'Andrew Tate phenomena' surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
'Andrew Tate phenomena' surges in schools - with boys refusing to talk to female teacher
Online influencers such as Andrew Tate are fuelling an increase in sexism in the classroom, says a new survey from education union the NASUWT. It comes after the Netflix series Adolescence thrust concerns around incel culture into the spotlight.
Summary
Social media influencers are fuelling a rise in misogyny and sexism in the UK's classrooms, according to teachers.
More than 5,800 teachers were polled... and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils' behaviour.
One teacher said she'd had 10-year-old boys "refuse to speak to [her]...because [she is] a woman". Another said "the Andrew Tate phenomena had a huge impact on how [pupils] interacted with females and males they did not see as 'masculine'".
"There is an urgent need for concerted action... to safeguard all children and young people from the dangerous influence of far-right populists and extremists."
Every teacher I hear from (US) these days basically says the newest generation coming up is completely screwed. Unreal levels of behavioral issues that are not being addressed at home. Complete lack of engagement with the lesson plan, unfinished assignments all over. They need to curve grades left and right just to get the majority of the class to pass. The parents are more emboldened than ever to make the teachers' lives hell over things they know nothing about and refuse to take responsibility for.
It's easy to brush it off as the standard generational nose-thumbing...but this seems different. Something is really breaking down and I think social media is at the center of it.
In my opinion the huge difference between this generation and all previous ones is that content is no longer vetted by anyone. It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult. If a TV station marketed to children something that most parents would not approve they would face protests or maybe even legal action. On social media any asshole can post literally anything and millions of kids will consume it without any supervision.
I don't think it is social media. It is much more simple: people can't spend time with each other. Employers keep reducing the wages, while maintaining or increasing the amount of work their employees have to do. This means that workers can't invest time into friends or family, which in turn deprives children of healthy role models.
Jackasses like Tate get to influence the children, because there is a void that has been left empty - Tate has enough wealth and time to fill in for society. Work culture is a ravenous beast, forever chasing workers. If you pause, you lose everything. So you might as well sacrifice the time you could spend with family, since you would lose them anyway if you shirk being a breadwinner.
Optimization for the sake of line going up, inevitably destroys everything that surrounds the pillar that society is forced to worship.
Gotta remember... This is sky news. Probably fake. Especially since the "survey" doesn't even match the headline.
More than 5,800 teachers were polled… and nearly three in five (59%) said they believe social media use has contributed to a deterioration in pupils’ behaviour.
Wow it seems like everyone here is completely credulous and happy to have their bias confirmed.
When I worked in a middle school a couple years back, I heard the Tate shit there. Had a student who would name their Kahoot something like “[female students name] has a nice ass” and administration would refuse to allow me to impose consequences.
If you are around teen boys, please talk to them about Tate. He’s not someone who should be walking free, and he’s not someone children should be listening to.
Well the solution to that one 10 year old is pretty clear. Actions have consequences, if he wants to be a little shit he can repeat the grade next year after hard failing this one.
This is totally a diffusion of social media issue. Twenty years ago, the media that kids had available for consumption was age rated. We had agreed as a society that certain things should not be visible to children until they grow up. It was possible to do because it was centralized (TV, movies, radio, print) and it was accountable to regulatory bodies and the rest of society. If a TV channel showed something as shitty as Tate style propaganda, there was institutional pushback, there were letters to the editor, there was someone specific to be targeted for accountability.
With social media being dominated by US style "freedom of speech" algorithms and US style acceptance of the impossibility (or even undesirability) of regulation and with completely unaccountable megacorps running them while giving very minimal if non-existent attention to who is watching what, we have a complete lack of age rating. We have given up on the idea of protecting childhood it seems.
Coupled with every fucking other issue being brought up in this thread, from COVID, to economic issues, to cultural misogyny, there is a perfect storm...
