Netflix’s “Adolescence”

Mar 27

Editor’s note: this article was first published in The Illustrated Empathy Gap on 27th March 2025, and is republished here by kind permission.

There is no doubt that the Netflix series “Adolescence” is propaganda rather than a responsible depiction of knife crime in the UK. In every respect it is grossly misleading as regards the empirical evidence on knife crime.

UK official stats tell us little or nothing about offenders in knife crime cases, and nothing at all about whether the offenders against female victims tend to be male or female.

In the first Appendix, below, I include what stats I could find, the key points being as follows.

“white male adolescent offender and young female victim is the least common combination in knife crime.”

About 8.7% of stabbing victims are female, about 13.1% of knife crime offenders are female. Like other forms of non-domestic violence, knife crime tends to be male-on-male.

Non-whites are about 5 times more likely to be knife crime offenders than whites (though whites account for most knife crimes due to weight of numbers).

Only about 4.5% of knife crime victims are under 16, so the story of “Adolescence” which associates this age range with the problem is false.

In short: white male adolescent offender and young female victim is the least common combination in knife crime.

“I’ve not seen anything to link “the manosphere” to knife crime, this being the principal propaganda target of “Adolescence”.”

Of course, there are individual cases of males stabbing young girls, that of Rudakubana being the most nasty recent example.

But I’ve not seen anything to link “the manosphere” to knife crime, this being the principal propaganda target of “Adolescence”. Rudakubana was arguably influence by online sites, but Islamist in nature, not the manosphere.

“My suspicion is that the motivation behind this nasty series is to propagandize the UK public into support for even more draconian censorship laws – with “the manosphere” being particularly targeted.”

My suspicion is that the motivation behind this nasty series is to propagandize the UK public into support for even more draconian censorship laws – with “the manosphere” being particularly targeted. The recent Online Safety Act was not draconian enough for many of the usual suspects. However, this is hard to prove. One might also suspect political influence via funding, but again I have no evidence (yet).

Lamentably, the public lapped up “Adolescence” and have fallen 100% for the propaganda. One despairs.

“I conclude that the public are distressingly gullible but that the AI engines are not. AI emerges with credit, in this case at least”

Interestingly, that “Adolescence” is anti-male propaganda is evident even to AI engines. Tom Golden has already blogged on this. We have rerun chatGPT ourselves, and also Grok-3. The results are fascinating and spot-on so I attach them in the second Appendix.

I conclude that the public are distressingly gullible but that the AI engines are not. AI emerges with credit, in this case at least, but only rotten tomatoes for the public.

Appendix: Some Knife Crime Stats (England & Wales)

Fatal Stabbings

From “Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2024 – Appendix Tables”

Victims by Age & Sex (from Table 11)

Victims by Ethnicity

NB: This is not only for deaths by stabbings but all homicides

**Table 7b: Average rates per million population of currently recorded homicide offences by victim’s ethnic appearance, combined ONS Census categories**

The rates per million are substantially larger for non-whites than for whites. But the absolute numbers of cases are far larger for whites than for non-whites.

ONS sources do not give offender characteristics, but evidence below is that the higher victimisation rates for non-whites relates to comparably higher offender rates for non-whites, i.e., they are due to black-on-black offences.

Non-Fatal Stabbings by Sex

Disaggregation of knife crime stats by sex or ethnicity are hard to find. However, House of Commons report ‘Knife crime statistics: England and Wales’, Grahame Allen & Helen Wong, 27 January 2025, gives the following table based on NHS admissions/discharge data,

Female victims overall account for only 8.7% of all victims of knife attacks recorded in these medical data. Moreover, only 4.5% of knife attack victims are under 16.

Offender Characteristics

ONS data tells us nothing about offender characteristics for knife crime. For this I use the 2020 study,

“Victims, offenders and victim-offender overlaps of knife crime: A social network analysis approach using police records” by Laura Bailey, Vincent Harinam and Barak ArielI’

This was based on one police force (Thames Valley) only, which covers a total population of 2.34 million. The study concentrated on non-domestic knife crimes. Knife crime accounted for 2.2% of all non-domestic crime.

Sex

13.1% of knife crime offenders were female, a total of 945 female offenders in the four-year study period.

Ethnicity

Were offender ethnicity was recorded…

10.9% of offenders were Asian (not including Chinese / SE Asian)
20.0% of offenders were black
0.7% of offenders were other non-white ethnicities
68.4% of offenders were white

Hence 31.6% of offenders were non-white compared to the total population which is only 8% non-white. Per capita, therefore, non-whites are 5 times more likely to be knife crime offenders.

Age

14.1% of offenders were under 16
35.7% of offenders were aged 16 – 24
23.6% of offenders were aged 25- 34

Relationship to Other Criminal Behaviour

81% of offenders and 92.2% of victims were found to be unaffiliated with any organised crime groups.
Most victims are generally not involved in crime of any sort; nevertheless, victims are more likely to have a criminal record than the general public.
The majority of offenders were known to the police from prior offences (74.2%).
The study did not address “radicalisation by the manosphere” which appears to play no part in these expert authors’ opinions.

