hi lady. you’re taking the conversation the way i thought it logically and practically might go, so this morning, after a night’s sleep, i guess i’ll jump back in, because women just can’t allow themselves to be exposed to this kind of thing in any public setting, let alone the classroom, imho.
i had a brief flirtation with teaching back in the 70’s as i considered a career back then, so my experience in public schools was a year of subbing and tutoring in college. my wife was a full time teacher for 5 years in the 80’s. my brother was a coach during the same time frames. i’ll draw on that experience for what it’s worth to answer, you.
basically, with gaming stuff and the addiction to it some kids have today, your scenario boils down to an impossible one for a woman teacher in our collective opinion. in our day, it’d be like getting between a drug addict and his drugs. you’d better just dismiss the class, get out, and call in whatever authority is available to you to handle a male teen with his phone or whatever. perhaps, if you know the kid, my wife says she’d just ask him to go play with it over there, or ask him out to detention or the office, while she and the other students continued with class. she’d never try to confiscate or order a student like that around. if the whole class gets out of control (once she said) because of the disturbance, then there’s no other option but to get the class out and call in the ‘cavalry.’
in my sub year, i started out being able to physically control any male kid, given my athletic background and size and it rarely needed more than just my mere presence to keep the problem kid(s) quiet. probably, the principals liked me for just that reason. just once did i have to confine a kid who threatened me to his desk, physically. he didn’t get up after i placed him in his chair and he was no problem after that. i never experienced that sort of problem with a girl student. if the kid had been on drugs, though, i probably would have had to escort him out of the classroom to get control. if i couldn’t control him immediately, i’d have evacuated the other students while protecting them. as for fights, my wife would have stayed out of it and let the vice principal and crew handle it. for me, it was relatively easy for us to break them up by just pulling students off each other.
in my wife’s era, she couldn’t even touch a kid unless they were committing a crime, or physically attacking you or other kids. all the kids knew that so the mere threat of my size would be worthless to a kid like that. the kid would probably just laugh and say you can’t touch me.
so she would have to call in the enforcement ‘crew’ (usually a dedicated vice principal/coach back then) if the kid wouldn’t leave or stay quiet. the trouble and greatest fear in her ‘worst’ school was mostly with illegal alien kids and wannabe gang-bangers who could occasionally smuggle in weapons (she didn’t experience guns, my brother did though). in that case he was able to walk up to the kid confiscate the gun, which wasn’t loaded. lucky.
fortunately, the vice principal could control them verbally by threatening them and their parents with deportation (basically with a call to their parents or the authorities), back then. in other words some kind of peer pressure. the kid wouldn’t work of course, but would stop being a problem for her and the other students in the class. that’s the only ‘type’ of soft control available to women today imo. of course, in a weapons or fight situation she’d evacuate the kids and get away from the threat, if possible.
full disclosure, my wife and i believe in the necessity of home-schooling all our kids today, certainly in part because of regularity of incidents like this in our lax public schools today. the public school simply has to guarantee that no electronics or weaponry can be smuggled in, if they’re letting them bring in their phones, forget about working there.
You are still supporting a double standard here. You have repeatedly referred to your massive physical stature (combat training?) that gave you a decided "edge" in dealing with these mooks, implying that
1) a teacher without these advantages is somehow "deficient" and/or bears at least some of the blame (e.g., for not being more "situationally aware");
2) male colleagues should be expected to intercede.
In your last posting, you have provided more background so as to better contextualize your statements and ameliorate some of your more outrageous assertions; it seems that now you are no longer blaming the poor female teacher for being so feeble, but rather indicting the "System" for putting her into that untenable situation - a reasonable and fair position! You've also explained that mechanisms and procedures should have been put into place so that a teacher could call upon trained assistance (vulgo: "muscle") if a risky situation should arise. Also praiseworthy!
But you still haven't distanced yourself from your initial reproof of me for suggesting that "male teachers - who have probably already been victimized by school policies re. 'reverse discrimination' and 'patriarchy' - would be fools to "step up to the plate" and intercede when a female colleague is in distress.
If a dedicated squad of bruisers is on "stand-by" and ready to jump into action when a teacher (of EITHER sex) requests assistance, I'm all for it (though I have already pointed out that, in a thoroughly "woke" system, this would only shift the problem, with the physically fit male security personnel then constantly having to intercede and "rescue" their weaker, less-fit female counterparts - a point that you have yet to respond to).
Regards,