Schools to teach anti-misogyny lessons in bid to tackle ‘manosphere'
It also stresses the need to avoid 'stigmatising boys for being boys'.
As well as lessons on so-called incel (involuntary celibate) culture, secondary schools will be required to provide young people with greater awareness of AI, deepfakes and links between pornography and misogyny.
The guidance comes as the Department for Education (DfE) warned that misogynistic attitudes had reached 'epidemic scale' among young people, with 54% of those aged 11-19 saying they had witnessed misogynist comments.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said the new guidance would help children resist 'manipulation' by social media influencers (Lucy North/PA)
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said: 'Before I was elected to Parliament, I managed a refuge for women and children fleeing domestic violence, so I have seen first-hand the devastating impact when we don't foster healthy attitudes from the youngest age.
'I want our children to be equipped to defy the malign forces that exist online. Schools and parents alike have a vital role to play, helping children identify positive role models and resist the manipulation too often used online to groom impressionable young minds.'
In its manifesto last year, Labour pledged to halve the rate of violence against women and girls in 10 years.
And earlier in 2025, Sir Keir Starmer praised the Netflix drama Adolescence for highlighting how misogyny had 'taken on a different form' and said he wanted a discussion on what could be done to stop young boys 'being dragged into this whirlpool of hatred and misogyny'.
Margaret Mulholland, of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the new guidance and its focus on finding positive male role models for boys, saying it was 'important that we don't simply tell boys what is wrong'.
Sir Keir Starmer, pictured with writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson, praised the Netflix drama Adolescence (Jack Taylor/PA)
The previous Conservative government proposed changing the guidance on RSHE in May last year, with then-prime minister Rishi Sunak expressing concern children were being exposed to 'inappropriate' content.
The draft guidance, which was open to a nine-week consultation, proposed clear age limits on the teaching of certain topics to ensure children were not 'exposed to too much too soon'.
It said sex education should be taught no earlier than Year 5, when pupils are aged nine to 10, and that what is described as the 'contested topic of gender identity' should not be taught at all.
The proposed guidance said schools should 'at minimum' show parents a representative sample of teaching resources they plan to use and that schools 'should respond positively to requests from parents to see material that has not already been shared'.
While Tuesday's revised guidance includes the requirement to provide parents with teaching materials, the new Government has scrapped the proposal to prescribe specific ages at which individual topics are taught.
The DfE said there would be a 'strong new emphasis on age-appropriate' teaching, and a 'clear dividing line' between primary and secondary school.
But the guidance would allow teachers to 'sensitively respond to topics that children might have seen online or heard from their friends', with research suggesting 22% of primary school-aged girls had seen 'rude images online'.
Tuesday's guidance also includes requirements on helping children with their mental health, including working with mental health professionals to discuss suicide prevention 'in an age-appropriate way'.
Children will be taught the importance of 'grit and resilience' in order to help them 'feel able to take on challenges and risks'.
Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen – who founded suicide prevention charity 3 Dads Walking in memory of their daughters – said: 'Giving schools permission to talk about suicide prevention means more young people can be supported to open up about difficult feelings and know where to find help.
'We know, from painful personal experience, how much this matters. This change will save lives.'
Schools will be able to implement the guidance from September this year, and must follow it from September 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour slides further behind Reform in poll after disastrous spell for Keir Starmer with fears Brits are about to be hammered by tax hikes
Labour has slumped to six points behind Reform after a week of Labour turmoil over tax rises, a new poll reveals today. Sir Keir Starmer had reduced the deficit with Nigel Farage 's party to two points with YouGov, but that gap has widened again as speculation grows that Rachel Reeves will use the Budget to increase taxes for millions of Britons. Ministers are also being coy over whether a specific 'wealth tax' - demanded by hard left backbenchers - might be introduced. Reform is on 28 per cent, up two, and Labour is on 22 per cent (-2) after a week in which Sir Keir also unveiled plans for a one in, one out migrant deal with France. The agreement, made with much fanfare during a state visit by Emmanuel Macron, will see the UK take one migrant from France with links to Britain for every small boat arrival sent back across the Channel. However, reports suggest the pilot scheme will as few as 50 per week, raising questions about whether it will provide a deterrent to the thousands making the journey. Labour's tax shambles deepened today as a minister suggested only those on 'average incomes' will be protected from looming hikes. Roads minister Lilian Greenwood appeared to commit to protecting those on incomes of up to £39,000 from desperate efforts to fill a black hole in the public finances. But she gave another strong hint that the 'wealthy' will be hammered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves - saying the government thought those with the 'broadest shoulders' should pay. The comments came as Ms Greenwood was grilled over Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander's claim on Sunday that those on 'modest incomes' would be spared pain. She told Sky News: 'I think it means people who earn kind of around average income.' Challenged that was roughly £39,000 a year, she added: 'I can't tell you exactly what the Transport Secretary had in her mind when she said that, but our promise when we came in was that we wouldn't hit working people with increases in employee national insurance, in income tax or VAT, and we've absolutely stuck to those promises.' Pressed that she seemed to be saying there was a wealth tax coming, Ms Greenwood replied: 'Well these are decisions for the Chancellor, but clearly we've always said that we think those who've got the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden.' Yesterday Ms Reeves pointedly only committed to holding rates on 'taxes that working people pay'. Visiting a school in Wigan, she suggested that just meant no change to income tax, employee national insurance and VAT as she struggles to fill an estimated £30billion black hole. But pushed on Labour demands for a 'wealth tax', Ms Reeves said: 'We haven't even set the date for the budget yet, so please forgive me if I don't speculate about what might happen at an event we haven't even decided a date on yet.'
