. The aforementioned video of Kat Banyard is here, along with our public challenge:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R3fMxygLXw

        Not only is it the most-watched item in our YouTube library, it’s the only one for which downvotes exceed upvotes. You have to ask yourself, on what grounds would anyone downvote a challenge of a person making a demonstrably misleading statement? If that isn’t an indicator of the true nature of feminists, I don’t know what is.

        Onwards and upwards!

  • MGTOW-man

    Are we forgetting? Many women need help with everything. They are already equal and can do everthing males can do…and in highheels, blindfolded, and backwards (remember) but when it comes time to put up, they can’t. How is it possible for creatures to be equal when they expect the ones they are tying to be equal with to help them be equal?

    That is what is happening here with this catawampus sex-education as well as many more examples.

    Stay tuned. More to come from oblivious people who do not want to contribute to our species success the way they should, but want to do things that which there are plenty of people already doing.

    No wonder we are in a mess. We have too much of one thing and not enough of the other. You know, we are a species, FIRST. Imagine other species’ members getting all pouty and changing their roles. How long would their species last? Just because we have big brains with minds, cognitive capacities, etc, doesn’t mean we are not still just another species.

    Robert Bly said, “We are all in the emergency ward.” Gee, I wonder why!

  • Kimski

    “Yes, men: if you ever want to attract a quality woman, you have to be rich.”

    Based on this undeniable truth, perhaps someone can take the time to carefully explain to me what the difference between marriage and prostitution boils down to for a man, and how I’m supposed to respect that as _morally_ superior to my preference for intelligence, good measures, and a pretty face???

    Because I’ll end up with a prostitute no matter which choice I make, and the only real difference is that one of them comes with a serious denial of this fact, as far as I can tell.
    Oh, yeah, and that last one would be the one who won’t have to deliver in return, also.

    Seems to me this would be one of the most important aspects to teach boys in sex education, aside from the procreational issues, but I’m not counting on it..

    • MGTOW-man

      I absolutely agree with you here.

      Average men… (those who failed to be honest with women when the predictable whimpering and sniveling of women over wanting to do what was being done by enough people already, began to show up in the women. That is half of our species wanting to push the eject button, ensuring great dysfunctional “fun” for our species)… but average men are behaving like customers, paying for admiration, sex, and more, from women with their behaviors.

      These men, or most of them it seems, will have VERY DIFFERENT conversations about female destructive patterns when not in mixed company. But let even one woman the group of men do not even like come into the picture, and they instantly clam up, like scared dependent fools.

      That makes them cowards, even if they have good reasons not to stir the pot (and some of them do have good reasons). Bravery isn’t convenient, thus they should have thought more about all this BEFORE they married and had kids. IMO, that is what a real man should do…actually think real hard about his future already being auto-spelled out for him…duh!

      Like dominoes stacked in line, they are waiting to and do fall.

      These men are also customers. Thus, we all know what that means for their women.

      Prostitutes.

      But watch them get all upset over “real” prostitutes, acting like it is wrong.

      You are right. They do not want to admit that they are selling the same thing as those who spend their lives on their backs.

      Just more hypocrisy and oblivion. Or is it selfishness and meanness (punishment and control) ? Or both?

      To relate this dialog, as well as my comment above, to the topic of this thread, feminists, since they can’t be males themselves, are trying to take the natural maleness out of males. However, they should be VERY careful what they ask for…it might just happen.

      • Kimski

        I’m aware that my comment above didn’t directly tie into the topic of the thread, but there’s a really good reason why boys might want to choose to watch porn, IMHO.
        The women in porn are as _feminine_ as they come, and comparing them to what’s available in their surroundings, i.e. girls that try to act and behave like guys, while making financial and appearance demands only a certain percentage can hope to fullfil, makes this a no brainer.

