The cheating of a 16-year-old student by a female high school teacher in Shanghai has fermented to a fever far beyond the ordinary derailment and "teacher-student love" incident.
Compared with the more common cases of teachers violating students, which can be characterized as illegal without suspense, this incident quickly turned into a lively event due to various factors such as the reversal of the common configuration of gender relations, the density of channels and details.
And almost at the same time as this incident, the news that the head teacher of a high school in Shaanxi forcibly kissed a female student in the office almost did not make a splash.
In fact, from the moral, ethical and legal perspectives, such incidents have not been very controversial. Even if viewed in the more ambiguous definition of "teacher-student love", this is not an uncommon event. However, when it comes to the emotional and sexual relations of minors, the ethical vigilance of society is generally unified.
However, in China's current law, having sex with a minor boy over the age of 14 does not directly constitute a crime, which is also an important reason for the ambiguity of the characterization of this incident.
And this time, the "female teacher and male student" caused such a heated discussion for two main reasons.
First, unlike the usual vague and overly concise official announcements, the female teacher's husband did everything in detail, so that this relationship between the old and moral betrayals that was usually hidden underground was made public with detailed chat records.
At present, the hundred-page PDF chat record integrated by the female teacher's husband has been ** on many online platforms and communities. After the privacy of the parties was **, the eye-catching degree of the "plot" diluted the seriousness of the "incident", allowing this incident involving ethics and even law to evolve into an urban love legend on the front page of "Bosom Friend" magazine. The female teacher and the male student in question have become the heroes and heroines in the short-term traffic narrative.
The privacy and detail density of the private domain greatly interfere with the focus on the relevant laws and professional ethics in the public domain.
A lawyer has publicly stated that the husband's actions are suspected of infringing on the right to reputation of others in civil matters, and if the infringed person (i.e., his wife and the student) are further seriously affected in the future, he may also be suspected of the crime of insult. ** involving minors has also brought more alarming harm.
The chat records circulating on the Internet ** have appeared in many female teachers**.
Second, compared with the "teacher-student love" we usually hear about, this matter has obviously increased a curious perspective.
In general, news stories like "male teachers reaching out to young girls" are more common, and it is easier to slip from the realm of ethics to the realm of law. After all, in the currently applicable law in our country, having sex with a woman under the age of 14, regardless of whether the person is willing or not, is a ** behavior. For men, there is no equivalent level.
Ethically and morally, male superiors with resources and power have always been subject to more scrutiny and vigilance, and they should also reasonably take on more responsibility to protect the weak and restrain themselves.
But when the superior became a woman, and netizens learned from the so-called "details" that the male student involved was not passive, a mentality based on penetrating gender culture and diametrically opposed to "male teachers harassing young girls" also appeared: there was no shortage of male netizens who envied the male students involved and "did what I couldn't do in high school". Some parents of boys even put themselves in the shoes of their children if they were attracted to such a young female teacher, they would not suffer.
There are also female netizens who believe that this matter belongs to "you love me", which is not the same nature as the old man's hunting, and the man in the incident, including himself, believes that he does not belong to the injured party in the traditional sense.
If it weren't for the two keywords "teacher and student" and "minor", this would be a daily derailment incident. Even because of the disparity in age and the vividness of the details, it is reminiscent of some literary films that betray morality and forbidden love, such as Singaporean director Chen Zheyi's "Tropical Rain" and the Japanese animation "The Garden of Words", both of which are the unrequited love between high school male students and female teachers.
As a result, in the case of relatively vague laws and established professional immorality, the biggest remaining controversy in this matter came to the private moral issue within the family, that is, marital inconvenience.
The husband of the female teacher reported his wife, not only released detailed chat records, but also ** personal information of both parties, including the names of minor male students.
And the husband's self-proclaimed reason sounded very legitimate: "Is such a person (referring to his wife) qualified to be a teacher?" "This is for the ecology of public education, and it is reasonable.
But his main emotional motive, of course, cannot be to defend social justice, but more for personal revenge and anger. If it is only to solve the problem and protect your own rights and interests, it is enough to report to the relevant unit.
Tropical Rain" stills.
Proceeding from the simple feelings of man, the husband's anger and impulse for revenge are understandable. As a victim, his emotions are also completely understandable and worthy of sympathy. At least, he didn't choose a more extreme act of venting his anger.
It is worth discussing this form of "fish and nets" - under what circumstances is it permissible to use the public's power to extend the personal sphere?
