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.”
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.
deleted by creator
Most media is liberal though. Liberalism is a (right-wing) hegemonic ideology. CNN, Fox, NYTimes, NYPost, NPR… All liberal.
Not so much for leftism though. It’s “strange” how the right-wing conflates the two.
deleted by creator
https://helpfulprofessor.com/leftist-vs-liberal/
Fox news liberal… lmfao
Tankies are permanently stuck in backwards day. Left is right and right is left. They do this because they’re just fascists that don’t like to be associated with other fascists. So they call their fascist group “leftist”, but they hate democracy, liberalism, the jews, etc just as much as any other fascist.
deleted by creator
You know you’re actually right on the money, and it’s a little startling that it never occurred to me before. Shit.
Yep, that’s why the only way to be a good parent nowadays is to not give your kids smart phones or computers of their own. There was a time when it was kinda ok for them to have those devices, but that time is permanently in the past.
Closeted queer kids with bigoted parents need online safe spaces.
I mostly disagree with that. Cocooning up into a terminally online person makes one’s life worse, not better.
Straight up abusive parents are another thing of course. But even then those kids need sheltering, not the internet.
I think you underestimate the sheer number of homophobic parents that aren’t necessarily abusive but would be if their kid ever came out. There are a lot of people I’ve talked to that their online escape was the one thing that kept from killing themselves.
I’m not saying that it’s healthy but there are a lot of kids in a situation that they can not escape from because of the way that society treats children. Children are treated as something that is closer to property than an individual when it comes to things like law enforcement and emotional abuse.
Homophobia is abusive. Regardless of the intentions. Ignorance of that fact doesn’t excuse it.
I agree. Try arguing that to a conservative judge in the south and you will simply be sent home with your abusive parent, who is likely enraged about having to defend themselves from the “law”.
Yeah, absolutely. Having been in a marriage with an abusive person, there is zero reasoning with them once they’re in that state.
I’m sure there’s a way to reason with them; you just didn’t know how to go about it.
I think muad’dib is just projecting and maybe you are, too.
Using the internet to avoid dealing with problems in real life is an unhealthy crutch.
unfortuatly the healthy way to deal with a situation like that is to remove yourself from it which children are not allowed to do.
So is pretending the internet is not part of “real life” like it’s 1998.
This is a very dangerous line of reasoning that will play right into the hands of fascists.,
And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
If a TV station or radio station has a call-in show and the caller swears, it’s the station that gets fined. If the station runs a late night informercial where someone is defamed, the station is liable. But, do it online and you’re fine. The YouTube algorithm can pick out the juiciest, most controversial, most slanderous content and shove it into everyone’s recommendations and only the person who posted that content is responsible.
Section 230 makes sense in some situations. If you’re running a bulletin board without any kind of algorithm promoting posts, then it makes sense that you shouldn’t be held accountable for what someone says in that bulletin board. But, YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have all taken it too far. They don’t personally create the content, but they have algorithms that analyze the content and decide who to show it to. They get the protections of a bulletin board, while curating the content to make it even more engaging than a segment on Newsmax or MSNBC.
I love how you got a ton of upvotes by vaguely gesturing at the past.
When was this time you speak of?
What has changed is the social fabric of society has been ripped up.
Back when media for kids consisted mainly of broadcast TV shows and books. It’s not some mythical past; it’s my childhood.
…and that centralized system of culture disemination played a major hand in creating the crisises we are in now.
Ah yes, the Sesame Street to MAGA pipeline.
Oscar the grouch would be a anti vaxer and complain about immigrants taking their bins.
Don’t condescend me, I am talking about TV and US media in general.