Plans for a new government initiative to send schoolboys on anti-misogyny courses have been met with a complex mix of support and concern. Announced by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer on Thursday 18 December 2025, the strategy aims to halve violence against women and girls. It includes "behaviour change programmes" for pupils as young as 11 who display harmful attitudes, focusing on challenging deep-rooted misogynistic influences.
A Parent's Perspective: Beyond Demonisation
While fully endorsing the urgent need to eradicate violence against women, Victoria Young, a mother of a 15-year-old boy, voices significant reservations. She believes the policy risks being reductive. Her experience is that many young men instinctively treat girls and women as equals, no more needing lessons in respect than in basic life skills. This perspective is bolstered by polling data: a YouGov survey reveals that while 23% of boys aged 13-15 view figures like Andrew Tate positively, only 12% agree with his views on women specifically. This means a significant 88% do not share his misogynistic outlook.
Young acknowledges issues with casual misogyny and toxic masculinity in schools exist, but argues that making teenage boys the primary target misses the broader picture. "There is a worrying whiff of blame – and shame – emanating from the implication that teenage boys are the problem," she writes. "To me, this feels like a government scratching the wrong itch." She suggests viewing problematic behaviour as a symptom of wider societal failures, rather than the root cause itself.
The Fragile State of Modern Masculinity
The article highlights a crisis in masculinity that extends far beyond schoolyards. Boys are three times more likely to die by suicide than girls, pointing to profound struggles. Growing up post-#MeToo, many boys are uncertain about modern manhood, sometimes raised in an environment where discussions about consent can feel accusatory. This vulnerability is exploited by toxic online algorithms and influential figures.
Figures like Andrew Tate and Joe Rogan become "pied pipers for lost boys looking for a tribe." This influence manifests in worrying trends, such as the 56% of 18- to 29-year-old American men who voted for Donald Trump in the recent US election. The problem, therefore, is systemic. Rather than solely blaming boys, Young advocates lifting the curtain on social media giants whose algorithms actively target impressionable young minds with extreme content. Teachers, she argues, cannot be expected to put the "toxic genie back in the bottle" when it is being peddled at an industrial scale online.
Alternative Solutions: Understanding Over Shaming
The proposed solution is not inaction, but a shift in focus. The piece calls for several alternative measures:
- Holding tech platforms accountable for regulating hateful and divisive content.
- Focusing on lawmakers who fail to implement robust online safety laws for young people.
- Platforming positive male role models, as suggested by former England manager Gareth Southgate.
- Investing in structured, offline social experiences through properly funded youth and sports clubs.
The efforts of former cricketer Andrew Flintoff are cited, whose Field of Dreams series highlighted the transformative potential—and chronic underfunding—of grassroots sports facilities in places like Preston, Manchester, and Liverpool. Greater investment here could offer a vital alternative to digital life.
In conclusion, Young emphasises that a constellation of environmental factors shapes behaviour. If there is an epidemic of misogyny, the problem is bigger than teenage boys. She ends by recommending Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's book We Should All Be Feminists, which argues that feminism liberates everyone from limiting stereotypes. The path forward, she insists, lies in understanding and addressing the wider societal landscape, not in blaming a generation.
