The Australian Education Union has rejected claims from the Nationals and Liberal leader Angus Taylor that teachers are pushing political agendas and that schools are teaching an "anti-boy" ideology. The union called the remarks a "fundamentally incorrect portrayal" of the education system and said they were either a malevolent mischaracterisation of Australia's education system for political gain or a display of complete ignorance of how the teaching profession operates.
Who Gets Blamed
The attack came from the top, as usual. Nationals leader Matt Canavan said he believed the school curriculum was teaching "anti-boy" ideology. He said the Respectful Relationships curriculum could be turning boys to harmful online content and said the program provided an opportunity for "young boys to reflect on their male privilege and power". He added, "I think this anti-boy ideology has no place in our schools." Canavan also said the program had counter-productive results and drove young boys to toxic voices online because they were looking for someone to provide them with respect and support.
Earlier, he said the "feminisation" of the curriculum was driving young men towards "manosphere" content online and described programs like Respectful Relationships as "essentially a recruitment ground for Andrew Tate", a self-proclaimed misogynist with a large online following. The language is loud. The structure underneath it is familiar: politicians pointing at classrooms while ignoring the conditions that shape what kids see, hear and absorb outside them.
Angus Taylor said, "The idea that we have a balanced curriculum being run at the moment, that there are not agendas being run by some teachers, I think is wrong." He added, "We do see those agendas being run." He insisted teaching consent was important, while calling for a degree of balance. The article says the comments sparked a backlash from teachers.
What the Curriculum Actually Says
The Respectful Relationships national framework was established to teach both primary and secondary students about respectful relationships, gender equality and consent. It does not mention male privilege. Its inclusivity outcome instructs teachers to help students, without specifying gender, "to consider how their identities and experiences — including those related to power and inequality — affect their relationships and lives, in ways that suit their age and development". It also sets out to help "boys and young men to explore concepts of masculinity in healthy ways".
That’s the actual text. Not the scare campaign. Not the political theatre. The framework names power and inequality, and it does so in language aimed at students, not in the crude terms used by the men attacking it from the podium.
The Australian Education Union said the remarks by Senator Canavan, Mr Taylor and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, who claims schools are "brainwashing students", further fueled the aggression and disrespect towards teachers, which was already on the rise. The union’s complaint lands in a system where teachers are expected to absorb the fallout from culture-war messaging while still doing the work of keeping classrooms functioning.
Who Pays for the Damage
Last week, a national survey of 2,600 teachers, conducted by Monash University, found that 78 per cent had observed or experienced sexism or misogyny in school. A separate report said one in three teachers said the presence of gendered violence made them occasionally consider leaving the profession. The report's author, Stephanie Wescott, said schools had become "unbearably hostile places to work, with levels of sexism, misogyny and sexual harassment that have made their jobs untenable".
A separate government-funded study into misogyny and youth radicalisation found one in three teenage boys express "misogynistic attitudes, mistrust of women and a belief in traditional gender roles". Almost a quarter of generation Z males believed feminism "should be resisted with violence if necessary". Those numbers sit in the background while politicians argue over wording, as if the problem were the curriculum rather than the social machinery feeding kids hostility and contempt.
Canavan did not offer alternatives for respectful relationship and consent education, but he doubled down on a call for more male teachers. He said: "Maybe we should look at getting more male teachers in. That used to be an agenda, I don't know what's happened to that. But maybe we should have more male role models in schools." He also said, "I just know young boys often feel that they don't get any kind of instruction, leadership. They're not cherished there." The article said currently only one in four teachers are male.
Education Minister Jason Clare agreed that students would benefit from more male teachers, but said the issue was ultimately about respect. He said: "Teaching boys to respect girls isn't woke, it's common decency." He said the focus should not be on teachers, who he labelled "heroes". He also said: "The bad guys here are the big tech companies, they're the ones poisoning our kids with algorithms that are shovelling shit into their heads."
The Real Machine in the Background
On Wednesday, sexual consent advocate Chanel Contos called on the government to mandate an opt-in model for social media algorithms so teenagers could avoid harmful messaging including manosphere content. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has flagged support for giving Australians more control over their online content but has stopped short of backing the algorithm opt-in model proposed by Ms Contos.
That’s where the reform trap shows its face. One official says more control, another wants an opt-in model, and the government stops short. Meanwhile, teachers remain the front line for a problem that runs through schools, platforms and the wider culture of misogyny described in the reports. The apparatus keeps moving. The people inside it keep getting told to endure it.