        Especially when it dawns on these boys that the basic mechanism behind the exchange of sex, in or out of a relationship, are exactly the same, and any woman, be that prostituted or not, apparently can be bought for the right price. It is highly likely that the condemned behavior of treating them with the same lack of respect springs from that realization, and, quite frankly, I don’t blame them at all.

        I was simply attempting to point out that there’s a huge need for some serious self-reflection, when it comes to female behavioral patterns, before you start shaming boys for their viewing choices and attempt to ban porn, because it seems like a pretty reasonable and logical reaction to action to me.

        Instead of looking for a culprit in all of this and pointing the blame in one direction only, it would make a lot more sense to simply ask WHY they watch porn in the first place, and what can be done to prevent or limit it. There’s obviously a need for something that goes beyond the physical aspect going on here, that they can’t get fulfilled elsewhere.

        • Bombay

          So where is the move to ban dildos? After you have had that special dildo there is no going back…..

          • MGTOW-man

            Now do NOT mess with the supposed-to-be-”off limits” blockade of women’s feelings. If you go there, you hate women! You aren’t allowed to care about your world if it tramples HER thoughts and feelings!! Remember?

        • MGTOW-man

          We are together on this.

          But the feelings of women will not be trumped…unless we are successful here. The ebb and flow of the natural dynamics between the two sexes are too strong. We really have our work cut out for us.

          I am in, you are in, most of us here are in; let’s hope we can convince enough others out there to be in as well.

          Busy, Busy, busy!

  • justman

    >>Translation: teach young girls to distrust, fear, and resent boys.

    And even worse, give young girls license to treat boys badly, because as the girls have learned, boys are unworthy subhumans and do not deserve any better.

    And encourage girls to go on to treat men the same way later in life.

  • aecgh

    Who do we respect?

    We respect our elders.
    We respect our parents.
    We respect our teachers.

    That means, we respect our SUPERIORS. We respect people who are above us in some way, not who are EQUAL to us.

    Now, how on earth can you demand men to respect women? Do you want men to treat women as their superiors? What’s next? Honour women? Venerate women? Worship women?

    • Mr. Sungame

      Who do I respect?

      People who can show me that they deserve it. Be it trough actions or through being my superior in a specific field.

      Respect is EARNED though, and can equally be lost!

      Teach men AND women to live a life that warrants respect!

  • comslave

    30% of women view porn online. Stop objectifying my large pectoral muscles, you hussy!

    • justman

      30% of women ADMIT to viewing porn online. A much larger number does, in reality.

      • comslave

        Or we can just ask the NSA.

        • rosaponny

          For some reason though, the NSA doesn’t like it when other people know what they are doing or what data they have..

          • Kimski

            NSA = No Such Agency.

          • captive

            I think the question we should be asking ourselves with the NSA these days is “what data don’t they have?”

  • Iconoclast Dynamite

    An excellent article on an absolutely vile and disgusting campaign. Establishing a high school curriculum that brands all young men as potentially “violent sexual deviants” is low even by feminist standards.

    Mr. Clegg and Mumsnet will be hearing from me this week.

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikey_stephens/ John_mws

      This would appear to be the same campaign that has swept through every university in North America and is now being just tweeked and brought to High School level. This misandry must be stopped. We must find out which politicians have boys at high school and point out the abuse they are supporting for their child.

      • Iconoclast Dynamite

        Agreed in full. I’ve been a red pill-popper for too long to be taken aback by the rampant misandry in “Western” countries, but the idea of forcing young children into courses saturated with feminist lies and hatred strikes me as being particularly heinous.

        Perhaps an internet petition is in order…

  • Cylux

    Mumsnet is a parenting organization with a significant Feminist slant, by the way.

    It’s also a website with many often conflicting views, which the owner of said website then ignores in favour of her own, and passes them off as being ‘Mumsnet’s opinion’, as though all the women who use it agree and march in lockstep with her. But then again that is a feature of feminism, so I’m only really repeating what you said…

    The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has warned that easy access to online pornography encourages teenage boys to see girls as sex objects and to engage in risky sexual behaviour.

