The Netflix hit ‘Adolescence’ has got everyone talking, including the Prime Minister himself. For Kier Starmer, the fictional drama was so powerful, he has been heard describing the show as a ‘documentary.’ The Prime Minister found time to watch the four-part series with his children (boy and girl aged 16 and 14 respectively), an experience so profound that the series has been made free to view in secondary schools.
The series follows a 13-year-old boy who becomes entangled in the ‘manosphere’—a network of websites and online forums that foster misogynistic beliefs about women and girls. Immersed in ‘incel’ culture, a term referring to men who identify as ‘involuntarily celibate,’ he grows increasingly resentful over his inability to form romantic relationships. His exposure to these toxic communities ultimately leads to his radicalisation and, tragically, to murder. The series delves into the unsettling question: How could a boy from a loving home be driven to commit such a horrific act?
My first concern about the series is its portrayal of a 13-year-old boy as an ‘incel’ and its implication that sexual activity at his age is the norm. While some adolescents may engage in underage sex, it is far from universal, and framing it as standard behavior is deeply irresponsible. Applying the ‘incel’ label to a young boy who is simply exploring his identity and masculinity risks causing serious harm, potentially distorting the self-perception of the teenage viewers, and undermining the crucial guidance parents provide as they navigate the challenges of the online world.
There is no doubt that some of the material that children access online is appalling. No man, woman or child, should spend their time reading forums where rape and other forms of sexual violence are normalised and even promoted. It’s massively alarming that something has gone so wrong in our society that teachers have spotted increased misogyny, so something must be done — but here is the clincher: I’m not sure a fictional Netflix show, together with follow-up lessons in school, is the answer.
The answer rather is to find the route cause of these dysfunctional behaviours, to answer the critical question: what is the cause of premature and inappropriate sexual behaviour in children? There are two possible theses that require examination. The first is the breakdown of the natural family unit and, notably, the absence of fathers. The second is the introduction of sex education into primary schools. In this report by the Family Education Trust it is stated that children are more likely to have a smartphone than a father at home, and the consequences of this are wide-reaching: from an increased likelihood of teenage pregnancy, to an increased chance of being involved in crime. The upshot of the report is that married parents produce happier, healthy children.
The same report touches on the other issue, which is the sexualisation of children via sex education in schools. Rev Dr Lynda Rose explored this issue in an article for Christian Today where she exposed the fact that in the two years before the first covid lockdown, peer-on-peer abuse doubled with 10% of cases involving children under ten. Ten years previously, the number of cases was almost nil. She contends that something happened in the previous decades to sexualise our children, and one compelling thesis is that it is the introduction into schools of sex education with the absence of any principled moral framework. Now children are taught that the only thing that makes sex acceptable or not is either consent or the absence of consent. The cultural effect of this is to reduce sex to a mere recreational activity anyone can take part in, including underage children. Secondly, the context in which the film was made warrants careful scrutiny. It was aired via Netflix, with the producers working with a charity named ‘Tender’ who are distributing resources for schools to be used alongside the series.
Tender has promised to provide resources for schools, which is worrying, because their available resources are obviously politicised and skewed toward one particular world view, a world view that contains Gender Theory, Critical Race Theory and Feminist Intersectionality. These perspectives are increasingly normalised, but no less partisan than any other world view. Resources like this teacher’s toolkit have already sparked concern among worried parents and advocacy groups:
It is important to be clear that most of the individually listed behaviours in the pyramid are indefensible. However, there are two things that make this pyramid concerning, especially as a teaching resource. Under attitudes and beliefs, we find ‘strict gender roles’. Whilst it is unclear what they mean by ‘gender roles,’ it seems reasonable to wonder if children will be chastised for asserting that women ‘look after babies’ or ‘do the cooking’. The trouble is, a boy asserting these views might have seen bad stuff online, but he might also have a mum at home who looks after his baby sister and does the cooking.
The second issue that arises is the scope of the pyramid, implying that ‘thinking women should do the cooking’ at the bottom can be a slippery upward slope to committing ‘genocide’ at the top. Any slightly sparky 15-year-old boy might say ‘hey, miss, isn’t genocide about race or religion, women aren’t a different race or religion are they?’ Another equally sparky child might say ‘hey, sir, if I don’t believe two men can get married, as per Church teaching, does that mean I am going to do a gang rape?’ Consequently, a resource such as this, which is designed to shock us out of our politically-incorrect ‘micro-aggressions’, risks being counter productive and alienating many of those it is aiming to convert. There are issues that need to be addressed but they need to be addressed with nuance and sensitivity.
Sexual violence and the apparent rising tide of disaffected youngsters turning to disreputable sources on the internet isn’t something to be light-hearted about. There is such a thing as ‘toxic masculinity’, but let’s not blanket-label all that is traditionally associated with being a man as being ‘toxic’. But I can say with certainty, as a highly experienced teacher of RE and RSHE, that a Netflix drama, and a programme of politicised resources, are not going to resolve the current ‘adolescence’ crisis.
Marianne Tomlinson
ParentPower
ppadmin
