Stuff like this is so infuriating to read. I work in a preschool and there is absolutely a way to have kids take a short break away from others without literally torturing them.

Its genuinely hard to read stories like that and think about the kind of teachers that exist in some areas. And its clearly systemic in a lot of situations.

> and beg to be let out.

If the school doesn't forget they're there. It's happened at least twice in Washington, where parents have wondered why their child wasn't on the bus, only to learn that not only had the school put them in such a room, they'd then managed to _forget_ the student was in there.

You’re begging the question: does any of this actually prevent the “toxic masculinity” you’re referring to?

The article quite clearly says no. Moreover, “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept.

EDIT: ffs don't flag the parent poster. He's misinformed and possibly ideologically driven (though I've seen far worse), but enough with the censorship bubble, already ...

> “toxic masculinity” is a political dog-whistle, not a legitimate psychological concept.

This is misleading at best. Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length in academia (in gender/women's studies literature) for going on 30 years.

> Toxic masculinity has been written about in great detail and at great length

Generating literature about a postulation doesn't make it true.

How would you ever controvert a bad practice like icepick lobotomies, or a false belief like Aristotelian gravity, if the simple existence or popular acceptance of an idea were considered to be its proof?

All-right, I'll bite.

What words would you prefer people use to describe a particular kind of behaviour, common to, but not exclusive to young men that is in generous parts mysoginistic, often homophobic and violent?

Bit of a loaded question, isn't it?

It's a response to a bit of a loaded statement. What does the parent poster even mean that a descriptive term isn't 'true'?

That the behaviour it describes doesn't exist? That would be a truly remarkable claim.

That the term is inapplicable to that behaviour? On what grounds? Is there a term they'd prefer we use?

That the behaviour exists, but we shouldn't slap a label on it? That's almost certainly personal opinion, which is not very interesting.

If the OP would have instead said that particular claims about toxic masculinity are false, that would be an entirely different conversation. But that's not what they did.

>in gender/women's studies literature

I rest my case. It is not a legitimate psychological concept.

But probably also not a mere dog whistle. Psycological "concept" and "dog whistle" are not the only two things an idea could be.

That's fair. 'Dog whistle' is a bit inexact, but it's not completely off the mark either, I think.

> there a chance that it's worth it?

Little to none as there is no evidence of theraputic value.

Indeed, it seems clearly harmful and would qualify as child abuse if it were sone by the parents rather than the school district.

The use of this technique on children with Autism is particularly reprehensible.

This is just time out. Any parent of a high-maintenance 5-year-old will know that some kids act out, assault their peers, have tantrums and scream and yell. Other kids don’t deserve to be subjected to that.

Edit: To be clear, I’m responding to the quote here. I’m not condoning locking small children in bare rooms alone for hours on end.

Because a 3 ft by 3 ft by 7 ft upright locking coffin is a PERFECT place for timeout.

Because that’s clearly what I was saying, right?

It does appear to be what you are saying. The linked article is discussing how common it is For schools to lock young children in tiny rooms by themselves.

One room in the article is described as 3x3x7 and another is even smaller at 5 sq feet. These are literally the rooms we are discussing and that you are defending using for timeouts.

Edit: It appears from your edit that you simply may have not read the article and thus did not realize what you were endorsing.

I added the edit about 2 minutes after I made the original post.

It's literally exactly what you said...?