    By ‘risky sexual behaviour’ they mean anal sex, they need to be a tad careful by using euphemisms lest the gay lobby wake up and realise what exactly is going on. After all the last time men were targeted by the state for engaging in anal sex it led to many travesties of justice of which one of the most famous is the driving of Alan Turing to commit suicide.
    Apparently the last sodomy panic we had was so good that now we’re having to take out a new one for a ride, though this time aimed at straight men rather than gay men.

    • aewehr

      Of course nobody on the MSM has called out the blatant sexism of assuming the girls in this statement are nothing more than objects to be acted upon.

      It’s not just misandry being professed here, it’s misogyny as well.

  • comslave

    A concern: Constant stream of rape hysteria causes collapse in rape awareness or care. If you tell young people the world is full of rape rape rape, and they don’t see it, they stop listening to the warnings. They’ll stop taking reasonable precautions. This will be the “Refer Madness” of rape.

    • comslave

      Or worse, constant anti-rape hysteria makes rape seem cool. Young men tend to take confrontation and condemnation as a sort of challenge.

    • https://www.youtube.com/user/KopperNeoman Christopher Wedge

      No doubt that’s the idea.
      If they can jack up the numbers of men raping women by any means necessary, and brush the other three main kinds of rape under the carpet, then they can peddle their “rape culture” twaddle.

  • John

    Try to find the common denominator – They’re all white too, apparently Disney has a bunch of racists working for them : ) .

    • sondjata

      Thanks John, I was about to point that out. And to give a link to porn, the most popular porn in the US (particularly in the south) is interracial, mostly featuring the BBC (not the news station) which is pretty interesting given it’s completely opposite to the Disney “ideal”

  • aewehr

    I love that “unwanted advancement OR groping” statistic.

    Did you know that 99% of men will suffer “verbal abuse OR disembowlment” at the hands of women in their lifetime?

    The horrific and sad part was not ONE commenter on the mail article pointed this out. This is why Hobbes was right and we need to kill off dumb-ocracy FAST.

    I’m due to move myself to tumblr (facebook has become censorship hell and I’m too busy doing admin work for others to put up my own site).

    I’ll be bookmarking that Mail article as one of the most blatant pieces of parroted propaganda in a while.

    • comslave

      I have a 100% chance of eating a ham sandwich OR being murdered in my lifetime. WOW such danger.

  • http://www.hermitparkclinic.com.au Greg Canning

    One should not forget the role of women sexually objectifying themselves for profit, from the highly sexualised music videos to sell women’s ( and mens ) “music”, to the sexually suggestive advertising images of the women’s fashion and cosmetic industry ( yes and every other type of good’s or services advertising ) , to the women’s voluntary involvement in the porn industry including the hard core and grostesque BSM type material. The reality is women could stop it all , if they stopped being involved, yet the trend is for increased sexualised imagery to be posted by women for “free” on social media and “amateur” porn sites – they seem to be celebrating their sexuality , sexual power, something feminism has encouraged.

    Don’t get me I believe the proliferation of hard core internet porn is damaging, potentially addictive, especially to developing boys and girls and their prospects for mutually respectful satisfying relationships. But the punative approach suggested by the UK authorities – ignores the reality of the bigger picture as Jonathan has explained.

