I believe you're meant to be offended at the use of the word feminised as the uncommon description of a family without a father or other male authority figure.
Actually on that matter of male figures since it's not being taken anywhere by the person bringing it up...
I was recently looking at some numbers for male teachers and they're ****. It gets brought up in publications every single year without fail, complete with warnings that it's not beneficial for children yet will probably continue like that for the foreseeable future.
3% presence in "early years" (nurseries?) (guardian! but it links to a less opinionated article)
14% in primary school
36% in secondary school (same link as above)
Second link includes a report into the trends of male teacher numbers for young children:
clicky
The same report links a older report which shows men are more attracted to senior positions (further from the pupils?) at the reported teaching levels, eventually outnumbering women in deputy and head teacher roles by secondary school.
The brief report blames real wages declining but obviously this has gone on for a long time and this far more in depth report, from a totally different country and over a decade ago should ring a lot of bells as it goes through reasons men do not want to be around young children: [
long link] and it doesn't even bring up wages.
Given that almost no one will read it (how many people in this thread read the report this thread is about?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8852d/8852d2062d7110393ceea768b048b31c5d4853ef" alt="Stick Out Tongue :p :p"
) I'll provide a brief list of issues mentioned: homophobia, femiphobia, misogyny and paedophilia. For better context of course the report says considerably more.
That report also talks about issues around making claims on the value of a male figure and that it can be interpreted as an attack on women for being deficient. In this case it's focused on teaching but I heard the same sentiment from Tom Sewell about parents.
At any rate that report can crudely be summed up by me as society (not the professional side of the workplace) making the job enormously unattractive to male applicants. I really don't think the wages are so bad that they're only fit for women
This is obviously a complex issue existing for a long time and it really is an enormous sexual discrepancy the younger the pupils are.
How does that better tie in to the thread though.
It's a demonstration of enormous disparity in a
protected category despite it being a public funded role and a regularly examined issue globally.
But without thorough examination of every single scenario, grabbing discrepant numbers and waving them as an accusation is technically worthless yet it has effect when the government is leaning that way. Meanwhile artificially adjusting numbers to get loud but shallow activists to shut up and to avoid government attention is an easy lie compared to the perhaps impossible task of achieving the numbers honestly. (In the example of male teachers, who's about to change the way society thinks of male teachers of young children).
If the report has enough merit to identify and shoot down a false belief of institutional racism in the uk and thus delete or diminish it from the governments agenda it will take other lies with it. If it doesn't have enough merit then so be it.