The ‘Adolescence’ Craze & Toxic Masculinity

by Lucy Marsh

For the past few weeks, press headlines and social media have been dominated by the furore surrounding the Netflix drama Adolescence, which has become the most-watched English title on Netflix ever, with a staggering 96 million viewers. The four-part drama tells the fictional story of Jamie, a 13-year-old boy accused of murdering a female classmate. 

It has sparked conversations among the public and politicians, with the Prime Minister Keir Starmer backing a plan to show the miniseries in every secondary school across the country. On several occasions, Starmer has referred to the show as a ‘documentary’ despite the fact that it is a fictional story. The co-creator and star of the show Stephen Graham said he was partly inspired by the tragic death of schoolgirl Elianne Andam, 15, who was killed by Hassan Sentamu  in Croydon in 2023 as well as the influence of so-called ‘toxic’ figures such as Andrew Tate. 

One of the key themes of the show is ‘incel culture’, the so-called ‘manosphere’ and online ‘toxic masculinity’.

‘Incel’ is short for ‘involuntary celibate’ and refers to men or teenage boys who consider themselves unattractive to women, leading to them developing hostile attitudes towards women and girls.

While Adolescence is a powerful drama with some exceptionally good acting, we have serious concerns with the seemingly knee-jerk reaction to it, resulting in the Prime Minister stating that he wants every school pupil from the age of 11 upwards to watch it.

Our problems with the show are:

It sexualises children

In the second episode, the detectives spend time at Jamie’s school interviewing classmates. One of the police officers has a son at the same school who informs his father about the online ‘manosphere,’ describing how different emojis such as the ‘red pill’ refer to ‘incels’.

Referring to children under 16 as ‘involuntary celibate’ assumes that it’s normal for 13-year-olds to be engaging in sexual activity. There is no mention of the age of consent or that it’s illegal for children to have sex because they cannot consent.

During the third episode, the psychologist is interviewing Jamie without an appropriate adult present and asks him ‘what’s the normal amount someone your age would do sexually with a girl or boy?’ She goes on to use explicit language to describe sexual acts. Jamie initially pretends he has taken part in sexual acts with two girls before admitting he is making this up, but casually adds that he’s watched porn because ‘everyone’s seen porn’. The psychologist ignores this, presumably because it’s assumed by the show’s creators that it’s normal for children to be watching porn.  

The drama quite rightly has a 15-certificate due to the upsetting subject matter, yet Keir Starmer wants all secondary school children to watch it, meaning that he thinks it’s acceptable for 11-year-olds to be exposed to inappropriate sexual content. 

All children develop at different rates and many 13-year-olds haven’t hit puberty. Most 13-year-olds are not having sex, and many won’t even have experienced sexual attraction. Describing them as ‘involuntary celibate’ because they haven’t had sex risks alarming children into believing there is something wrong with them if they aren’t sexually active.  

No school should be showing Adolescence to children, especially without the knowledge or consent of parents, who are best placed to know whether or not they want to discuss the issues raised in it with their children. 

This is particularly important since the Government recently rejected calls to introduce a right for parents to know what children are being taught in schools. Labour MPs voted down an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would have ensured parents could view all materials used in the classroom. 

The Conservatives, who tabled the amendment, argued that it would have made the content of lessons more transparent, following concerns that parents were being blocked from seeing what their children were being taught in sex and relationship (RHSE) lessons. Having provided information for the former MP Miriam Cates’s investigation into inappropriate RHSE materials in schools, which led the Conservative Government’s review of sex education, we are very concerned about this as much of the material being used by third party organisation is being used to indoctrinate and groom children with LGBTQ+ and highly sexualised materials.

It wrongly demonises white boys

The show portrays white working-class boys as if they are all potential rapists and murderers, particularly if they spend a lot of time online. This is not based on evidence.  

Whilst there is a problem with knife crime in the UK, the victims and perpetrators of knife crime are disproportionately young Black men in urban areas. According to the ONS, a third of knife crime takes place in London and is linked to gang activity. Despite making up only 13% of London’s total population, black Londoners account for more than half of both knife crime perpetrators and murder victims.

Senior police officers have also spoken out about a lack of male role models being a key factor behind the increase in knife crime and gang violence.  

Fatherlessness in the UK is a huge crisis, with 1 in 4 children now being raised without their father in the home. This issue is even bigger amongst the Black Caribbean community, with more than half of children (63%) being raised by single mothers. 

If Adolescence were meant to be truly representative of the serious issues involving knife crime in the UK, Jamie’s character would have been a black boy without an involved father.  

Instead, the filmmakers chose to portray a white boy from a stable family with married parents, when the reality is that 76% of young men in prison in England and Wales had an absent father and more than a third of youth inmates are Black. It should be possible to discuss these issues without being accused of being racist.

Teachers and parents are now being urged by the Government to treat this fictional drama as factual when it is not based on actual evidence.  

