PDA

View Full Version : Australian Schools Spending $16 Million on Compulsory ‘Male Privilege’ Courses That Start in Kindergarten



Teh One Who Knocks
10-17-2016, 11:56 AM
By Lukas Mikelionis - Heat Street


http://i.imgur.com/6qDOX0vl.jpg

Australian students starting in kindergarten will be required to study “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women, as part of a new school course aimed at combating family violence.

The Victorian government is planning to blow $16.5 million on the program, despite complaints that it fails due to take into account that family violence is the result of multiple and complex factors, and that the program borders on brainwashing children.

The report evaluating the pilot program launched in 19 schools last year also found that it risks alienating men: The lessons present all men as “bad” and all women as “victims.”

As part of its broader campaign against family violence, the Australian government has released new educational material aimed at kindergarten through high school classes as a violence-prevention strategy.

The resources aim to encourage gender equality in relationships and challenge negative gender stereotypes, which are key drivers of violence against women, according to the material.

The overriding emphasis in the program is on men being perpetrators of violent acts. The lessons will introduce school students to the concept of “privilege”—described as “automatic, unearned benefits bestowed upon dominant groups” based on “gender, *sexuality, race or socio-economic class.”

Curriculum guidance for the grades seven and eight states: “Being born a male, you have advantages—such as being overly represented in the public sphere—and this will be true whether you personally approve or think you are entitled to this privilege.”

In later grades, students will be asked to examine their privilege and ways that equality can be encouraged—such as special benefits or entitlements for less “privileged” groups in society.

“An awareness of the existence of male privilege is critical in understanding why there is a need for feminist perspectives, and education on gender at all,” the curriculum guide points out.

The material also introduces the term “hegemonic masculinity,” defined as the dominant form of masculinity that encourages “boys and men to be heterosexual, tough, athletic and emotionless, and *encourages the control and dominance of men over women.”

The program, however, is under fire from senior educators in the country. Jeremy Sammut, a senior research fellow at the Center for Independent Studies, told The Australian newspaper that it amounted to “taxpayer-funded indoctrination” of children.

He slammed the idea proposed by the program that all men are abusers, and said it’s “an idea that only cloistered feminist academics could love.” He added that “a lot of evidence suggests that like child abuse, domestic *violence is a byproduct of social dysfunction: welfare, drugs, family breakdown.”

Kevin *Donnelly, a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University, said the program lacks balance and objectivity. “There’s no doubt that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence and more needs to be done,” however “25 percent of victims of family violence are men and there’s little, if anything, in there that acknowledges the impact of violence on men and young boys.”

Education Minister James Merino, meanwhile, dismissed concerns over the program, saying: “It’s *astounding anyone could think teaching our kids about respect for other people is a bad thing.”

deebakes
10-17-2016, 12:47 PM
:ffs:

RBP
10-17-2016, 01:01 PM
:shocker:

lost in melb.
10-17-2016, 02:08 PM
I am an educational and developmental psychologist in Victoria and while I haven't specifically looked at the proposal it looks unbalanced and weird. It also looks like the pilot program fell on its arse. Boys will be boys to some extent!


"violence is a byproduct of social dysfunction: welfare, drugs, family breakdown.”

however “25 percent of victims of family violence are men and there’s little, if anything, in there that acknowledges the impact of violence on men and young boys.

Yes, and yes.

RBP
10-17-2016, 03:02 PM
I am an educational and developmental psychologist in Victoria and while I haven't specifically looked at the proposal it looks unbalanced and weird. It also looks like the pilot program fell on its arse. Boys will be boys to some extent!

Yes, and yes.

Same thing here, there's no balance. Your government says the same thing ours does: "violence against women and children". And on the same page (http://www.ourwatch.org.au/) they decry sexism, despite the obvious sexist nature of the initiative.

The main federal funding source in the US is the so-called "Violence Against Women Act". It was amended a couple years ago to including specific funding for LGBT domestic violence. Which means there is only one class of human that the federal government specifically refuses to provide funding for - heterosexual males. There are virtually no services available for male victims (unless gay) and almost all shelters are female only. Battered men are often arrested as the perpetrator and even get referred to hot lines for perpetrators when call for assistance as the victims.

I am sure you know that statistics, and I doubt 25% is accurate (that's really low) when you consider that study after study has demonstrated that the majority of abusive relationships are mutually abusive. Several that I have read say that women abuse more, but men do more physical damage. It's definitely not 75/25 and all single-abuser as that would suggest - that isn't very logical. I usually characterize it as 25% male only perp, 25% female only perp, 50% mutual. Those numbers are defensible by research.

There's absolutely no reason to divide the issue. Why can't we just fund domestic violence programs and make it cover all aspects? Understanding mutual abuse is probably the most important part.

This whole issue gets under my skin. It's mind numbing.

lost in melb.
10-18-2016, 09:33 AM
Same thing here, there's no balance. Your government says the same thing ours does: "violence against women and children". And on the same page (http://www.ourwatch.org.au/) they decry sexism, despite the obvious sexist nature of the initiative.

The main federal funding source in the US is the so-called "Violence Against Women Act". It was amended a couple years ago to including specific funding for LGBT domestic violence. Which means there is only one class of human that the federal government specifically refuses to provide funding for - heterosexual males. There are virtually no services available for male victims (unless gay) and almost all shelters are female only. Battered men are often arrested as the perpetrator and even get referred to hot lines for perpetrators when call for assistance as the victims.

I am sure you know that statistics, and I doubt 25% is accurate (that's really low) when you consider that study after study has demonstrated that the majority of abusive relationships are mutually abusive. Several that I have read say that women abuse more, but men do more physical damage. It's definitely not 75/25 and all single-abuser as that would suggest - that isn't very logical. I usually characterize it as 25% male only perp, 25% female only perp, 50% mutual. Those numbers are defensible by research.

There's absolutely no reason to divide the issue. Why can't we just fund domestic violence programs and make it cover all aspects? Understanding mutual abuse is probably the most important part.

This whole issue gets under my skin. It's mind numbing.

Same here. Throughout all the 'little incidents' with my friends and family, I have only known men to have copped physical abuse ;)

I am happy to go long with men being expected to be more restrained than women...we are stronger, no probs...but not to the extent that we become punching bags for 'liberated' females