Main Edition
US
FR
September 21, 2024 - 1:00pm
Nearly one third of English secondary schools and academies are teaching about toxic masculinity in mandatory Relationships or Health Education (RSHE) courses, according to a new report from the Family Education Trust.
Toxic masculinity has multiple contrasting definitions, and its use in educational settings is not uniform. But in some English schools, the most inflammatory read of the concept— that masculinity or men themselves are innately bad — is being taught to students.
For example, 4% of schools teach that young men as a category are problematic, and 5% teach that they possess traits that are inherently toxic and negative to society, the report found. Only 22% of schools teaching this content report it to parents, and at least 18% are working with outside providers in developing toxic masculinity-related curriculum.
The Trust sent 300 Freedom of Information requests to schools over the summer, and only 65% responded.
RSHE became mandatory in 2020, and has since become a lightning rod for controversy over gender and sexuality issues. Schools are required to keep parents informed of the courses’ content, but became reticent to do so when questions arose about gender identity-related lessons in 2023. Eventually, the Government released guidance requiring schools to disclose the curriculum’s contents to parents, alongside rules making clear that students could not change genders legally until turning 18, and barring the teaching of “the broader concept of gender identity.”
Meanwhile, educational curriculum addressing toxic masculinity has largely flown under the radar. The report claimed that toxic masculinity’s rapid rise over the past decade has had deleterious effects, including the rise of extremist figures such as Andrew Tate in the absence of positive, mainstream views on masculine identity. “If masculinity is toxic, all boys and men must be too,” the report read. “Arguably it is not a coincidence that extremist figures such as Andrew Tate have become more popular, with a minority of boys and young men turning to dark corners of the internet in search of an identity which has been deemed as toxic from inception elsewhere.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe‘For example, 4% of schools teach that young men as a category are problematic, and 5% teach that they possess traits that are inherently toxic and negative to society.’
The cure is to put the young men on a small boat and they instantly become a positive to society.
“There is nothing – absolutely nothing – half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats”
What about messing with the boats?
Actually, young men in boats have been a positive for society for centuries. The world would not have been explored without them.
Jolly boating weather!
Yes, but they have to be of right colour and religion.
When I went to a left wing school in the 80s, they taught that we shouldn’t stereotype people and judge them based on various identifiable characteristics. My, how the worm has turned…
A fine example of the relational violence that toxic feminity is so adept at.
Three generations of progressive education, where discipline and responsibility were frowned upon and here we are.
Masculinity plus discipline plus responsibility = net positive for society. Masculinity minus these = toxic.
Bingo. It is the lack of discipline in schools that has failed our students. Especially our boys.
And also in the home…
Genuine toxic masculinity is found in the Taliban and similar organisations.
The similarities here between the teaching (for many centuries) that all humans are born with “original sin” is striking.
Does it ever occur to those who still think those teachings are somehow “true” to stand back and look at it from the perspective of teaching that “all males are toxic”?
I doubt it, since “original thought” doesn’t fit alongside belief in original sin.
That’s a fair observation. However, we can all strive to be better people, to push back against our sinful proclivities. We can’t all strive to be other than what we are biologically born as (excepting surgical mutilation).
That too is fair. None of us should feel the slightest guilt for being human, male or indeed white. It’s the mindset that presumes sin/toxicity/privilege by default that i abhor, and which is neither useful or instructive.
It is, however, the same mindset in all cases.
I get your point but this is claiming that only half the population is inherently toxic/sinful. So as a metaphorical standpoint the original premise of “All” is replaced with Half.
At least the concept of original sin is inclusive.
I thought it was Eve who persuaded Adam to nick the apple from the shop.
So women led boys astray from the beginning.
So poor boy was cast out by shop owner and had to work ever since.
Otherwise he could just lounge around drinking, smoking and having 72 vergins at his disposal.
But only if he did not use pager.
I guess I probably mixed up some religious texts.
