I've read the story - what's the actual problem? That's what I'm trying to figure out here today.
Apparently, some kids say they're 'Trump Boys' - i.e. like a majority of Americans, a few kids here support the Republican party or MAGA movement.
The other problem apparently is some school girls saying they want to be trad-wives, or traditional wives - to have children and stay at home to raise them.
Now, that's about as much detail as I could get from this particular story. And the moral of this was - the Government needs to take action on this, according to the unions.
Here's the problem - children are allowed to have political views and societal views of their own and teachers are not there to police politics.
Your job is apolitical, and we need to encourage critical thinking, not legislate against it.
There will be people who read that story and think: here we go again with the brainwashing thing. Your job is education, not indoctrination.
The reality is, not all girls will go on to be Reserve Bank Governors and not all boys will grow up to Reserve Bank Governors, either.
Not all boys will grow up to marry women… hello!
Everyone's different, that's my point.
But you can’t embrace kids changing genders with gay abandon then demand state intervention when a girl says she wants to get married and have kids.
I'm no conservative. Far from it. But I do hear a lot from parents who've lost faith in the education system, or at least some teachers within it.
If a girl wants to grow up to be a mum, is that radical? Or is that her choice? And if a kid wants to support Donald Trump, is that radical, or is that a choice?
Should they be branded an extremist for holding those views, or should those views be used as a springboard for a healthy debate about society?
Could this not be an opportunity to introduce and encourage critical thinking in young people?
Obviously, if there are specific misogynistic comments being made, then they should be dealt with through a disciplinary process.
But the problem with today's story is that they don't appear to be any examples of that actually happening.
I do not agree with the views these kids hold, but does that mean they shouldn't be able to hold them?
Ryan Bridge is a New Zealand broadcaster who has worked on many current affairs television and radio shows. He currently hosts Newstalk ZB's Early Edition - where this article was sourced.
21 comments:
I would have thought the main student politicisation worry to be maorification with adoption of the arrogant irrational attitudes routinely demonstrated by TPM. It already accounts for much non attendance.
I cannot help but compare the relaxed indulged home life of my and my father's infant days, with mothers home all day, with the high stress fatiguing chaos of the typical both working family today. Possibly the same atmosphere is difficult for those cooped in modern apartments to create. With children from parents in their 30s inheritance arrives too late to be fully useful. Whilst the Anglo Saxon derived part of our society chases careers, maori, PI and many immigrants still comply with their instinct. If NZ is to retain some semblance of the structure under which it became a first world country, we should encourage all to be mums.
Supporting the Greens and climate views and certain other views is encouraged. I know I have teacher associates who see it as their duty to promote correct thinking.
You want radical, a lot of far left people love ardern, but apparently that's OK. Just not allowed any conservative views. That just highlights how far left we have moved especially in education and msm views. That's why most people don't trust schools, teachers and media now days. And rightly so!
Here is a quote from the story which I find quite ridiculous:
“A young student might submit an assignment, make a strong argument they probably see as coherent, presented in a persuasive manner to meet an assignment’s criteria, Stevens said. ‘But the argument is effectively about a traditional wife, arguing that a woman's role is meant to be in the household raising children.’”
But that is precisely what a young student should be doing: making sound logical and consistent arguments for what they believe to be the case. Furthermore, the school should teach them how to do that and provide a safe environment for them to practice it, including if they make mistakes. Instead, they are being chastened for it:
“Alongside students making arguments that even a few years ago ‘society would’ve utterly rejected’ Stevens said they were all part of a broader movement which pushes back on feminism.”
“These ideologies appeared predominantly in year 9 students, which meant it was ‘bound to get worse’, he said.”
Nonsense, they are exploring what they believe is a valid position and the school should facilitate them in doing it. Feed them reliable relevant information and encourage them to think things through. Organize school debates to encourage them to develop arguments and practice their oratory skills. In the process of so doing, they will also develop their opinions. Even so, they could also be pushing back on Establishment propaganda.
It is quite awful what they are doing to kids at school; it’s indoctrination not education. It’s bad enough that they propagandize the adults, but at least leave the kids alone. I do wonder what that does to the health of the nation.
When I was young and conservatives were in charge, young people were expected to be left wing and “progressive”. Now the world is insane and the left are largely in charge, the kids rebel against the norm again except this time it’s from “misinformation”, and their views are “dangerous”.
Give me a break.
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!
This is not just happening to school kids. It has been the case in university for YEARS. As an undergraduate in 1960s I well remember an assignment: 'Dr Johnson "Opera, an exotic and irrational entertainment" - DISCUSS...' Nowadays, even post-grad students in sociology get faced with multichoice questions..... FIXED ideas to be regurgitated.... [sorry 'regurgiddated'....]