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Europe's defence splurge can avoid economic flop
BERLIN, July 15 (Reuters Breakingviews) - The European leaders who are promising higher military spending are not doing so for economic reasons. That's just as well. The headline numbers may look impressive, with spending set to increase from the current 2% of GDP to 5% of output by 2035. But defence expenditure often has a limited impact on output. Governments can still improve the payoff by changing the ways they invest. Military spending, to begin with, is not a major growth booster. A recent report, opens new tab by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy showed, based on historical evidence, that the so-called fiscal multiplier is often lower than 1. That figure measures how changes in a country's budget balance affect its economic growth. In other words, a 1% of GDP increase in military spending triggers a rise in GDP of less than 1% in the short term. Goldman Sachs analysts estimate, opens new tab that the multiplier in Europe is even lower, at 0.5, meaning that 100 euros spent on defence increase the region's GDP by just 50 euros. One reason for the limited economic impact of military spending is that it tends to crowd out private investment, with households and businesses increasing their savings. Further limiting the economic boon is the fact that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and their colleagues have committed to a gradual buildup. The new NATO target of 5% of GDP, agreed, opens new tab in The Hague on June 25, would only be reached in 2035. An extra 3% of GDP would add 660 billion euros overall for the European members of NATO, based on the International Monetary Fund's economic forecasts. But spread over a decade, the incremental annual boost to GDP would be an average 0.3% of GDP at best, assuming a generous fiscal multiplier of 1. That is not insignificant for countries with stagnating economies, but not enough to put Europe on a stronger growth path. The real numbers are even less impressive after discarding some generous accounting. The new NATO target, opens new tab is just 3.5% of GDP using the usual definition of defence expenditure. The remaining 1.5% is termed as 'related' spending, such as cybersecurity or infrastructure, thrown in to get the number to the 5% level that U.S. President Donald Trump had demanded. Much of that loosely linked spending was already in current budget plans. Governments, however, have ways to make the best of their planned military splurge. When it comes to defence, not all euros are created equal. Ethan Ilzetzki, professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science and the author of the Kiel Institute report, notes that the way the new spending is financed will matter. The growth boost will be greater if governments choose to fund it through borrowing instead of higher taxes, which would have a negative impact on growth. Europeans must also look carefully at how they spend the money. Beefing up the number of troops will ripple through the economy in a narrow way, through new soldiers' salaries, even if that category represents for now the largest part, opens new tab of Europe's defence outlays at around 40%. Spending more on equipment, currently 20% of total, will have a higher impact on the private sector. The most productive step governments could take would be to increase their research and development investment. For the European Union, it now stands at a paltry 4.5% of military budgets, compared with 16% in the United States, noted the recent competitiveness, opens new tab report by former central banker Mario Draghi. Investing more in newer technologies, such as weapons equipped with artificial intelligence, can over the medium term increase the sector's productivity, and even have ripple effects on civilian industries. Finally, Europe needs to favour its domestic industry. Imports currently account for more than 80% of Europe's procurement, three-quarters of which comes from the United States. To manufacture more weapons at home, national capitals would have to agree common strategic needs, pool resources and keep restructuring the defence sector. At the moment, Europe's spending on U.S. kit is stimulating the American economy instead. These constrains show that, as things stand, some economies will benefit more than others from the splurge. Germany has done away with fiscal restraint and announced that it will spend 3.5% of its budget on core defence by 2029, six years ahead of the NATO deadline. Meeting the target would add more than 100 billion euros to its military expenditure by then. As it is financed by debt, and if Chancellor Friedrich Merz doesn't spend too much trying to swell the ranks of the Bundeswehr, opens new tab, the boost will help the German economy out of its three-year recession. Fiscally challenged France and Britain, on the other hand, with gross public debt at more than 100% of GDP, will struggle to get economic returns from their military buildup, which will be slower and financed through austerity. The widely different possible economic outcomes illustrate that fixating on GDP targets is counterproductive, as Ilzetzki notes. It generates the wrong incentives, turning defence policy into an urge to 'get the money out the door' regardless of the equipment and cost involved. After all, nothing would get NATO closer to its target than blindly buying unneeded and overpriced gear from cash-hungry weapons manufacturers. Governments' energy would be better spent on defining the desired outcomes of their defence policies, including the ideal size of their armies, the nature of equipment they need, and how much they'll spend on research to keep their forces well-equipped. Big, easy-to-understand GDP targets can work as political statements. They do little to change the underlying economic reality. Follow Pierre Briancon on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump dismisses parliamentary recall idea and praises Starmer's Brexit efforts