‘Original sin’ was not concerned with attacking distinct groups, and is a universalist idea demonstrating intrinsic human fallibility and encouraging humility in the face of ingrained human flaws. Everyone has the potential to do wrong etc. No-one is intrinsically good. There’s nothing wrong with that insight.
Although Toxic Masculinity does echo the way in which women have been treated as descendants of Eve
What a strange comment. It’s not the ‘originality’ of sin that’s wrong, but the selective application between the sexes. Original sin seems pretty obvious to me. A few hours spent on the comments section of the internet, and in my own head as I post, confirms that.
The underperformance of boys in school showcases the hypocrisy of liberal, “progressive ‘ society in a number of ways.
Firstly, there doesn’t seem to be much demand for diversity in the teaching profession that’s mostly women, at least in early years of schooling, and on this case would benefit from it, given how rigid and one dimensional females are when interacting with young boys.
There is the lack of hysteria about how unfair it is that one half of society is doing worse than the other.
It’s also really interesting is how easy it is to “victim- blame” in this case. It’s all the fault of those 5 year boys, not the ‘matriarchal” culture around them.
What is really fascinating though, is that it actually helps boys do better on average I’m the longer term, at least the ones who are reasonably in shape. Telling people they are in charge of their own lives works better than telling them they are victims, and everything is the fault of the patriarchy.
It’s a clash of ideologies. The notion that somehow all males possess toxic traits is toxic in itself because it’s inherently untrue
Girls might do better in education when rote learning and recall are required.
When they actually invent great science and create great businesses in comparable number to men then call me.
And when they stop insisting that they should be equality in jobs and careers regardless of ability and achievement.
Strangely they don’t want equality in jobs like bricklayers, coalminers and rubbish collectors.
And teaching.
I would call it selective feminism.
It’s only “toxic” until it’s needed. Kipling had it right:
It’s Tommy this and Tommy that and Tommy how’s your soul?
But it’s thin red line of heros when the drums begin to roll!
Oh come on, be fair.
Labour has only been in power for a couple of months – it will take them a bit longer before it’s up to 100% of schools.
If I was Labour adviser I would suggest that Lord Ali provides free dresses and suits to headteachers to achieve that.
Young teachers quickly learn to tell pupils to walk rather than not to run. The principle is simple: teach the positive behaviour; do not mention the negative. It works.
The same principle should apply to relationship education. Teach all pupils how to treat one another with respect and care; do not even mention the negative. However, when pupils fail to behave positively come down on them like a ton of bricks. It works.
A very strange statement. However, since the progressive education of boys comes down to the breeding of castrates, it is quite in the spirit of the times
Not strange at all! When you tell youngsters ‘don’t drink’, don’t smoke’, or don’t force sex’ these things become a focus for teen rebellion. Yes, it’s deeper than that, but here is not the place for an academic paper! When people are not taught the correct way to behave it is unsurprising when they try wrong ways. Of course, the idea of right and wrong is unfashionable since the dawn of post-modernism, but that also helps explain many current social problems.
Whatever you say to your son, he will become like you. Not what you want him to be, but what you are.
That means you should not care about his teachers, you should care about yourself
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying.
Replace the word ‘man’ with ‘woman’ in this article, and then ask whether the history of our time – written by future generations whose genesis will be, by and large, the voluntary conjoining of a man and a woman – will smile kindly upon the lives of people who pushed such tyrannical and ruthless oppression and abuse upon 50 percent of the human population…..whether such ruthless oppression occurred in the 1950s…or today.
Methinks not.
How about toxic femininity?
I strongly suspect toxic femininity is responsible for most of the teaching of toxic masculinity.
