Report on Misogyny in Educational Settings and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Threat to Inclusive and Equitable Education

This report examines the escalating issue of misogyny within Australian educational institutions, highlighting its direct opposition to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). Incidents reported by educators reveal a systemic problem that undermines the safety, well-being, and educational outcomes of both students and staff, thereby impeding progress towards peaceful and inclusive societies as outlined in SDG 16.

I. Impact on Educational Environments and SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The prevalence of misogynistic behavior creates a hostile learning environment, fundamentally compromising the principles of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all. This environment negatively affects the mental health and well-being of both educators and students, a concern central to SDG 3.

A. Educator Experiences and Professional Well-being

Testimonies from current and former teachers illustrate a significant barrier to providing quality education. These experiences include:

• Psychological Intimidation: Former teacher Holly Cooper recounts incidents of students asserting dominance and creating an atmosphere of fear, noting, “Once the kids smell fear, then you’re kind of done for.” This directly compromises the goal of a safe and non-violent learning environment.
• Verbal and Sexual Harassment: Educators report being subjected to derogatory language, sexualisation, and explicit threats. Anonymous accounts detail severe incidents that constitute gender-based violence:
  1. A creative writing exercise describing a gang rape of the teacher.
  2. Mock-stabbings of a pregnant teacher by male students.
  3. A student posting on social media about masturbating to a teacher.

Such environments contribute to teacher burnout and attrition, further destabilizing the educational system and impacting the quality of instruction mandated by SDG 4.

B. Student Behavior and the Normalization of Violence

The report identifies a worrying trend in student attitudes, which directly undermines SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by normalizing violence and disrespect.

• Internalization of Harmful Norms: An exercise conducted by Holly Cooper revealed female students normalizing acts of intimidation, with one justifying a male partner hitting a wall next to her head because “he didn’t hit me.” This indicates a dangerous desensitization to gender-based violence.
• Silencing of Female Students: Reports suggest that girls are becoming quieter in classrooms to avoid negative attention, limiting their participation and educational development, a clear violation of the principles of equitable education (SDG 4) and gender equality (SDG 5).

II. The Influence of Digital Platforms and the ‘Manosphere’

The rise of misogynistic attitudes is strongly correlated with the proliferation of harmful online content, posing a significant challenge to SDG 5 by promoting regressive gender stereotypes and hostility towards women and girls.

A. Radicalization and Harmful Masculinity

NSW Women’s Safety Commissioner, Dr. Hannah Tonkin, observes that social media algorithms expose teenage boys to ‘manosphere’ content that promotes:

• A return to “traditional masculinity,” defined by toughness, dominance, and emotional suppression.
• A narrative of male victimhood, blaming feminism for societal problems.
• Sexist stereotypes and jokes that, according to Dr. Tonkin, contribute “to an environment where violence against women is more likely to be tolerated and more likely to occur.”

This online ecosystem directly counters efforts to achieve gender equality and promote healthy relationships, impacting the well-being of young men (SDG 3) by fostering insecurity and aggression.

B. Personal Impact on Young Men

The testimony of Jefferson, a 26-year-old influenced by this content, reveals the personal cost. He describes a journey from seeking self-improvement advice to being led into a “darker terrain” where women were blamed for his difficulties. This led to:

• Damaged relationships due to a distorted perception of women.
• Severe self-judgment and feelings of worthlessness tied to external validation.

Youth advocate Daniel Principe notes this content is a “diet” served to boys, making it unsurprising that “these attitudes then leak out” into real-world behavior that contravenes the principles of respect and equality.

III. Path Forward: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach for SDG Alignment

Addressing this crisis requires a coordinated effort from all sectors of society to uphold commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals.

A. Promoting Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

Experts advocate for greater accountability for digital platforms, which profit from harmful content. Key recommendations include:

1. Regulatory Action: Governments must enforce regulations, such as Australia’s e-Safety laws, to compel tech companies to assess risks and build safety protections into their platforms. Dr. Tonkin states they “can’t continue to turn a blind eye to the real-world harms.”
2. Institutional Responsibility: Schools must implement and enforce clear consequences for misogynistic behavior to ensure they are safe and just institutions for all, in line with SDG 16’s call for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

B. Fostering Gender Equality (SDG 5) and Quality Education (SDG 4)

A community-wide approach is essential to counteract harmful narratives and create a culture of respect.

• Grassroots Education: Educators like Daniel Principe are working with students and parents to build critical thinking skills to navigate online content. He emphasizes that boys are “very open to having these conversations” when approached constructively.
• Collective Responsibility: A holistic effort is required from families, sporting clubs, schools, and government to create an environment where it is “easier for a young person to navigate their adolescence in a way that isn’t demoralising to them and to others.”

