273
Boys to learn difference between porn and real life to tackle misogyny in England’s schools
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
273 points (96.3% liked)
World News
51337 readers
2047 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I don’t know what you’re not understanding here. There isn’t anything inherently sexual about skirts, you see the image as ironic because you see the short skirts as a portrayal of indecency, in some way. If when you were a boy, you weren’t socialized to think that girls must look a certain way or maintain their purity, you wouldn’t find it ironic. The irony is there; just not the reason why you thought.
Stop sexualizing young girls.
And again, I am not commenting on the cloths the girls are wearing, insofar as it is their choice. I am commenting that it's a bit wierd that images like this are always selected for these stories. They rarely chose images of schoolboys, or girls wearing trousers. Why is that?
You're trying to imply that I'm some sort of peado for noticing a weird trend in displaying young girls, whilst also defending that trend as perfectly normal.
Why is it so important for the pictures of girls wearing pants to be displayed for you? What is it that that would achieve in your world?
You're trying to imply that I'm some sort 9f peado for noticing a weird trend of displaying young girls, whilst defending that trend as perfectly normal. I am just pointing out that this trend exists. In this case, in an article about boys and boys behaviour what purpose is the picture of some girls?
We're not saying you're a paedophile. We are saying that 1. You nnoticed and referenced the girls first, and 2. Commented immediately on what they were wearing. That in and of itself identifies what is important to you .... which seems to be that you want girls/women to dress 'appropriately' vs them being able to dress as they choose.
(In this context I'm setting aside the fact the pic shows them all wearing black and white which denotes a school-type uniform/regulation).
I noticed the girls and their clothing as a continuation of the trend. I trend which I have noticed over several years of such stories. Why does this trend exist? Can you explain?
And as I have said repeatedly, but I will stress once again, I am not commenting on peoples choice to wear whatever they want, regardless of age or gender. I am commenting on the choice, by the photographers to always photograph one gender, of a particular age, wearing particular clothes. Or perhaps the editors to always chose images which meet those criteria, as I'm sure the photographers take many many photos. Or are they simply stock images, and there is a limited pool to choose from? I don't know, I'm not a journalist. But nonetheless, this trend exists, and I think it's a bit weird.
Also you say I immediately commented.... Well, when should I have commented?
This is what you’re saying to everyone else;
“Isn’t it weird how children wear clothes?”
No, it isn’t. There isn’t a trend for anyone apart from you, no one thinks that children in uniform is odd, no one feels like a creepy uncle looking at them. You’re asking others for an answer you can only give yourself. You should ask yourself why that bothers you and work through whatever is making you uncomfortable.
What I am saying is, "isn't it weird how, out of all the children wearing clothes, the newspapers decided to predominantly show one subset". Why is that? Can you explain?
I should explain to you uniforms and why children are largely pictured wearing them? Goodbye.
You didn’t answer the question, and instead focused on what you feel I’m assuming about you. There isn’t any need to assume; your view is pretty clear. I will answer your question. The picture of girls serves a purpose as they are the subject of the abuse, not only from their peers but from people who objectify them as well. Why would it be a better picture if they had pants on? Why does the length of their skirt matter to you? You mentioned in an earlier comment that musicians putting adults in school girl outfits was wrong. I agree, but you’re not capturing that the reason adult women are made to wear uniforms that are viewed as sexy have already sexualized by grown men. The reason the uniforms are SEEN as sexy is because young girls wear them, and an alarming amount of adults find that attractive, horrifically. You’re perpetuating that, because if you didn’t find anything sexual about short skirts, you wouldn’t have any comment about what pictures were used or not. If you’re not being hypocritical and ignorant; explain how that is.
Well first, it wasn't me who mentioned about musicians or adults in school girl clothing.
I have comment because, if a random selection of schoolchildren were photographed, I would expect an even distribion of boys and girls; and for girls short skirts, long skirts and trousers. But we we don't see that in the pictures which are selected. We overwhelmingly see girls, in short skirts. In my opinion that is weird. It gives creepy uncle vibes.
Why would you expect to see many if any girls in long skirts or trousers. Are those particularly fashionable for girls in school?
Thinking back to my own school days, nearly every girl was wearing a skirt and they wanted it as short as the rules would let.
I think it’s weird to you, because you’re thinking unclean things. Children shouldn’t look like anything to you depending on their clothes. I’ll reiterate that you should address that within yourself; as there is nothing wrong with the picture or using pictures of boys and girls wearing their school uniforms.
Now you are moving the goal posts. "pictures of boys and girls wearing their school uniforms." I've been quite clear that that's not what I'm referring to. Can you explain why there is not an even distrubtion of boys/girls; long/short/trousers, as I described in my previous post?
No, I’m not explaining anything further to you. I’ve done enough free emotional labor for you and it’s now time for you to use your head.
😂. So you've finally understood my point. You could just say 'oh, yeah, that is weird!' but you got too invested in implying I'm a peado didn't you? So now your pride won't allow you to do anything but slink away. Bye!
Maybe you feel like girls and women owe you the labor that you are either too uneducated or lazy to obtain for yourself but even with owing you nothing, I gave you so much information you just don’t comprehend. I’m not a fan of wasting my time is all, so save the projection for the therapist you so desperately need.
The only information you have given me is that 1) you think I'm a peado and 2) you like looking at pictures of schoolgirls.
The one thing I have actually asked you: why do the newspapers so so many images of one particular type? And you refuse to answer. Whilst defending the practice.
If you require more female attention I suggest you speak with your mother. I don’t owe you anything, and you keep pressing me for replies like you are owed something from me or anyone else. Goodbye.
I'm pressing you for one reply, to justify or defend the position you have argued yourself into. But you can't, can you because you know you're wrong. Or you like looking at pictures of schoolgirls.....