If this is true then it must follow that one third of teachers lack the intellectual apparatus to think for themselves rather than spout the faddy groupthink they picked up at college. And that (putting aside the specific ‘toxic masculiny’ nonsense) is a really huge problem for an education system that is supposed to be about inculcating the ability to think. I just hope that a lot of kids – both boys and girls – just yawn through it all and listen out for the bell. Of course this statistic is no surprise really since some-or-other finger-wagging victimhood narrative has been the default education philosophy – from since 60s at least – and so anything that smacks of it will sooner or later find its way into the curriculum.
It’s appalling that boys are taught that they’re inherently bad, because they were born male. Try that with “black”, or “female” and there would – quite justifiably – be an uproar. Mothers should push back and refuse to allow their sons to be devalued in this way. It’s another wicked Marxist attempt at destructive social engineering, and an attack on the family.
I’m not so sure it’s Marxist – but it is bullying plain and simple.
My understanding of the general use of the term is that not all men are evil, but when men are evil, that evil is rooted in masculinity. It is not an aberration. That is, no matter how rare the behaviour might be, even how atypical, it is still in some way typical. Perhaps just turned up a notch or two.
So the vanishingly rare man who kills a woman is just expressing normal male violence, oppression and misogyny – but a bit more intensely. And all are in some bizarre way responsible for his actions.
And that’s bad enough! Try applying that logic to other groups.
Some people tried on X and ended up in prison.
And girls are not? Someone hasn’t spent much time around females.
It would be interesting to know who.
Everywhere you look in the West (but more so in some countries like the UK and indeed here than in others) you see evidence of societal or even civilisational decline. Crazy carry on.
The only solution to ‘toxic masculinity’ is ‘toxic femininity.’
That is, to realize that all the negative traits associated with men are offset by other-side-of-the-coin positive ones, and to see that all the positive traits associated with women are in the same way counterbalanced by negative ones.
Oh, and of course to realize that these traits differ, on average, between the sexes.
Ending the feminist lie that men and women are the same except women are better, is the only way forward. ‘All sexes are equal but some are more equal than others.’
4% admit teaching it, another 40% simply teach “respect” and “dignity”.
What are little boys made of
What are little boys made of
Snips & snails & puppy dogs tails
And such are little boys made of.
What are little girls made of
What are little girls made of
Sugar & spice & all things nice
And such are little girls made of.
Stop using ‘reticent’ to mean ‘reluctant’.
Sexist rubbish masquerading as education. Well, we have racist rubbish masquerading as education too. The essence of both is treating people differently on the basis of sex, or race or another inherent characteristic that is chosen for negative treatment. Toxic education anyone?
“Nearly one third of all English schools teach toxic masculinity”
I read this as schools teaching ‘how to do toxic masculinity’. Now there’d be a thing to complain about.
4th wave feminism at its best. Now they need to teach that women are hostile to transwomen. And on and on it goes
More quotes from the little known Greek philosopher Testiclese.. Floreat Etona!
Stop trying to teach boys to be girls and girls to be boys.
There are inherent differences that make the world a better place naturally.
I’ve always asked what ever happened to Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn when schools adopted zero tolerance? Their spirits were denigrated in favor of conformity not just of them but for all our lives.
Would have been helpful if the Author actually gave some examples of the teaching she feels inappropriate and how the 4% is derived. Otherwise she’s triggering a reaction without really backing it up.
Kids are conditioned from a v early age. We all know the saying ‘show me a boy at 7 and I’ll show you the man’. By then the conditioning can already sub-consciously have taught the boy they are naturally more violent, not expected to care for babies and have to lead and be on top. That they are naturally supposed to be tough, unemotional, strong and powerful.
Toxic masculinity also means putting down women and femininity in order to raise yourself up. Therefore it’s inherently sexist and homophobic. I’m v happy the grandkids will be taught this. There is a manosphere out there of malign actors teaching otherwise and Grifting money out of these men too. I want my granddaughters to grow less wary of so many men.
Sounds like you need to sort yourself out first if that’s what you believe. Those Re-Education Camps sound nice.
Here you go, did you deliberately miss it.
