Sex Teacher Back in Class
A female principal has hired a female teacher who previously, when aged 23, “had an affair with” her 16yo pupil (and who had been teaching illegally without legitimate qualifications at the time). Feminists have long bemoaned the “old boys club” that they accused of showing favouritism to men. Of course, feminists would never do anything like that!
In fact, this teacher was employed to teach boys again soon after the scandal came to light, and after she also cashed in by providing a self-justifying story for Woman’s Weekly, entitled “Teacher tells: I fell for my student“. The boy’s mother said the teacher “wasn’t that honest to begin with”. One suspects she hasn’t been that honest since, either. For example, she made no mention in the Woman’s Weekly article that she had been employed as a teacher under false pretences. Also, she claimed that the couple first kissed after she had received a blessing for the relationship from the boy’s mother, but if that were so, then what was she doing with the boy on earlier occasions when the mother discovered he was not at school receiving after-hours tutoring as he had claimed?
Notice the wording in the news report: “having sex with a 16yo student”, “had an affair with student”, “Miller’s affair” and “breach of the code of ethics”; and in the Women’s Weekly article: “she never imagined she’d fall in love”, “her new boyfriend”, “his new girlfriend”, “I had no idea if he liked me too”, “they started to talk more about their feelings”. If it had been a male teacher we could instead expect terms such as “sexually exploited young girl”, “molested a student”, “his texts to her were sexual harrassment”, “abused his position of authority”, “power imbalance”, “manipulated his young pupil”, “couldn’t keep his penis in his pants” and “he hasn’t acknowledged that his actions were inappropriate and an unacceptable abuse of power, therefore he presents an ongoing danger to students”. And Ms Tolley, our Minister of Education, would not have been quoted as avoiding any comment at all about the inappropriate sexual behaviour; in this case she was quoted as simply providing platitudes about parents’ peace of mind and measures to identify unqualified teachers.
Now I’m not necessarily implying that this female teacher should be treated the way men would be in similar circumstances. It may be humane, caring and realistic about human frailty to show understanding and forgiveness for this woman’s failure to control her sex drive, and for her opportunistic self-indulgence instead of prioritizing the protection of her much-younger student. But if so, shouldn’t we then expect such understanding and forgiveness equally for men who have sex with their young students?
This female teacher and her her student/lover are now said to have a baby and to be engaged. Sadly, her irresponsibility and self-serving history predict that she will become bored with him, break up their child’s family unit and resign him to many subsequent years of financial servitude to her. And that’s one of the better possible outcomes; his future has a good chance of including such adventures as character assassination, maternal child abduction, parental alienation, protection orders, allegations of violence and/or sexual offending, imprisonment, suicide.
Thanks for posting this news Hans.
It’s enlightening to observe several things happening here.
The ‘teacher’ has sex with a child supposed to be under her protection.
If it were the other way round (male teacher with 16 year old girl) you can bet your last dollar he’d be called a rapist by many for having sex with someone who was much less powerful than him.
That the power imbalance makes it rape.
Bear in mind that is a standard definition for rape often spouted by feminists and their enablers.
The ‘teacher’ infantalizes herself by getting together with this boy instead of with a male peer her own age and status.
The media then condone and reinforce such infantalization by labeling her ‘in love’, ‘having an affair’.The school principal who hired her, Glynis De Castro does the same.
The messages being sent to the general public are –
That power imbalance between people only matters when the woman has less power.
That women can with impunity act irresponsibly like children, indeed with children too whereas men are expected to be responsible as in a male teacher doing this to a female student would be held accountable for a lifetime.
Personally I wouldn’t want my son anywhere near this ‘teacher’, her ‘school’ and it’s ‘principal’ and I’d only use the NZ Women’s weekly for lighting a fire with.
Which reminds me – NZ Women’s weekly is racking up quite a pedigree for pushing femiNZm being as it is the rag which supported ignoble lesbian seperatist feminist Miriam Saphira’s ‘research’. It’s ridiculous methodology leading to the misandric ‘result’ being the infamous 1 in 4 female have been sexually abused blah blah blah.
So one has to conclude the very benign looking NZ Women’s Weekly is exhibiting a very clear double standard along feminist lines. Inflating the prevalence of male sexual deviancy whilst turning a blind eye, indeed subtly encouraging female sexual deviancy.
Definitely a publication to put on misandry watch.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Oh,
I almost forgot this telling link.
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 1:52 pm
If the NZ Women’s Weekly was made out of softer paper, I can think of a better use.
Comment by rc — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 2:29 pm
OMG, if you burn the Women’s Weekly or flush it down the toilet, how will you know your future without their horoscope? And how will you know what decisions to make without the help of the psychics, people who communicate with dead relatives, palm-readers, agony aunts and spiritual healers that grace its pages?
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Yes Hans,
I’d forgotten about that aspect of NZ Women’s Weekly.
As it’s the number one selling magazine for women in NZ it’s frightening to think so many women there buy such irrational fluff and feminist propaganda each and every week!