  • East1956

    This latest demand totally ignores that boys from a very early age are subject to the impact of ubiquitous television advertising with all its less than desirable values. So for that matter are girls subjected to the same, but with a different set of conclusions to be drawn. Arguably the impact of television is far more insidious than internet pornography simply because there is no significant criticism or condemnation of it, and sociologists and child care professionals don’t look for signs of it influencing boys behaviour. Boys who admit to being influenced negatively by pornography are providing responses that many professionals expect and want to here, and because they obtain the conformation of their beliefs they will reward their client (the boy).
    There is also a very serious question to ask. That is whether boys differentiate between fiction / fantasy and reality more or less than girls. If it were less then boys would be far more likely to fail to recognise the distinctions between pornography and reality. It is my contention that a core aspect of traditional pre-adult male activity is about learning to differentiate between personal fantasies & ambitions, and achievable realities. Whereas for females their activity reinforces those fantasies, divorced from reality, into adulthood.
    Boys progressively learn through play that only a few of them can be top-scoring football players, tough brave soldier or rock guitarists and so forth, and through this process they identify their niche and develop it.
    Girls on the other hand participate in play where they act out female roles that require no skill acquisition – virtually every girl can become a mother. The media sells the idea that simply through the purchasing of make-up etc and clothes any girl can attract the object of her desires – and if her physical attributes would perhaps mitigate against that, industry offers a plethora of solutions. In many of the stories she is presented with from Cinderella onward, men are two dimensional entities lacking all agency. The girl is not required to have a developed personality, her mere physical being is sufficient.
    I would argue that it is girls rather than boys that have trouble distinguishing between fantasy (all forms of pornography) and reality, and that is likely to shape their behaviour towards boys – potentially eliciting many of the responses that Mumsnet etc complain of. This complaint highlights the distinction in our society between the demands that women make upon men for consideration of their sensibilities, and the abject indifference that the same women exhibit for the sensibilities of men to the point of deliberately setting out to exploit male vulnerabilities.

    • nawotsme

      “Boys from a very early age are subject to the impact of ubiquitous television advertising with all its less than desirable values”

      Reminded me of the words of a song

      Tv, is it the reflector or the director?
      Does it imitate us or do we imitate it?
      Because a child watches 1500 murders before he’s 12 years old,
      And we wonder how we’ve created a Jason generation
      That learns to laugh rather than abhor the horror.

      Tv is a place where the pursuit of happiness has become the pursuit of trivia,
      Where toothpaste and cars have become sex objects.
      Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
      Tv is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple.

      Disposable heroes of hypocrisy, Television the drug of a nation.

      I agree with you East1956 that separating out porn is reductionist, and ignores a much bigger influence in the equation.

  • Jim Muldoon

    The thing that concerns me is how these “studies” know about the effect of children watching porn. Most studies of humans involve two groups. One group who does, and one who doesn’t (the control group).

    Who is subjecting the children to porn like they are a bunch of lab rats?

    If not, and this would be my guess, then the studies concern children who are in trouble, and researchers then look for the reason why.

    There are two distinct problems with these kinds of studies. One is that they tend to get the answer that the subject thinks will get them out of trouble. Two is that they expect the subject to have a rather sophisticated and mature view as to why they behaved inappropriately, yet most people who act badly have poor impulse control (no sophistication) and a lack of empathy for others (immaturity).

    This drivel being drummed up by the UK Government is just a witch hunt that gets votes from feminists, white knights and manginas. Men bad, women good,

    I would expect that the “aggression”, “abuse” and “violence” quoted by these “studies” is never as dreadful as the descriptions imply. The Feminst use of the “continuum of violence” conflates all levels of violence as being the same. Therefore a hand placed on the arm when asking for a date can become “groping” in the continuum of sexual assault.

    Jonathon is quite right here to call bullshit,

    • MGTOW-man

      Great question Jim.

      Allow me to hazard a guess.

      The feminists are feeling it. They are assuming it. They, with their nasty habit of projecting their feelings and assumptions (how they feel, so they just KNOW everyone else does too) onto us all, have let their feelings overwhelm them. And they are trying to remove natural maleness from males. They should be very careful what they attempt; they just might get it.

      Eventually, men will get their fill. When they do not like women anymore?…and women think they have problems NOW? Hoo-boy!