“Toxic masculinity has multiple contrasting definitions, and its use in educational settings is not uniform. But in some English schools, the most inflammatory read of the concept— that masculinity or men themselves are innately bad — is being taught to students”.
That’s the Author’s interpretation of something they didn’t reference. Let’s see the explicit reference and then we can decide if we agree with the inference. Have you just accepted it without seeing it for yourself because it plays to your confirmatory bias? Are you that easily played?
How is your observation any different. Your whole comment doesn’t make any sense. Can you try just for once not to dissemble. Are you fundamentally dishonest or simply an idiot?
The link is in the article!
Couldn’t find the 4% reference anywhere. What there is in the Report is surveyed feelings conveyed by some young men that they feel they’ve been told all boys a problem but no link to the actual teaching that stated that to them. Now the fact a proportion of boys felt that is important regardless, but that could be because of other factors too. The APPG report doesn’t provide any link to specific teaching examples.
Perhaps the primary issue highlighted in the Report is the marked difference in ‘early language’ development between boys and girls (on average) and how much then flows from that. Hence where we need to intervene earlier. Not a sausage on that in the Article. Insufficiently political one suspects.
You chose the words that most effectively support your weak point.
the conditioning can already sub-consciously have taught the boy they are naturally more violent, not expected to care for babies and have to lead and be on top. That they are naturally supposed to be tough, unemotional, strong and powerful.
Instead of violent try strong. Many, many men care for children and willingly take on the role. Instead of “lead and be on top” try take on responsibility. Instead of “unemotional” try managing their emotions. All of these things that contribute to and work alongside feminine attributes. Nor are these things taught, they’re natural attributes that need guidance in their early years. Toxic masculinity might mean putting down women, but masculinity itself is not toxic. Masculinity is not sexist nor is it homophobic (ironically, in the 70s gays dressed in very masculine ways).
I hope you don’t feed your rubbish to your granddaughters if you want them to enjoy sharing their life with a man in the future.
If all boys had your interpretation of masculinity taught and role modelled from an early age the world would be a better place, esp for Women. Unfortunately that’s not the case is it.
The whole point is that teachers should not be having to do this. It’s the parents job but after three generations of progressive education where discipline and personal responsibility were thought to be “oppressive”, we’re seeing a range of unacceptable behaviours.
How about so called progressives being made accountable for their mistakes.
That’s true, If all people were honest we wouldn’t have prisons. If all people drove carefully we wouldn’t have car accidents. Some boys grow up to be abusive. That doesn’t make masculinity toxic. Harping on at school isn’t going to change that minority of boys.
First – the article links to the report,if you need to know more
Second – we all know of the concept “toxic masculinity” the question is whether it corresponds to anything real which can be unified under such a concept
Third – boys (and girls) are raised and educated almost exclusively by women – so why are they inculcating toxic masculinity?
Fourth – boys are (unfortunately) drawn to characters like Andrew Tate because the only other version of masculinity that they are offered is that it is toxic. Little surprise if the strong ones rebel.
Boys raised exclusively by women? Well even were that true you then know what the answer is then. Fathers have considerable influence, whether doing daily caring duties or absent. The question is what type of influence do they generate.
Tate is attractive to some men because of the ‘victimhood’ meme likes of yourself create. Need to grow up and, dare I say it, be a real man not a pathetic bully like Tate.
“Almost exclusively” is what I said.
Add up the stay at home mums, the single mums and the dominance of women in the teaching profession – especially in primary – and the generally greater role played by women in child rearing.
So why then are kids being “conditioned from an early age” as you put it to be toxic? By whom? On whose watch?
So where do we have most examples of toxic masculinity?
In black communities where fathers are absent and women raise boys on their own.
And among Muslims, where it is about religious teaching.
Lefties like you just don’t want to accept reality because it would explode your woke religion.
We all do. That’s why we want this nonsense to stop.