In 10 years, it seems we not only gave up our own nations’ dreams of equality and union, but lustfully decided to lick the boots of those telling us our dreams aren’t worth having. It doesn’t help that the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world” is a known rapist who cuts deals with the Taliban at the expense of women’s liberties.
oh the society is totally not turning to shit because of terminally online kids. No worries at all.
Sometimes I wonder if the Internet should only be allowed for people 21 or 25 years or older.
21 is the new 16... 25 is the new 21.
But... At the same time older adults are extremely dumb too.
But giving a young person access to the Internet is like letting them walk NYC alone at night during the 70s.
Ever since Facebook and 9/11 the Internet has been kind of awful.
The funny thing is that people like Tate would be the first to be eaten when the world ends lol
First. If the kid doesn't want to talk to the teacher then put the kid into detention until they will. If the kid misses more then a certain number of days of class. Make them take the entire grade again. Fail them.
Second (and I'm not sure how we would do this) cut them off from the internet. There are books in the library for doing research.
I have young kids. This shit terrifies me honestly.
So? You get a F, you get a F, you get a F...
I can really recommend the mini series Adolesence on Netflix (or wherever) to get a great, dramatized example of how this effect looks like.
Sky news wishes it was
Then BEAT THEM SENSELESS AND REMOVE THEIR SCREENS
Dude, I never cared who my teachers were, so long as they weren’t jerks. Even then, I got over it.
If that is where America is heading, to some theocracy like Iran and where men see women as chattel, then I would rather raise children elsewhere there is a culture of empathy.
There was always a large number of stupid kids who were jerks in school, but it was always hidden behind a mentality of stern rebukes of fights and an occasional suspension. Now, all of those same types of moronic assholes have a digital distillated stream of garbage that fits with their natural tendancies, putting these idiots into hyperdrive.
Honestly, it's probably better that the problem gets worse so that it unmasks the high amount of bullying and abuse that's normally accepted in schools.
Worst of all, when bullies harass and attack and beat people over and over in school, on the rare occasion when a student defends themself, the defender often ends up charged because "cool" bullies get a free pass unless bones are broken or the victim dies, while uncool victims are castigated by schools for defending themselves. The unfortunate recent charging of the innocent Karmelo Anthony with murder for refusing to be bullied by some asshole jock is an excellent example of this.
Andrew Tate is not the problem, this problem has existed for a long time with school just letting it fester. Tate at least finally makes the problem noticeable. The problem has always been school administrators who allow this sort of stuff to happen.
It would be interesting to know how many children are becoming more ambitious in school. I recently read an article about how more and more girls feel so much pressure to be the best in class that they start controlling their food intake (the only true control they feel they have) leading to anorexia. Two very different but scary extremes.
The kind of people that think Tate is a hero should be snuffed out lol
I read this and thought something didn't add up. If all Tate ever did was disrespect women and treat them like property, nobody would care about him. Unsurprisingly, the truth is more complicated. See this for example.
The manosphere appeals to its audience because it speaks to the very real lives of young men [. . .] romantic rejection, alienation, economic failure, loneliness, and a dim vision of the future.
The major problem lies in its diagnosis of the cause of male disenfranchisement, which fixates on the impacts of feminism. Here it contrasts the growing challenges faced by men with the increasing social, economic and political success experienced by women. This zero-sum claim posits that female empowerment must necessarily equate to male disempowerment, and is evidenced through simplified and pseudoscientific theories of biology and socioeconomics.
If Tate's appeal is not addressed, things will get worse.
Society when kids are no longer wearing a uniform, have the same haircut, answer with a stoic "yes madam" and can be beaten into submission in school.
This is a problem that needs to be dealt with with better schooling. More teachers and new and updated curricula.
Yes, maybe parents are getting "worse" or kids are less "behaved", but what would it matter?
Also I really doubt it. Kids probably have more things to deal with and struggle with that. Same goes for parents I think.
A lot of young boys had an "edgy" phase. Let's hope this is somewhat true here as well.
