By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New government guidance for English secondary schools will address “incel” culture, pornography’s link to misogyny, and online “manosphere” myths. The updated relationships, sex, and health education (RSHE) curriculum, informed by data revealing widespread misogynistic attitudes, emphasizes positive role models for boys and challenges harmful online content. Furthermore, schools will be required to seek mental health expertise to discuss suicide prevention, while parents will retain the right to view curriculum materials. The guidance avoids age-specific restrictions on topics, allowing teachers to address issues raised by students, which is supported by the Association of School and College Leaders.
Read the original article here
Secondary schools in England to tackle ‘incel’ culture and teach positive role models is a complex issue, and the potential for a program like this to backfire is significant.
The concern is, if these efforts are “half-assed,” they risk becoming a source of mockery, much like the DARE program in the 90s. The adults tasked with delivering this education might not be equipped to understand or effectively counter the nuances of online culture that fuels incel ideologies. They might struggle to connect with teenagers who are immersed in this world, leading to lessons that fall flat and feel out of touch.
The curriculum itself faces a challenge. Those crafting it may lack the firsthand knowledge of the online spaces where incel culture thrives. Relying on surface-level information or rehashing articles won’t resonate with young people who are already deeply entrenched in these communities. To be truly effective, those creating the program would need to have a deep understanding of the terminology, the evolution of these ideas, and where they’re heading.
Finding positive role models is a hurdle as well. In the past, the media often presented a sanitized version of role models, hiding their flaws. Today, with the constant flow of information, it’s difficult to present someone as a perfect example of behavior. It is likely that the idea of idolizing others may not be the best approach.
A critical point raised is the importance of understanding the underlying causes of incel ideology. Simply telling boys not to be misogynistic will not work. The root causes, such as feelings of worthlessness, invisibility, and societal pressures, must be addressed.
The current social climate plays a significant role in this. Society’s actions, from advertising to education, can indirectly reinforce feelings of inadequacy in young men. The message that they are less worthy could contribute to the problem.
This approach is unlikely to succeed. The government and those responsible for these programs are often out of touch, so any lessons will be met with eye-rolling. A head-on approach to this issue might embolden incel communities rather than dismantle them.
A more effective solution might involve improving the lives of young men. This could mean providing more clubs, social activities, and opportunities for positive interactions. Accessible and free options can give young men something to do. These clubs can also provide opportunities to observe positive male role models.
The key is to create an environment where young men feel valued and have positive outlets for their energy.
One significant challenge is the lack of male teachers in secondary schools. This absence reduces the availability of male role models within the educational setting. As well as the lack of a clear definition of what makes an incel. The original term, “involuntarily celibate” covers a wide spectrum of situations, and today the term focuses on those with poor social skills who are angry about not having their needs met.
The design of the program itself presents a risk. If the program targets only “angry entitled children” without offering a better alternative, it may only increase the feeling of being attacked and ignored. There is also the risk of making those who are susceptible, more in line with the “manosphere” because of feeling persecuted.
The approach of trying to teach these young people about good role models is likely to cause distaste and distrust. An approach that is much more likely to succeed involves telling the boys to “shut up, sit down, and behave” in a manner that would be similar to the “good girls” of the 1950s, and this would not work.
The problem is, you have to *show* these behaviors, not just teach them. You can improve the lives of young men so that they are no longer attracted to incel culture. Those drawn to these ideas are often those who feel that their lives are not as good as they could be.
The very influencers these programs aim to combat are likely to use these lessons in their favor, by making their opponents look foolish.
There is a need for good men to step up and lead the charge to reverse toxic mindsets. The goal is to tackle the underlying issues. The best outcome is to make masturbation cool and take responsibility for your own gratification.
The lack of social contact that has turned into straight up fear and paranoia of our neighbors has also increased the popularity of the incel culture, and also the amount of content and content that is viewed online can warp minds.