      • antifeminist

        MGTOW-man.., excellent point. I was wondering the same thing. I’ve been wondering what if ALL the maleness was taken away and every feminist had her wishes come true and NO men showed any interest in women. No interest in women whatsoever.., no more flirting, no more being asked out to the prom, no more dates, no more diners, no more casual consentual sex, no more marriage proposals, no honeymoons.., nothing.
        “When they don’t like women anymore” is a posing question. I suspect feminists will just come up with a newer and novel “one in three” statistic to fill in the void and pull some more fire alarms in Toronto to aleve the boredom they’ve created. I hope they have a trojan twister handy, because i’ve long gone my own way for 30 years now.

        • MGTOW-man

          Our (theirs, not mine or yours) maleness WILL be diminished—already has been. A lot of people do not think of it this way but many women want to be male in what they erroneously perceive as “privilege” (envy). Knowing they can’t be male (xx is never, NEVER xy) then via the extension of feminism, they lower the bar for females while raising it for males. Their way of “equality”, it seems.

          The more maleness they take out of males the easier it will be to feign equality with males = their feelings appeasement. As a species, males and females were already equal, but with the advent of one size ejecting from nature-driven expectations to do what there were already too many people doing, has made things inverted and perverted, unnatural, chaotic and a mess…and stands no way for true equality to prevail under their pretenses.

          Either one of two things will happen in the future:
          1) men, retaining the flawed notion that manhood is dependent upon women/kids, thus eventually accept being just seminal depositors hellbent on getting to be the one to impregnate…so much to the point that all power will be women… be it political domestic, public, financial, sexual—all of it, while males serve them and appease their feelings in every way, or
          2) MGTOW and they do not get their way all the time anymore, but true equality settles in.—they will find ways to fight this too…it is dictated by the natural but destructive feelings-process of women.

          Btw, those same women also want to retain all the female privileges (that they are too oblivious to see), and in no way want to give up all the female power they have always had OR what they squandered recently.

          They want all the power of both males and females. That, in a nutshell describes feminism.

          But back to what you were saying…won’t they be shocked when they have de-maled the males’ behavior and find themselves all alone late in life too? Of course, it will ALL be men’s fault…the feelings of women will prove that!

      • kronk3

        God speed that day!

  • napocapo69

    Would anyone suggest to teach girls not to dress like sluts? Whould it sound sexist and an abuse of young women?

    • Mr. Sungame

      Wait are you suggesting feminists be logical and practice what they preach?!

      PREPOSTEROUS!

  • Redfield

    I would think what right has a teacher got to lecture my children on any of these subjects without consent from me first! I mean aren’t we seeing in this discussion the State being led by the “false flag” statistics again? And even if the premise for conducting what WILL become a shaming issue for young impressionable boys, the ego of these people to think they should teach standards of behaviour in children (when many of these teachers have not even reached the stage of parenthood) is a complete mind fuck!

    Ego, irrationality, and a belief that the 1 in 3 bullshit is enough to subject male children to further sexist State induced torment of boys and young men tied to a feminist shaming agenda is the appropriate response to a problem that can be handled by parents is so fucking typically feminist aggrandizement of their core hate for all things male …

    I can imagine the pithy bullshit coming from these feminists mouths over the need to regulate the male reptilian brain on how boys need to respond appropriately to young females! And on the subject of the reptilian brain theory (which is a now being discredited), shows hundreds of 3D fMRI studies, women have larger (per overall volume of brain) reptilian brain structures than men :) whether it be the brain stem, cerebellum and associated sub cortical structures are all larger in women than men per total brain volume! Which is interesting because it also leads to the conclusion that the limbic system and neocortex is larger in males than females per overall brain volume …. and these brain structures are primarily associated with feelings, memory formation, language, REASONING, LOGIC and forward planning … Now if you subscribe to the RP theory you now have “smart weapons” to blow the femtard reptilian arguement out of the water!