Comment by Skeptik — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 3:49 pm
On second thoughts I could keep all the agony aunts and psychic stuff separate for entertaining reading on long jobs, but cut out all the photos of Hillary, Helen and Britney for the serious business. Some people have just the right face for certain jobs.
Comment by rc — Sun 12th September 2010 @ 4:04 pm
NZ is broken.
Comment by Dave — Tue 14th September 2010 @ 11:59 am
I go back a bit in years. I can remember that golden age in the Law when all were considered equal before it. Back in those terrible old-fashioned days, in fact all the way back to the friggin’ Magna Carta, it mattered not that you were a man or a woman, a pauper or a Lord, you were treated the same. In theory at least.
You may not be implying, but I am.
Comment by amfortas — Fri 17th September 2010 @ 10:24 pm
Well I tend towards more understanding and forgiveness of human frailty and human emotions. I prefer much less emphasis on punitive retribution than on constructive rehabilitation. Men deserve this as much as women do.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 18th September 2010 @ 9:51 am
Hey, I understand what you are argueing about but this is not needed:
“his future has a good chance of including such adventures as character assassination, maternal child abduction, parental alienation, protection orders, allegations of violence and/or sexual offending, imprisonment, suicide”.
I think to have a balanced opinion and to make a statement like that, you need to meet with me and discuss the finer details of a relationship you have only read about in the paper. It is insulting to think that from reading this article that you have planned my life for me. Your view is only fueled by a journalist wanting a good pay-out from a days work whereas if you took the time to investigate the truth for yourself I think you will find a bigger picture.
Comment by Hayden Macdonald — Fri 1st October 2010 @ 2:01 pm
Be sure to let us know when she dumps you for a 14 year old.
Comment by golfa — Sun 3rd October 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Hayden, yes it’s true that our only information comes from the journalists’ stories. And I certainly wish you all the best and hope that your fate is better than that meted out to many men under modern customs and laws. The quote you repeated from my initial post was not personal to you or your partner; the fact is that every young man who starts a family now stands a good chance of one or more of the outcomes I listed. The feminist-captured state promotes such outcomes.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 3rd October 2010 @ 8:33 pm
So there we have it folks. After decades of feminism the chickens are indeed coming home to roost.
For whilst the return to ‘professional’ teaching of a female pedophile – as shown in the lead item of this thread, gets condoned by many including a school principal we have this happening (reported in Stuff NZ today).
Read it carefully. It’s very enlightening.
Here’s an alarming exert:
Amazing!
A 10 point gap in grades and Joseph Driessen ‘education consultant’ say IF it’s true boys are underachieving!
IF!
Jesus wept!
That’s the level of denial, ignorance and callous complacency our boys are given.
Mind you with a feminist misandric culture infused at all levels of society and that kind of future to look forward to if I was was a boy I’d be dropping out too. No point in getting highly qualified for that kind of future.
Seems likely perhaps that increasingly the boys are in training themselves for this instead.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 9th October 2010 @ 3:15 pm
to me the issue does not lay with the individual i.e. it is not Natasha Millers fault that she fell in love with someone only 7 years younger. The problem is the New Zealand schooling system. The current schooling structure (primary, intermediate, high school, university) does not recognise that 16 year olds who can legally consent to a sexual relationship are adults. How is it that we can have teachers who are only 4 or five years older than the graduating class, teaching them?? 6th and 7th formers (year 12’s and 13’s) need to be taught seperatly as opposed to being forced to see 13 year olds as peers. The UK system of primary till age 11, high school till age 16 then college and university could be a good model to base the NZ system on. Yes it is true that males would have been dealt with more harshly but this is due to proven cases of power abuse regarding males far outweighing that of their female teaching counterparts. I am not saying that every teacher should date a student, i am however recognising that this situation does exist and that it would be more healthy for such relationships to exist in the open as opposed to being hidden.
Comment by Lauren — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 7:44 am
Sorry this just does not compute. It is the teacher/pupil relationship that is the power dynamic. Miller’s actions are not ethical or in the support of the general wellbeing and learning of this student she abused. It is about individual accountability for the teacher, the employing principal and Peter Lind as Director and all the members of the Teachers Council. In my view no matter what rehabilitation Miller might engage in her actions bring the profession into disrepute. Her actions in giving an interview to a womens magazine and continuing with the relationship are also unwise and show she still has poor judgement. I have been in Education myself for 25 years and this situaion is totally unacceptable.
Comment by Allan — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 9:30 am
Hi Lauren and thanks for offering your opinion here.
You believe that the NZ schooling system was to blame for Natasha Miller breaching her teachers code of ethics, and that different age groupings for schools would have protected Ms Miller from herself. That’s an interesting idea and I don’t have enough knowledge of educational systems to evaluate it. I guess if it can be shown that fewer teachers have sex with their pupils in countries that use your recommended system, that would support your argument.
