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.”
I truly thought that this Tate guy was a complete character like Borat. I’m floored realizing this is a real “person”? How does anyone care about helping this guy. Oh wait.
I would say we were doing well but we were doing okay at best
He should meet a Luigi.
“There are too many assholes in the world because people let them get away with it.” - Mr Inbetween
Andrew Tate should just put on the Taliban turban and be done with this charade. His entire schtick is Sharia for Americans.
He already converted to Islam
Tho he seemed to be mixing up Islam with just the Najdi culture.
The world is fucked and always has been. Humanity are horrible evil beings.
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.
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.
Alternate idea: it’s not my job to raise someone else’s kids.
If youre a teacher you need to quit. Now.
No it isnt our job to raise someone else’s kids but it is our job to educate them. Not just on curriculum. Teaching isnt just shoving curriculum down students’ throats, calling it a day, and getting your summer vacation.
Our job is to help students succeed as people. The curriculum is one small part of that. Being a role model and teaching kids how to be better people is a part of that. If you didnt sign up for that, find another job.
The world is full of shit teachers and I cannot stand teachers who dont take this job seriously enough to understand the responsibility it comes with. Do better or find different work. For your sake and the sake of your students.
Sure, but the children are people; they do not have the experience of wisdom to make choices and rely on adults to teach them wisdom from their experience.
It’s not your job, but those kids are the ones paying for their parents’ value system, and so the adults teaching them aren’t teaching them well. Children are people, and are being let down. Theyre not kitset projects for parents.
One day those people will be expected to make their own choices, and the only foundation they’ll have to decide with is what they’re taught now. It’s not your job, but it’s everybody’s civic responsibility to contribute to a healthier collective society, and children are a part of that.
It’s not your job. It is rewarding in and of itself though.
The great part about Boys and Girls Clubs or being a CASA or face painting at a festival etc is that you don’t have to raise them. The undivided attention of adult who seems to genuinely like and care about them for like 15 minutes is the kind of shit that changes kids lives.
I’m not saying “organize community talks at your local library about positive masculinity” or “become a Big” but - maybe a cousin says something shitty at dinner, and you bring it up gently in a chat? Or be a positive role model in spaces where you encounter young men: in video games, on forums, outside…
The best way to create a society where men are allowed to cry and express their emotions is to teach boys and young men these things are okay.
This shitheaded take is how we ended up with the failing society that we have
No, unchecked consumerism is how we ended up with the society we have.
Andrew tate keeps getting rewarded with sex because he has money. He has no reason to change and never will until the pussy faucet gets turned off.
Maybe he wouldn’t be such a ‘role model’ if he had a harder time getting laid. Not sure what we can do about that, though.
If a psychopath has an influence over children in their formative years, it is your absolute responsibility to educate the kid and the parents.
You know, some people would say the same things about having a trans person influence their children.
part of being an adult is doing the work in front of you that needs doing, regardless of "ought"s "supposed to"s
we all benefit from the next generation learning to treat others properly, regardless of our own parental status
think again. do you want someone else’s kids to grow up to be misogynists who will vote?
Actually when you live in a democracy it is. Or at least, if you don’t you still get the consequences when these kids start voting.
When I was 10, or 13 there were literally no issues like this at all. Well, I didn’t even think about girls that much at that age, let alone in overly sexual way, lol.
What the actual fuck is happening with society recently? Is everybody going insane because of social media?
I was a rotten kid growing up with distant parents and a hostile sister.
If I’d had access to porn and comics without leaving the house, I’d have become one of these people.
This is why the tech bros don’t want their kids growing up looking at screens.
I think I just won’t put a web browser on my child’s computer.
Should solve so many problems before they even appear.
I’m not a bro, but my 9 year old son isn’t allowed to watch YouTube unsupervised, because when I was 9 I found my way to 4chan.
That won’t keep him safe…
Comics?
You never heard of web comics?
Allow me to introduce you to oglaf.com
Oh, well yeah okay I thought you were talking about comic books lol.
No thank you for the link???
Damn kids…
Get off my lawn.