Teaching children about ‘toxic masculinity’ is counter productive 

On the back of the moral panic whipped up about Adolescence, the Government has suddenly announced that it is funding an RHSE organisation called Tender to produce accompanying educational guides to be used alongside free access to the film from 1st April. Just as Adolescence was approved for rollout in schools, Netflix revealed the plan would be facilitated via Into Film+ (a platform that is supported by the British Film Institute, and that has previously promoted free LGBT+ content for schools, including a short documentary about a schoolgirl who medically transitioned into a transgender-identifying man). 

Both organisations are tied to the State – Tender has so far received £3.4m in government-funding and Into Film+ is funded by the Department for Education (DfE).

Tender has an online ‘guide to misogyny’ which uses a ‘pyramid of sexual violence’ which implies that the beliefs and attitudes along the bottom of the pyramid will inevitably lead to the extreme behaviours at the top. In the guide, Tender claims that boys engaging in ‘strict gender roles’ or ‘bragging’ will lead to rape, murder and ultimately ‘genocide’.

As outlined in our 2024 report on the teaching of so-called masculinity teaching in schools, Boys and the Burden of Labels which found that 3 in 10 schools teach that being masculine is problematic, teaching boys that they are ‘toxic’ just because they are male, is only going to drive boys further towards misogynist influencers like Andrew Tate.

There is no equivalent teaching about ‘toxic femininity’ or class discussions about ‘what it means to be a woman’, despite the fact that Jamie’s character in Adolescence is being severely bullied both online and physically by girls. Teenage girls are also significantly more at risk of online harm than boys, with more than three quarters experiencing cyberbullying and harassment.

Blaming young white boys for all of society’s problems is going to create a negative backlash, as described by a headteacher in his article for the Huffington Post:

‘Research warns us against ‘negative social norming’, the risk that education unintentionally normalises the thing it is trying to eliminate. 

For those engaged in – even on the fringe of – bullying, misogyny and violence, watching Adolescence could positively reinforce those tendencies, while sending other students off in search of the very content the series warns about.’

We were pleased to sign an important letter by the founders of domestic abuse charity Victim Focus which is calling on Keir Starmer to withdraw the film from secondary schools.

The letter says Starmer seems to have made this announcement over Adolescence without any evidence suggesting it will work:

There is no framework, no evidence-base, no guidance pack, no expert-led materials, and no structured approach to delivering this series in schools. It has not been trialled in educational settings, nor has it been evaluated for safety, impact, or effectiveness. 

There is no evidence that this approach will work, and teachers have not been supported or trained to undertake this complex intervention with millions of students. No consultation has taken place with teachers, schools, parents, psychologists, or safeguarding professionals. Its rollout appears to be based on public sentiment rather than sound educational policy. 

We will continue to urge the Government to rethink not only its plan to push the film in schools but to ensure that no State-funded school should subscribe to external agencies where the concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ is covered and where these organisations are involved in political campaigning.  

Schools must ensure that issues surrounding healthy relationships are dealt with without stereotyping either sex. Where facts around sexual violence are explored, this must be taught holistically, without pathologising either sex as inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

The Government must also address the epidemic of fatherlessness 

As part of its response to Adolescence, the Education Secretary has said that primary schools must recruit more male primary school teachers as role models for boys to head off toxic influencers. While we agree that boys do need better role models, Phillipson is completely ignoring the huge issue of fatherless boys while claiming that the behaviour of boys, their influences and the young men they become is ‘a defining issue of our time’.

But the evidence doesn’t lie, we are failing children – particularly boys – if we ignore the importance of fathers.  

When families break up, the child’s contact with their father is often the first casualty. MARRI found that ‘by adolescence…fewer than half of children living with separated, divorced, or remarried mothers had seen their fathers at all in more than a year.’

If the Government really wants to solve the problems that boys are facing and tackle the rising levels of violence against women and girls, it needs to be brave enough to discuss the issue of absent fathers. Ministers must also acknowledge the evidence that marriage is the key to stable families. 

Instead of making policy decisions in a snap reaction to fictional tv shows with advice of actors and celebrities, the Prime Minister needs to take action based on sound evidence – which shows that we are failing children by failing to prevent family breakdown. 

The Telegraph journalist Madeline Grant is right when she says in her article about young men in crisis that we need to focus more on the ‘contentment associated with love and family; and positive aspects of masculinity – risk-taking, gallantry, duty – to highlight alongside the relentlessly negative. We need better role models, such as the rugby star Courtney Lawes who has championed the institution of marriage, or the footballer Bukayo Saka, who often speaks about the importance of his Christian faith. And, of course, the brave young men who are being put to death in Iran every day, fighting for their sisters.’ 

A recent viral video showed an interviewer asking people in London the question ‘what are men good for’ – a question which was universally met with silence or disparaging remarks. When asked ‘what are women good for?’ the answer was unanimously ‘everything’.

We only have to look at the news to see that we are facing a global political crisis, with the very real prospect that the UK could be involved in another world war. In the event of military conscription, what kind of young men will be able to defend our country if every good masculine trait has been hammered out of them in schools? Perhaps it’s time for compulsory viewings of World War Two films depicting real stories of chivalry, heroism and patriotism – now that would be something to celebrate.