    The conceit and ignorance and ballessness of politicians to go along with this argument in our schools is really quite typical isn’t it? I have my youngest daughter home with me today because I suspect she is now going thru a cycle of bullying by other girls! The school she attends is well run, but to my mind and through studies on adolescent girls, they create misery for other girls and boys at school through “relational bullying” which is far more rampant and of immediate concern than some fucked 1 in 3 bullshit statement … let’s get our priorities right here please!

    Oh and on the RP theory, and if you subscribe to this, the reptilian brain actually controls the activation of responses in the “sympathetic system” of arousal to anxiety and depression …. could be an interesting study in females ….

    • Redfield

      That should read … limbic and/or neocortex is larger in men per total brain volume … I truly don’t believe women are inferior in this regard but the feminist narative on this should totally fuckup and die from here on in ….

  • Manalysis

    Hi,

    great fun! This is the Jesuit tactics! Get them early! “”Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”!
    Which means that they don’t trust that it will work against grown-ups anymore.

    M.

  • Ken99

    Feminists in the UK have been using the same kind of victimhood arguments to demand compulsory high school “Feminist Studies” for quite a while now. According to them, teaching girls that they’re victims from a young age is the only way to address the “disadvantages” those girls will supposedly face:

    Crucially, at school girls are not forewarned about the gender-specific problems they will inevitably face in adult life. As a society, we continue to pay women less for the same work, express hostility towards them at work and in the street, hold them disproportionately responsible for primary parenting, make them redundant on pregnancy, segregate them into low status occupations, represent them and treat them as sexual objects, periodically threaten their reproductive choices, underfund domestic violence shelters and other women’s initiatives and blame victims for rape. Good grades do not insure against these phenomena. Girls are entitled to space, time and resources to address what it means to belong to the non-dominant gender.

    Then there’s the feminist garbage that already gets slipped into other classes, especially rather woolly subjects like PSHE (Personal, Social, Health and Economic) Education. This “teacher resource” is a good example of the kind of propaganda pushed on pupils:

    Socialisation of Girls and the Impact of the ‘Page 3′: A look at gender stereotypes; the myth of the ‘male’ and ‘female’ brain; how the child’s brain works in categorising things in the world; how girls and boys are socialised from birth; the danger of the predominance of the passive ‘girl’ stereotype; the ‘stereotype threat’ – the negative cognitive effect that negative stereotypes like Page 3 have on girls and women. Teachers (and students) may also wish to sign the No More Page 3 petition.

    A mix of manufactured victimhood, scaremongering hysteria about sexual images (topless photos on Page 3 of the British tabloid The Sun), and the use of school kids to support a feminist censorship campaign.

    It isn’t enough that they get to push this stuff on young adults attending college women’s studies classes, they want the right to indoctrinate children with feminist dogma as soon as the enter state education.

  • TheSameDog

    Do they never drink while intoxicated?

    Ahem. I am inclined to believe this is an editing mistake, even though “drinking while intoxicated” is a thing, and selling alcohol to a visibly intoxicated customer is even an offense in certain jurisdictions.

  • tamerlame

    Teach 14 year old girls not to crack 14 year old boys over the head with a brick cracking his skull. (From a real life third hand account I heard about, apparently the girl was not even arrested.)

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

    Introduction: The Moral Panic Concept: A moral panic may be defined as an episode, often triggered by alarming media stories and reinforced by reactive laws and public policy, of exaggerated or misdirected public concern, anxiety, fear, or anger over a perceived threat to social order.

    I do wonder if the ex-prime-minister Tony Blair has any fingers in pies baked by The Children’s Commissioner. They both had Dodgy Dossiers in common and massive pronouncements not supported by Evidence.

    “The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has warned that easy access to online pornography encourages teenage boys to see girls as sex objects and to engage in risky sexual behaviour.”