Grumble
Yes lol
Sorry but that’s absolutely not true.
Boys not being allowed to cry, being man enough, strong enough has always been a thing since before anyone who touched the Internet was born.
This isn’t new at all.
You’re talking toxic masculinity, he’s talking about these children being inundated with propaganda via social media. Very few middle and high school students watched Fox news in the 00’s whereas now it’s being algorithmically jammed down their throats.
Social media is going to cause the fall of the USA and it’s so fucking sad to watch. Social media needs to be scheduled as/like a drug.
Propoganda will be the fall of the USA, and as you had diagnosed, it started in the 90s.
Depends what OP meant by “problems like this”. The specific problem in the headline sounds new; teachers were teachers when I was growing up.
Murica is doing typical murica things.
Isn’t this story about the UK?
Derp. UK, wtf are u smoking over there? I thought we were supposed to be sane continent.
They are just as dumb as us Americans. They did Brexit before we elected Trump.
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.
I mean, I’ve worked as a teacher for eleven years and I don’t know a single person who doesn’t think that social media contributed to declining behavior standards. When I say, ‘a single person’, I am referring to other teachers or administrators. I am not using hyperbole. Nobody thinks it is good, everyone thinks it’s bad, and every year we tighten the noose.
This is across three school districts and nine grade levels.
This is absolutely a kind of rage-bait.
I don’t doubt that there’s a growing segment of misogynistic boys who have been influenced by Tate and our society’s general check-out when it comes to being communal and supporting each other and the absolute bullshit mess that social media and online dating has created for young relationships, the statistics are abysmal and worrying…
But that said, the large majority of all Americans at any age are still pretty much just getting through it like always.
These kinds of stories, while beneficial that they are highlight and showing us problems that need to be addressed, all they’re doing without a prescriptive solution or counter-point is just wedging this division in our community further and further apart. It’s making girls scared of boys. It’s making boys scared that girls will think they’re horrible misogynists, and thus they will be defensive at the ready accusations and the exchanges spiral from there.
It’s revolting that we cling to hateful figures so readily. They give us validation for pent-up frustration and anger at a system that has abandoned us. That’s why it’s addicting to read about horrible things and horrible people. Which makes horrible things and horrible people. Our addiction to hating people is creating people like Tate, because our desire to hate someone makes us click on these stories over and over and feel that righteous outrage that seems to make everything make sense. It’s addicting and we need to recognize it and stop imbibing in 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.
And, part of the reason for that is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
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.
That’s the whole point of screaming about “liberal” or “leftist” media for all this time even when most media outlets are owned by for profit orgs. They usually have to comply with laws. On social media you’ve been able to lie as much as you want without consequence or being called out. Corporations mostly use this to market to children and get them addicted to gambling.
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.
I agree but it’s beside the point (the liberal party in my country is openly supporting the nazi party). For profit media can per definition not be objective but at least it has to comply with the laws of the country it operates in. The internet bypasses all this legislation and pretty much every country was slow to catch up.
What really grinds my gears is when my fellow countrymen believe propaganda about our state sponsored media. Which cannot be controlled by our government because it’s been proxied off behind several foundations running it. The only thing our government can do (and then only with support from the opposition) is reduce or increase money going into it. It’s pretty much the only source of reporting in my language without sponsors dictating content.
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.
Tankies are now supporting trump because he’s advancing putin’s agenda in Ukraine.
That’s tells you all you need to know about the tankies, they were never left wing, they are far-right masquerading as leftists.
There’s a term for this: Red Fascism
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.
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.
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.
This is a very dangerous line of reasoning that will play right into the hands of fascists.,
It used to be that to put something in front of kids it had to approved by some sane adult.
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.
The left coild have done more to court these kids. To late now my gender is a lost cause and every moment is a reminder. I hate this I hate my gender.
Stories like this are what I think of every time the topic of regulating social media comes up.
We know it’s programmed to create rage machines. We do, and then people act surprised when social media works as designed.
Fake Sky News is also a rage machine.
Where are the parents, if my son pulled that shit I would put him a position where he MUST listen to and work for women until he realizes how ridiculous he is.