Whether it is the ** of this incident, or the wives of the more common report** husbands, when a person who has been hurt in marriage and family picks up the best *** at the moment and lets the public replace law, reason, and emotion to punish the perpetrator for himself, is it really possible to effectively "retaliate" and defend rights?
Let's look at this time. A few days after the matter fermented, as the parties' private information became more and more, this gradually evolved into a topic with huge traffic, attracting netizens to carnival and use the topic to play.
For example, in the female teacher** on the Internet, a fashion blogger's ** was mixed in, and a few days ago, the blogger has refuted the rumors on social ** and said that he would defend his rights. Another female blogger who looks similar to the female teacher on the Internet** was subjected to cyberbullying and ridicule during the live broadcast, and her information and **screenshots,**Rumors also grew boundlessly.
In addition to being misidentified, many accounts claiming to be the female teacher involved appeared on social platforms overnight, taking advantage of the popularity of the incident to increase traffic and gain attention. A few days ago, a number of platforms have banned a number of accounts that impersonate those involved.
False and real, true and false information circulates on the Internet, causing harm to unrelated people other than the parties. And all of this is a chain reaction brought about by this kind of reporting and ** method.
* The direction of development is also affected by this carnival, and it is more in the direction of entertainment and gossip.
Based on experience or cultural inertia, it is difficult to place "female teachers and male students" in the perspective of "male teachers and female students" as unswerving moral judgment. Instead, the sideline jokes, gender gaze, and vulgar jokes derived from this news have substituted the traditional gender culture into the context of teacher ethics and human ethics, and blurred the seriousness and legitimacy of the latter.
Shanghai No. 2 Middle School Briefing.
Of course, the public has the freedom to judge and look at an event, but in this process of entertainment and vulgarization, is there any substantial improvement and salvage of the impact of the event? Can the husband, who is the whistleblower, derive true justice and emotional redress from this revenge of honor?
* is difficult to satisfy, choose to use the open power of the Internet to morally judge private morality, you have to accept it*** This has been a law that has been tested countless times.
The real problem is that the person who decides whether and how to start this trial is not the law or morality, but the person himself. He took advantage of the emotions and tastes of the masses to empower himself and expand the private rights that individuals did not have.
The boundaries between law, reason, and emotion are blurred, but they are confused, and all the information is packaged into a grenade and thrown into the public domain, constantly sinking, and finally an inevitable result is to be captured by a vulgar appetite waiting to be fed, and surrounded by a ** carnival with topics but no personality.
In fact, there is this risk in any report of selfish morality.
Like the accusations of sexual harassment by men by women in recent years. There is a common path: first, there is a "small essay" with emotion to pry the emotional resonance of the same-sex group, and then the man releases the chat record to show that the woman also has an active plot to try to prove that the two have a relationship.
In this process, the accuser deliberately conceals part of the plot, and the accused blurs the line between ethics and law and private feelings. What they all have in common is that they both use public power to extend private power and expand the breadth and intensity of the dissemination of individual demands.
In an ideal society, a virtuous public policy would be fostered by rational and transparent discussion. And "emotion" is seen as an irrational factor that affects the public**.
Changes in the medium have reshaped the boundaries of different contexts and changed the way people understand and pursue justice. The intervention of private emotions and life experiences allows law, ethics and morality to invade each other, and symphony into a murmur that makes people carnival for a short time.
Among these three, at least, "morality" is not suitable for criticism in the completely open field, it is more of a matter of social culture and customs, more like the uncle and aunt sitting around the entrance of the village, pointing out in the chat, and dissolving in the chat.
"Morality" is not suitable for criticism in the completely public realm "Wading through the Sea of Wrath" stills.
Of course, according to the famous proverb "law is the minimum morality", law is the minimum measure and value standard of morality. But at the same time, moral condemnation cannot go beyond the bottom line of the law.
Being judged by the spontaneously expanding private domain, calling on everyone to join the battle with the keyboard in their hands, and using the moral crusade of prying eyes to enhance the desire to hunt, is an invisible lynching.
Female teachers will inevitably pay the price for their unethical behavior, and those other interpretations of female teachers' personality and life, speculation about whether male students are "complacent", and speculation about whether their husbands are happy and relieved are all manifestations of loss of control.
Not only in this particular case, but the use of public emotion and the desire to snoop to intensify private punishment is becoming more and more susceptible to backlash. Including the accusations of abuse by young women against male superiors, which are common in recent years, a skeptical sense of existence is beginning to emerge: there is indeed a possibility that women will retaliate for emotional harm in the name of sexual abuse.
Such self-empowerment and abuse of power will only make the real harm more and more silent, and make the real necessary rights protection more and more powerless.