zalgotext

And if it's like any other government education program, it will produce solely negative and crappy results and just be weaponized against students and teachers both

This is how I know you're just being grumpy to be grumpy. This is extreme hyperbole at best. No public education system is perfect, far from it, but to claim every government education system ever has only produced negative results is insane.

Yes, it's a bad, clickbait headline. That's why it's important to read the articles.

I think you're making some leaps here. Nothing in the article is suggesting that all boys are evil, or that they're going to be socially isolated. Granted, the article doesn't exactly give specifics about how it'll be enacted, but I feel like you're filling in the gaps with the worst stuff you can imagine, and then getting mad at that.

From my reading of the article, it seems like they're just adding topics like pornography, deep-fake/image abuse, consent, coercion, peer-pressure, online abuse, etc. to the curriculum, coupled with training for teachers to be able to recognize and address misogynistic behaviors. Again, I'll grant that the article is missing some important details like how they're going to teach those various topics, how they're going to empower teachers to identify problems, the checks and balances they'll use to prevent teachers abusing the system, what they're defining as misogyny, etc. But I feel like those details are a little too in-the-weeds for this type of overview article, and until we do know what those details are, I don't think filling those gaps by assuming the worst is productive.

You're focusing specifically on porn, but the plan in the article doesn't. The plan isn't to tell boys to "just say no" to porn.

You'll find no disagreements from me that porn isn't necessarily the root cause of misogyny, but I don't think anything in the article suggests that.

After reading the article, it seems like there's a lot more to this than just classes for boys. I struggle to draw the same comparison to 80s abstinence-only sex education, and I think schools can contribute in more ways than the one you listed, like the ones mentioned in the article.

Without the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus is just another guy, and Christmas would just be called Winter Solstice or Yule Festival

I think it's more like all those other things got them closer and closer, and this last thing was the final straw.

We're talking about two different things then. I'm talking about how things should be.

So your argument is that if everyone has access to basic necessities, society would collapse? What in the slipperiest of slopes are you talking about?

If your "society" is dependent on people voluntarily going into wage slavery, maybe it should collapse.

Yes, why the fuck not? Social safety nets and access to basic human necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare should not be gated by some arbitrary number of "working hours".

I don't know how leisurely that leisure time is gonna be, considering he's only got a hundred bucks to play with, coupled with the stress and anxiety of being one car repair or injury away from financial ruin.

You're absolutely right that the social safety net needs improvements, but that net should be there for everyone, not just those that work some arbitrary number of hours.

Big "just pull yourself up by your bootstraps" energy with this comment.

It's insane that you think people have to hit a minimum bar of "productivity" to justify living above a barely-scraping-by level, and that you set that bar at over half a person's waking hours.