Our schools ceased to be educational institutions many , many decades ago when progressive education deviously insinuated itself into schools . Using Fabian socialist tactics it happened very slowly with socialist ideology substituted for standard academic endeavours. particularly in the basics. There was an acceleration this century.
Socialist values are mostly left wing with attacks on the importance of family, cultural Christianity , self discipline , responsibility. and other conservative beliefs . Except for a few differences Fabian socialism is identical with Marxism. Their combined agenda is destruction of Western Culture and values.
I believe mothers should be mostly at home with preschoolers. Our schools and society are not raising stable , secure and confident young people since we have by far the highest teenage suicide rate.
The early years of a child's life are too important to be left entirely to institutions . A friend's daughter in a US state is at home with her two preschoolers and paid for by the husband's employer.. If that is what the Trump boys are advocating then I am for it .
Well well well. In 2025, the boys love Hitler and/or Jesus, and the girls want to be married mothers of 4 or 5 kids. And I'm not even joking by the way, because I see this trend personally, and more so online.
It's taken a long time for 60s liberal progressivism to run its course, but it's failed and the writing is on the wall - the kids aren't stupid and they can see they've been lied to. They dont care about the propaganda they a fed. They want a return to older, more natural ways of being and social ideas.
If the teachers are freaking out now about boys merely liking an essentially mainstream Trump, wait until they realise they also admire the Nazis.
From an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of life is to have and to raise children until they are of an age where they can in turn reproduce.
It is what we have evolved to do, and it is included in our genetic structure. That does not mean that all of us have to do it, but if the program for it were removed from our genome, our species would go extinct.
In humans, as in many other species, that program includes pair bonding, often for the rest of life, presumably because it is adaptive. The ‘trad-wife’ program is written into the girls’ genome; and there is an equivalent for ‘Trump boys’ as providers for their family, just as President Trump is doing for his country.
We can develop socialist programs which remove or reduce that requirement, but the genetic program is still there, and the kids are being denigrated for it by teachers at school.
The teachers are off their rocker and need roping in.
These teachers belong in a cult rather than a classroom.
It is a perverse world when kids who support the idea of capitalism, user pays, free speech, positions based on merit, one person one vote, biological objective truths, and/or have traditional family values, are considered extreme, but advocating for racism and apartheid, denying biological reality, and wanting to medically castrate yourself is considered normal.
No doubt these same teachers also support groups like ‘queer for Palestine’ and called the BLM riots and anti-ICE peaceful protests, while labelling Charlie Kirk’s memorial a right-wing nationalist rally. It is scary how contagious stupid really is.
>"In humans, as in many other species, that program includes pair bonding, often for the rest of life, presumably because it is adaptive."
Pair bonding in the monogamous sense is rare in the Animal Kingdom. The norm is polygyny (one male, several females; note that 'polygamy' is a gender-neutral term, and the opposite of polygyny is polyandry). This is true for humans also; almost all tribal cultures, and ancient civilisations, were/are polygynous.
Female reproductive prowess being limited by gestation or incubation, a female's best evolutionary strategy is to maximise the survival of young by bonding with a male who shares in nurturing the offspring, such as by bringing food. A male's best evolutionary bet is to impregnate as many females as he can, and make some contribution to the upkeep of the young.
As noted already, almost all ancient civilisations had polygynous marriage. An exception was ancient Greece. Their monogamous marriage was adopted by the Romans who passed it to the rest of us through the Roman Empire and its laws.
I was shocked to read about 'an alarming rise in extremism among students'.
I read that 'students have been radicalised through algorithm-driven social media platforms'. 'A young student might submit an assignment.....that they probably see as coherent.....arguing that a woman's role is meant to be in the household raising children.'
So this is seen as extremism. I thought that feminism meant that women had a choice - they could work outside the home, but they could also choose to stay at home to care for their babies and toddlers. This is also work; hard work. Sadly many women these days have no choice, and they have to work outside the home to help pay the bills.
Feminism has backfired in a very sad way.
And I am disappointed by the views of Ryan Bridge - he doesn't think women should stay at home to raise young children - surely this is their choice, and they may prefer to make sure their children have the best, loving care, and are not being indoctrinated with communist anti-family values by strangers
But so what? we are not animals.
A multicellular organism made of eukaryotic cells belongs to either the Kingdom Plantae or the Kingdom Animalia. Homo sapiens is definitely not a member of the Kingdom Plantae.
From Copilot:
Some animal species form strong pair bonds for sexual reproduction, often remaining together for life. These lifelong partnerships are typically rooted in evolutionary advantages like cooperative parenting, territory defense, and increased survival rates. Here's a look at some of the most fascinating examples:
🐦 Birds
Birds are the champions of monogamy, with up to 90% of species forming pair bonds.
Swans – Famous for their graceful loyalty, swans often mate for life and share parenting duties.