Great way to raise a serial killer.
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…
Twenty years ago, the media that kids had available for consumption was age rated.
It was, still is, was ten years before, and trust me that didn’t stop me one bit.
What’s different then and now is the degree of choice people employ in their media consumption. It’s not like there was no Nazi propaganda on the net in 1990, it’s that who the fuck seeks that stuff out. The feeds that were choice-free were, yes, sanitised (TV, radio, though if you stayed of long enough TV would show rather interesting things), but also numerous. Like at least seven TV channels over the air, and plenty of radio stations (though most played shoddy music). Imagine having seven tiktok feeds you can’t fast-forward but switch in between. On current algorithmic platforms, you skip something, get shown the next thing, algorithm learns about you, about how to draw its hooks specifically into you. Back in the days, you couldn’t skip, switched away, and if there was only uninteresting stuff on the other channels you switched off. Internet? Age of web rings, search barely even existed. Anyone remember altavista?
I roamed the library, inhaled multiple series of books whole-sale, but in between, there was always this magic moment: Browsing. Looking at things, shaking them a bit, see if they’re actually interesting. Great availability of things, yes, but also limited time, and preferences, so you got picky.
That’s the skill that’s getting lost: People are outsourcing their consumption choices to algorithms. Worse, ones who care about nothing but retention, how can they keep you hooked so you watch more ads.
…which btw ties back into youth protection. Ratings etc. exist but the general consensus in youth psychology is that as soon as youth seeks something out by themselves, they’re ready to consume it. Ratings are there so that kids don’t stumble across things inadvertently, not so that they are completely unable to consume it. A hoop to jump through, maybe some secrecy, all that is a proper framework, “they think it’s not for me, I think otherwise”, puts the mind in the right inquisitive-but-cautious frame. That, however, presumes a choice algorithm that’s running in your head, and not in the cloud.
And meanwhile, “media literacy” is understood as “spotting fake information”. BS. Any information will become true to anyone if you allow it to be fed to you without getting your own agency involved. The question is less “are kids able to sniff out BS” – they by and large are. The question is whether they have the power to say “I choose not to continue down this path”, whether they have trained that muscle. Because without that no amount of skill in spotting bullshit will save you.
Countries, especially influential ones like the UK, that are suffering from this BS should band together and fine the shit out of megacorps like Google for allowing this filth to fester and the harm it’s done so far, and also threaten to revoke their operational rights if they don’t agree to strict moderation going forward.
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.
…and you have clearly given up any pretense of not being extremely authoritarian it seems, what the hell does “freedom of speech algorithms” even mean? Rhetorically you are completely mixed up about what is going on and what the solution is, I am amazed you made it here to the fediverse.
We had agreed as a society that certain things should not be visible to children until they grow up.
Do you have evidence the systems we employed to do this actually didn’t make problems worse? As far as I can see, it is also just overly righteous adults desperate to fix the world in ways that don’t make them look inwards and question the policies they support and the beliefs they hold.
I missed a comma before “algorithms” it seems.
The kind of “extreme authoritarianism” you’re pearl clutching about is literally the age ratings system that was in place in the late 90s. Get a grip.
You are the one pearl clutching.
The rise of criminal assholes like Andrew Tate has to do with ADULT MEN VALIDATING these figures all the way up to the most powerful adult men on earth.
Why do you think turning up the centralized censorship dial is NOT going to directly benefit people like Andrew Tate when Andrew Tate is exactly the kind of person the people who have control of that dial actually want?
I am in support of more human moderators moderating social media for kids, but in an empathetic way of giving kids more actual human attention, not as an authoritarian impulse to fix things by always just tightening control over others.
Have you ever had a creepy guy who hangs around the school desperately trying to impress little kids? Yeah he’s the online version.
Or he’s your friend’s weird, 28 year old brother, whose room is only lit with black lights, and UV reactive posters, has no job, smokes weed all day, and trips all the time, who tells you Mayans invented cell phones.
I mean, he’s having an easier time getting laid than most of the people criticizing him on these forums so…
Who do you think adolescent boys are going to listen to more?