Donald Trump has said he does not want parliament to be recalled for his state visit to the UK, praising the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and saying that despite being a liberal he was 'straightening out' a 'sloppy' Brexit. Speaking to the BBC in a rare interview with the broadcaster, the US president said he had made trade agreements to lower tariffs on the UK specifically because of his affinity with Britain, saying 'I do' believe in the special relationship between the two countries. Trump added that he was convinced the UK would come to the US's aid if it were at war. He said: 'I think they would be, I don't think a lot of the other countries would be. 'It's a special relationship. Look, that's why I made a deal with them … for the most part in terms of your competitors and in terms of the European Union, I haven't made a deal. Now the UK is very special … they have been a really true ally.' Trump, who will visit the UK for an unprecedented second state visit in September, said he was happy only to visit Starmer and King Charles, rather than have the opportunity to address parliament, like the French president, Emmanuel Macron, did last week. Parliament will be in recess during the US president's state visit. The Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, has said parliament should be recalled for an address from Trump, but the US president said he was not interested. 'I think let them go and have a good time. I don't want that. 'I want to have a good time and respect to King Charles, because he's a great gentleman.' Trump, who has previously been a key advocate of Brexit, suggested he did not think the potential had been fulfilled – but said Starmer was making progress. 'No, I think, I think it's been on the sloppy side, but I think it's getting straightened out. I really like the prime minister a lot even though he's a liberal, I think he's, you know, he did a good trade deal with us.' Trump said he believed there was a newfound respect for him among world leaders – now he had twice won the presidency. 'When you do it twice, it's the big difference. I also think that over the years, they've gotten to know me, this is not an easy crowd to break into,' he said. 'These are smart people heading up very, very successful … countries, you know, they're Germany and France, Spain and, yeah, big.' Asked if he felt world leaders were being too obsequious and deferential, Trump said: 'Well, I think they're just trying to be nice.' Trump said he was 'disappointed, but not done' with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, hours after he announced a military deal with Nato countries to arm Ukraine. His announcement, alongside the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, in the Oval Office, has been viewed in Europe as an important shift from Washington. When asked if he was done with Putin, the president replied: 'I'm disappointed in him, but I'm not done with him. But I'm disappointed in him. 'We had a deal done four times and then you go home and you see just attacked a nursing home in Kyiv. And so what the hell was that all about?' Asked if he trusted him, he said: 'I trust almost nobody, to be honest with you.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Trump also said he strongly supported Nato, saying that rather than being 'obsolete' as he had previously said, it was now 'becoming the opposite of that'. He said it was 'very unfair because the United States paid for almost 100% of it, but now they are paying their own bills.' Asked if he believes in Nato's fundamental Article 5 on collective defence, he said: 'I think collective defence is fine.' But he later added that he believed Britain was one of the only countries that would come to the aid of the US if needed. 'One of the problems with Nato was, we have to fight for them but will they actually fight for us if we had a war? And I will say this, I believe that the UK would fight with us. It's just been so many years and I really think the relationship is just a really good one.' In the interview, Trump also reflected on the attempted assassination of him, which the BBC journalist Gary O'Donoghue witnessed at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, last July. 'We had 55,000 people, and it was dead silence. And so, you know, I assumed that they expected the worst,' he said. 'And so I had to let them know I was OK, which is what I did. That's why I tried to get up as quick as possible. They had a stretcher ready to go. I said: 'No, thank you.' I actually had a big argument with them. They wanted me on a stretcher. And I said: 'Nope, I'm not doing that.'' Trump said he did not like to spend time thinking about that day – but acknowledged it could affect him deeply if he started to dwell on it. He said: 'I like to think about it as little as possible. 'I don't like dwelling on it, because if I did, it might be life changing. I don't want it to be that.'