Albatrosses – These seabirds reunite with the same mate each breeding season, performing elaborate courtship dances.
Macaroni Penguins – Recognize their mates by unique vocalizations and share parenting in harsh Antarctic conditions.
Bald Eagles – Engage in dramatic aerial courtship and build massive nests together, often staying bonded for decades.
Scarlet Macaws – Known to stay together for up to 50 years.
🐺 Mammals
Only about 3–5% of mammal species are monogamous, but some stand out:
Gibbons – These primates form long-term bonds and even sing duets to strengthen their connection.
Wolves – Alpha pairs mate for life, leading their pack and raising pups together.
Prairie Voles – Among the few rodents that form lifelong pair bonds, sharing nesting and parenting duties.
Coyotes – Often monogamous, with both parents involved in raising their young.
🐠 Aquatic & Other Creatures
Monogamy is rare in aquatic life, but exceptions exist:
French Angelfish – Swim and hunt together, rarely straying from their partner.
Australian Seahorses – Engage in daily greetings and synchronized movements with their mate.
Mantis Shrimp – Some species form lifelong bonds and share burrows.
Parasitic Flatworms (Diplozoon paradoxum) – Fuse together permanently during mating—literally becoming one organism.
🦎 Reptiles
Shingleback Skinks – These Australian lizards reunite with the same mate each year and travel together during breeding season.
These examples show that lifelong pair bonding isn't just about romance—it's often a strategic move for survival and reproductive success.
And here is Copilot on Humans:
Sexual pair bonding in humans is both common and adaptive, though it’s far from uniform across cultures or individuals. Let’s unpack both aspects:
💑 Prevalence of Pair Bonding in Humans
Widespread Across Cultures: While human mating systems vary—ranging from monogamy to polygyny and even polyandry—most societies exhibit some form of pair bonding, often expressed through marriage or long-term romantic relationships.
Serial Monogamy: Rather than lifelong monogamy, many humans practice serial monogamy, forming successive long-term bonds over a lifetime.
Low Extra-Pair Paternity Rates: Despite the presence of affairs, humans have relatively low rates of extra-pair paternity compared to other socially monogamous animals, suggesting a strong tendency toward committed pair bonds.
🧠 Is It Adaptive?
Absolutely—and here’s why:
Cooperative Parenting: Human offspring are highly dependent for years. Pair bonding facilitates shared parental investment, increasing survival chances.
Resource Sharing: Long-term bonds often involve economic cooperation, pooling resources for mutual benefit.
Emotional and Social Stability: Pair bonds can provide psychological support, reduce stress, and foster social cohesion.
Evolutionary Signals: Traits like moderate sexual dimorphism and testis size suggest humans evolved with a mix of mating strategies, but with a strong lean toward pair bonding.
Life History Factors: Humans live long lives, and women experience a post-reproductive phase. This creates a male-biased operational sex ratio, which may favor mate guarding and long-term bonding strategies.
🧬 Bottom Line
Human pair bonding is a biologically rooted, culturally shaped, and strategically adaptive behavior. It’s not just about romance—it’s about survival, cooperation, and raising the next generation. That said, the form it takes can vary wildly, from lifelong monogamy to flexible, serial partnerships.
Here are the references regarding animals and humans which mate for life.
ANIMALS
1. “17 Animal Species That Mate for Life and How They Stay Loyal,” Jan Otte, 25 July 2025.
https://www.animalsaroundtheglobe.com/17-animal-species-that-mate-for-life-and-how-they-stay-loyal-2-339016/
2. “29 Animals that Mate for Life: Monogamous Animals List,” Diane Diegor, 17 September 2025.
https://storyteller.travel/animals-that-mate-for-life/
3. “Seven Animals who mate for life,” BBC.
https://www.bbcearth.com/news/seven-animals-who-mate-for-life
HUMANS
4. “Are We Monogamous? A Review of the Evolution of Pair-Bonding in Humans and Its Contemporary Variation Cross-Culturally” Ryan Schacht and Karen L. Kramer
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00230/full
5. “Evolution of Human Pair Bonds as a Consequence of Male-Biased Mating Sex Ratios,” Springer Nature, Matthew C. Nitschke et al., 30 January 2025.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11538-025-01414-4
Nice reading list, Barrie.
If its purpose is to correct me on something I wrote, kindly point out what that is, as there is nothing here that contradicts anything I noted.
I'll bet Ryan didn't think a couple of his remarks would get such deep analysis! Who would have thought that a comment of girls wanting to get married and have children would result in all this discussion.
I agree with you Anon at 11:57. Girls wanting to get married and have children is one of those things that are 'self-evident' truths that are 'sacred and undeniable'. It is the 'Selfish Gene' at work and it is disappointing to need to defend it.
I agree with Anonymous 7:50 PM
Post a Comment