Ultimately, tackling classroom misogyny is not merely a disciplinary issue but a critical component of achieving a sustainable future built on gender equality, quality education, well-being, and peaceful, just societies.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues of misogyny, harassment in schools, and the influence of harmful online content, which directly connect to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The article is set within the educational system, where the safety of the learning environment and the quality of education are compromised by misogynistic behavior.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality – This is the central theme of the article, which details various forms of gender-based discrimination, harassment, and violence against female teachers and the normalization of harmful gender stereotypes among students.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – The article discusses violence and abuse within schools, the lack of consequences for perpetrators, and the role of institutions (tech companies, governments) in either enabling or combating these issues.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific targets under the identified SDGs are relevant:

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.7: Ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for… gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence.
   • Explanation: The article explicitly mentions educational efforts to address these issues, such as Holly Cooper’s “Traffic Lights” class exercise designed to “unpack healthy relationships and harmful behaviours.” The work of youth advocate Daniel Principe, who travels to schools to educate students, also directly aligns with this target.
2. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are… gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • Explanation: The article demonstrates a failure to meet this target. The experiences of teachers—being filmed without consent, facing “physical intimidation, overt sexualisation, derogatory language,” and threats of violence—show that Australian classrooms are not always safe, non-violent, or gender-sensitive environments. The fact that “girls are becoming quieter in class to avoid the attention of certain boys” further illustrates an unsafe and non-inclusive learning environment.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

1. Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.
   • Explanation: The core issue of the article is misogyny in classrooms, which is a direct form of gender-based discrimination against female teachers and students. The article notes that “sexist comments, misogynistic jokes and gender stereotypes can lay a foundation for greater harm,” highlighting the pervasive nature of this discrimination.
2. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.
   • Explanation: The article provides numerous examples of psychological and physical violence against women in a public sphere (the school). These include a student’s creative writing exercise describing “an act of gang rape towards me,” students pretending to “faux stab” a pregnant teacher, and the normalization of “rape jokes and rape threats.”
3. Target 5.b: Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women.
   • Explanation: The article shows the inverse of this target being realized. Technology, specifically social media algorithms, is “weaponising their limbic systems against them” by pushing “manosphere” content and misogynistic material to teenage boys. The call to “hold big tech to account” and for digital platforms to “build safety protections into their systems” is a direct response to technology being used to disempower and harm women.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
   • Explanation: The article connects misogynistic attitudes directly to the potential for violence. Dr. Hannah Tonkin states that these attitudes contribute “to an environment where violence against women is more likely to be tolerated and more likely to occur.” The normalization of rape jokes and threats is a clear example of this link.
2. Target 16.2: End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children.
   • Explanation: The students are children who are both victims and perpetrators of abuse. Boys are being radicalized by online content (“hijacking adolescence”), and girls are being intimidated into silence. The article describes “deeply worrying behaviour from children as young as kindergarten,” indicating that abuse and violence are affecting children directly.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several qualitative and anecdotal data points that can serve as or imply indicators for measuring progress:

SDG 4: Quality Education

• Implied Indicator for Target 4.7: The implementation and outcomes of educational programs on healthy relationships. The “Traffic Lights” exercise serves as an example. A measurable indicator would be the proportion of schools that have integrated education on gender equality and non-violence into their curriculum. The students’ responses (e.g., a female student saying “Because he didn’t hit me” in response to a violent scenario) serve as a qualitative baseline measure of current attitudes.
• Implied Indicator for Target 4.a: The frequency of reported incidents of gender-based harassment and violence in schools. The article provides specific examples: a male student filming a teacher, verbal abuse (“c***, a f***ing bitch and a slut”), and physical threats (“pretend to faux stab me”). Tracking the number of such incidents would be a direct indicator of a safe or unsafe environment.

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Implied Indicator for Target 5.2: Prevalence of misogynistic attitudes and behaviors among youth. The article notes that “rape jokes and rape threats are completely and utterly normalised.” Surveys measuring the acceptance of such “jokes” or the prevalence of sexist language among students could serve as an indicator.
• Implied Indicator for Target 5.b: The proportion of young people exposed to harmful and misogynistic online content. Daniel Principe’s informal poll where “teenage hands fly up” when asked about seeing sexist memes online is a qualitative measure. A quantitative indicator could be data from tech platforms on the reach of such content or survey data on youth exposure.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Implied Indicator for Target 16.2: The proportion of students who report feeling unsafe at school due to bullying or harassment. The observation that “girls are becoming quieter in class to avoid the attention of certain boys” is a strong qualitative indicator of an unsafe environment for female students.

SDGs, Targets and Indicators Table

Source: abc.net.au