However, I cannot agree with other aspects of your response. Firstly, you claim that Natasha Miller was not responsible for ‘falling in love’ with her pupil. Sure, reasonable people might understand that biological forces will cause us to find others attractive, but whether we allow that to develop into ‘falling in love’ and sexual behaviour through frequent thoughts of togetherness, participating in long romantic conversations and allowing or seeking frequent secret meetings is surely up to each person. In fact, it is the responsibility of people in certain professions to prioritize their professional duties by ruling out from the outset any romantic or sexual development. Recently, we have even seen this kind of rule extended (through shallow, rote slogans rather than careful reasoning) to (male) police with respect to the entire (female) community they serve and serve with.
Even if one were to accept your romantic model that sees people (or actually, you are implying only women) being helpless victims of Cupid’s arrow, Natasha Miller could have done the responsible thing by holding off kissing and sex for a year or two until the boy had left her school.
Also, your efforts to minimize the importance of the age gap were unconvincing. At ‘only 7 years’ older, Natasha Miller was in fact almost half the boy’s lifetime older. The significance of any particular age gap reduces with age but the difference between 16 and 23 is still huge, that between an adult and an adolescent.
Further, you suggest that because male teachers have been ‘proven’ to abuse power more often than have female teachers, this somehow made it acceptable to treat Natasha Miller much more leniently than any man would be. So, if a woman bank robber stabs a teller, she should be treated more leniently than a man who did exactly the same thing because women don’t do that as often? Also, I challenge you to provide evidence for your claim that ‘proven cases of power abuse’ by male teachers far outweigh those by female teachers. In my experience, women in positions of authority are at least as likely to use their power inappropriately against subordinates.
Finally, without realizing it you are perpetuating the same gender discriminatory attitudes that were the main target of my post. The language used by all parties, the behavioural and professional expectations, the understanding shown, the tolerance for human frailty, the degree of minimization, excuses and blaming other factors, and the severity of consequences were all much more favourable for Natasha Miller simply because she is female. I object to this, but my solution doesn’t necessarily involve treating women with the same punitive attitudes and institutional violence routinely directed at men. I propose that men and women are held equally responsible for their behaviour and that equal levels of understanding, help, realism and forgiveness are shown to both genders. In effect, that would probably have seen Natasha Miller punished a little bit more and many men offered a lot more help and a lot less retribution.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 10:24 am
Hans,
That’s a splendid and well thought out response.
I wonder what kind of society produces someone who thinks like Lauren?
NZ?
Wow! scary to think NZ would produce that kind of thinking!
Amazing that in this day and age anyone educated in NZ could think all of this combined:
1. Women perpetrate less violence than men (scary shades of Neville Robertson here).
2. Therefore when women are violent they as a ‘minority group of perpetrators’ should
automatically be dealt with more leniently.
3. 23 year old adult women can’t control their libidos.
Too much addiction to female pornography (Mills and Boon type literature)perhaps?
4. It’s OK for the teacher pupil relationship to include sex.
(Been watching ‘Sex and the city’ lately?)
Whilst I wouldn’t want female teachers to face the levels of needless suspicion male teachers have faced (pedophilia hysteria) I can see how the use of such ideas as Lauren expresses could be used to justify the act of sexual abuse by female teachers.
That’s very sobering.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 12:12 pm
Thanks Skeptik for the compliment. Coming from a fine thinker and writer as you are it is both encouraging and humbling.
Lauren may be a student close to the situation whose wish to defend people she knows and likes may be understandable and whose reasoning ability and awareness of the broader issues may be still developing. (S)he has offered, in respectful fashion, an opinion that clearly involved genuine efforts to grapple with the matter at hand. I welcome this greatly. Well done, Lauren and I hope you won’t be put off by our robust debate.
Comment by Hans Laven — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 12:45 pm
Hi Hans and Skeptic,
I agree with what you both say however there is significant issues in this case with the Principal of Danniverke High as employer of this teacher and of her former school where she was illegally engaged not only in sexual behaviour with a student but employed without a teacher registration.
The Teachers Council clearly know of the case and claim as she was not registered and was completing her training they had no jurisdiction over her. This same women gives a media interview justifying her “love” for a child with whom she has a duty of care. Then she secures another job in neighbouring school, which raises significant questions of the new employer and his/her sanity.
Then she does apply to the Teachers Council for a registration as a begining teacher subject to confirmation and the Teachers Council find her a “fit and proper” person. Now that just has to be amazing. I would think it very proper if questions were asked formally of the Teachers Council about their actions in allowing this person to continue to teach young people no matter what guidance programme they may have asked to be provided for her.
I understand a very similar case to this occurred at Broadwood area school when the concept of teacher registration was relatively new and when the Teachers Council was known as the Teacher registration Board. Again that female teacher went on to teach again while having children and continuing to live with her child lover. Clearly the Council is at risk of approving of such relationships as they apply to younger female teachers.
Comment by Allan — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 12:49 pm
Would it matter to you if the genders were reversed? You don’t need to look to far to see male teachers stripped of their registration because they have had inappropriate affairs with 16-year-old women.
Comment by Steve — Fri 21st January 2011 @ 3:50 pm