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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, ive always found it disgusting that school uniforms can mandate girls must wear skirts especially in places like Japan where the sexual assault rate is so high
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…
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
Were they trying to be sexy? I was thinking more Britney.
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 not like I pay special attention, but I have a high-school age daughter. I’d say from what I’ve noticed there is an even split.
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.
Again, it’s not that I find it improper, it’s I find it curious that this is the go to image for any story about schools, school children, exams etc. And I find it especially ironic that it’s the image selected for talking about how we need to change boys attitudes.