    From the Supposed Research from the Children’s Commissioner under the Title “Basically… Porn is everywhere – A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the effects that access and exposure to pornography have on children and young people”

    “Academic literature searches were conducted onfifteen databases (see Appendix 7). After the first seven days of searching using the initial search terms, thesearch terms were reviewed. It was not possible to complete all the searches in the time frame, and it was apparent that even if it was, it would not necessarily be beneficial to do so. Many of the search terms were not finding relevant research or were simply returning data that had already been identified. “

    Should that “Rapid Assessment” come with a Health Warning over Moral Panic?

    It fits all the assessment criteria:

    1) Concern – There must be a belief that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative effect on society.
    2) Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become “folk devils“. A clear division forms between “them” and “us”.
    3) Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the “moral entrepreneurs” (Read Feminists) are vocal and the “folk devils” appear weak and disorganised.
    4) Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
    5) Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.

    So, if your searches across academic don’t find the result you want, fudge the issues and ignore that repeated findings of the same studies quoted over and over with no new evidence or academic value being created and shift the goal posts. and is all else fails Scream MORAL PANIC.

    Someone should remind these commissioners that you use all evidence with varying degrees of proximity to the subject, and you don’t Cherry Pick only the fruit that goers into making your own personal recipe of Mono Flavoured Fruit Jam.

  • antifeminist

    this article sums up all the reasons why I dated for a very brief time in high school and then shrugged my shoulders and wondered “what the fuck..,what’s the point”. I did not really realize a defined period of my life when I started going MGTOW but after reading this, I now know I went my own way three decades ago. The things is, now I have no regrets and don’t look back.
    What “mumsnet” doesn’t seem to have a grasp on is how many boys in junior high and high school males experience unwanted bullying.., mean girls who cannot feel good about themselves unless they’re using sexually explicit language and graphic sexual remarks. I put up with this and was a “gentleman” for six months until I finally was fed up and jacked a bully on her jaw.
    I really don’t think “mumsnet” is aware of some of the language girls are guilty of using today and 30 years ago when I entered junior high. Mumsnet seems to be oblivious to how many young men who did not do anything to any girl and yet mysteriously end up with lipstick letters on their locker like “fucking queer”.. Mumsnet seems to be trying to shove the idea down everyone’s throat that it’s open season on girls in school and they inevitably run off of school grounds screaming “he tried to rape/grope me” at the top of their lungs. “One out of three girls”.., they might be selling but i’m not buying this bullshit.
    Meanwhile.., mumsnet doesn’t seem to be aware how many women here in the states are participating in slut walks and gleefully encouraging their daughters to play dress up and march right along with them.
    I’ll be writing a letter to mumsnet and to the Times in the future.., given time, I can look this up on my own, but can anyone help me along with the contact information. time for me to google mumsnet.
    There are about 101 other truths in this post.

  • Mr. Sungame

    “Teenage boys are learning about relationships through internet pornography and need to be taught about how to respect women through compulsory sex education lessons in schools, campaigners have warned.”

    AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    *Deep breath*
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

    No.

    Seriously, what the hell! These people seem to think that the only thing men do is watch porn.
    Secondly, violent porn? Most porn I have seen tend to be rather respectful to the woman, complimenting her constantly, where as the man is rarely more than a penis.

    And to say people learn about relationships from porn is hilarious.
    No most boys probably learn about relationships from TV and movies, like “How I met your mother” or “Big Bang Theory” that teaches guys to conform to what women want in order to get a girlfriend.

    Porn imo is harmless, to older teens, and to the participants as long as they are not forced to do it. And considering how much scrutiny the porn industry is under from “moms against america” groups I think most porn filmed in the US and western Europe is probably the work environment that is the MOST respectful to women.

    That said if “moms against the world” continue to ban porn in the west, the eastern European and other markets will take over, and I doubt they are as respectful.

  • captive

    I’ve watched quite a bit of porn in my life and I still only like the really cuddly and affectionate kind of sex. I would by far prefer a long-term monogamous relationship with one woman, but won’t often refuse a one-night stand if the occasion arises.