Misogyny is Everywhere According to Feminists! By Mrs Vera West
The article from The Guardian.com,titled "'Teachers are describing something different': the escalating culture of misogyny in Australian classrooms,"
is an extract from Jess Hill's Quarterly Essay. It explores what Hill and various educators describe as a rising tide of misogynistic behavior among students, particularly boys, in Australian schools. The piece draws on anecdotes from teachers, statistics from organisations like Our Watch, and broader societal observations to argue that this generation of students is exhibiting unprecedented levels of "performative toxicity" alongside a paradoxical "switched-on" awareness. Hill questions whether education, specifically respectful relationships programs, can effectively curb this behavior, positioning schools as a critical battleground in the "river of prevention" metaphor for stopping violence before it starts.
The article highlights several alarming trends: primary school teachers report weekly incidents of child-on-child sexual abuse, high school students engage in sexual exploitation via deepfake technology (e.g., the Bacchus Marsh case), and female teachers face sexual harassment, rape threats, and physical intimidation from male students. Hill ties these behaviors to broader cultural shifts, including the influence of violent and misogynistic pornography, with seven out of ten young people reportedly encountering aggression against women in such content. She also notes a post-Covid escalation in student violence and mental health issues, suggesting a complex interplay of factors beyond simple gender dynamics.
From a critical stance, the article's heavy emphasis on misogyny as the central framing device raises questions about whether this narrative might be overplayed as a feminist ploy—a strategic amplification of gender-specific grievances to advance a particular ideological agenda. While the behaviours described are undeniably troubling, the singular focus on misogyny risks oversimplifying a multifaceted issue, potentially sidelining other contributing factors like general youth aggression, technological amplification of cruelty, or societal breakdowns in discipline and mental health support. For instance, the article mentions a "noticeable deterioration in students' mental health" and "problematic behaviours" post-Covid, yet these are quickly subsumed under the misogyny umbrella rather than explored as parallel or even primary drivers.
The reliance on anecdotal evidence—teachers' stories of moaning in class or deepfake incidents—while visceral, lacks rigorous quantification to substantiate the claim of an "escalating culture." The Our Watch statistic (seven out of ten young people seeing violent porn) is compelling but lacks context: how does this compare historically or globally? Is this a uniquely Australian crisis, or a broader digital-age phenomenon? Hill's critique of respectful relationships education as insufficient is fair—its efficacy is indeed debated—but her implication that it's failing because it doesn't address misogyny head-on assumes the problem is primarily gendered rather than, say, a failure of enforcement or broader cultural rot.
Moreover, the feminist lens could be seen as a ploy in how it positions boys as perpetrators and girls (and female teachers) as victims, potentially exaggerating a binary narrative for rhetorical effect. The Bacchus Marsh deepfake case, for example, is horrific, but it's framed as misogyny without exploring whether such tech-driven humiliation might also target boys or stem from a more general impulse to degrade peers. Similarly, the article's nod to "male superiority" beliefs among students isn't substantiated with data showing how widespread this is versus, say, generic rebelliousness or attention-seeking.
Hill's call for education to "change student behaviour" assumes a top-down moral reengineering that might overestimate schools' influence against the "tidal wave" of online culture she describes. This could reflect a feminist tendency to lean on systemic solutions (education, policy) while underplaying individual agency or parental roles—another critique of the approach as a ploy to centralise power in ideological frameworks rather than distribute responsibility. The piece doesn't engage with counterarguments, like whether boys' "performative toxicity" might partly be a reaction to perceived cultural shaming of masculinity by crazed feminists, a point raised in some gender studies critiques.
In short, while the article flags real issues—sexualised behaviour, tech misuse, teacher safety—it's open to critique for overplaying misogyny as the linchpin, possibly to align with feminist advocacy goals. A more balanced account might weigh gender alongside class, technology, and post-pandemic stress, avoiding the risk of turning a complex social problem into a gendered crusade.
But, that is exactly what feminism is, unbalanced!
Comments