Appendix: AI Critiques of “Adolescence”

ChatGPT

**Adolescence and the Framing of Masculinity: A Critical Response**

Netflix’s limited series *Adolescence* has generated considerable debate, not only for its dramatic premise—a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a classmate—but for what some see as its underlying ideological message. The show attributes the boy’s descent into violence to his exposure to the “manosphere,” a loosely defined constellation of male-oriented online spaces. While it is legitimate to explore the dangers of online radicalisation, *Adolescence* goes beyond cautionary storytelling and veers into ideological territory. Through selective framing, a contrived premise, and an unrelentingly negative depiction of male identity, the series can reasonably be interpreted as anti-male propaganda.

**An Implausible Premise**

The central narrative arc—that a teenage boy could be radicalised to commit murder solely through engagement with male-focused online content—is highly speculative and lacks real-world precedent. While the influence of extremist content is a genuine concern, particularly in relation to terrorism and hate crimes, there is no known instance in the UK of a child murdering a peer as a direct result of manosphere involvement. Youth violence in Britain is more commonly linked to gang activity, drug disputes, or local conflicts. *Adolescence* thus manufactures a highly specific moral panic, attributing lethal behaviour to ideological exposure in a way that feels contrived and unmoored from actual patterns of violence.

**Flattening a Complex Terrain**

The manosphere is a diverse and fragmented ecosystem, encompassing everything from fitness advice and career motivation to fringe ideologies. By presenting it as a monolithic pipeline to misogyny and violence, *Adolescence* erases the complexities of why young men are drawn to these spaces in the first place. Many feel dislocated or unrepresented in mainstream discourse, and turn to these communities in search of belonging, answers, or guidance. Rather than engaging with that reality, the series opts to depict the entire landscape as toxic—a digital breeding ground for future predators.

**Pathologising Masculinity**

This reductive lens forms part of a wider trend in media: the pathologisation of masculinity itself. Male characters, especially young boys, are often framed not as individuals facing difficulty or disconnection, but as latent threats. In *Adolescence*, the protagonist is shown to be passive, suggestible, and incapable of agency outside his online consumption. The implication is clear: when boys suffer or lash out, the cause lies within masculinity itself—not in social conditions, institutional failings, or broader cultural neglect.

Moreover, the show offers no real counterbalance. There are no healthy male role models, no depiction of positive masculine values, and no genuine attempt to examine the causes of the protagonist’s alienation. Instead, masculinity is presented as something to be feared and corrected. In contrast, female characters are cast predominantly as victims—well-meaning, blameless, and reactive. The result is a moral binary that oversimplifies complex human experiences and undermines the viewer’s ability to empathise with the boy’s situation.

**From Critique to Condemnation**

The issue is not that *Adolescence* critiques extremism; it is that it collapses all male-oriented spaces into a single narrative of threat. This is both intellectually dishonest and socially counterproductive. A more responsible series might have distinguished between self-help communities and incel forums, or shown how some young men find genuine support and connection in these circles. Instead, *Adolescence* treats all male spaces as suspect, contributing to an atmosphere of moral panic and reinforcing suspicion toward any form of male solidarity or expression.

**A Cultural Symptom**

This portrayal is not unique to *Adolescence*. It reflects a broader cultural pattern in which masculinity is routinely depicted as problematic or dangerous. While public discourse readily engages with issues like “toxic masculinity,” it pays comparatively little attention to male suicide, underachievement in education, declining mental health, or the absence of male role models. In such a context, narratives like *Adolescence* do more than entertain—they reinforce damaging assumptions and deepen social divides.

**Real-World Impact**

Cultural narratives shape perception, which in turn influences policy and practice. When boys are repeatedly portrayed as threats rather than individuals in need of support, schools, institutions, and even families may become less willing to engage with them empathetically. The increasing focus on “male radicalisation”—often without a strong evidentiary basis—has already led to censorship and the stigmatisation of men’s issues. *Adolescence* adds fuel to this fire, contributing to a climate in which young men are treated with suspicion rather than compassion.

**Conclusion**

*Adolescence* positions itself as a timely drama about online danger and youth violence. In practice, however, it delivers a highly ideological narrative—one that casts masculinity in a consistently negative light and fails to engage with the real challenges facing boys today. By flattening complex issues into a simplistic morality tale, the series not only misrepresents its subject matter but risks reinforcing the very sense of alienation it purports to warn against.

If we genuinely care about the welfare of young men, we must move beyond ideological portrayals and engage in serious, nuanced conversations. Until then, dramas like *Adolescence* will continue to offer spectacle in place of substance—and blame in place of understanding.

Grok-3

Netflix’s *Adolescence*, a four-part British miniseries released in March 2025, has garnered significant attention for its unflinching exploration of a 13-year-old boy, Jamie Miller, accused of murdering a female classmate. Directed by Philip Barantini and co-created by Stephen Graham (who also stars as Jamie’s father, Eddie) and Jack Thorne, the series employs a striking single-shot technique for each episode, immersing viewers in the raw emotional aftermath of the crime. While lauded for its technical prowess and performances—particularly Owen Cooper’s debut as Jamie—the series’ portrayal of masculinity as a pathology invites critical scrutiny. It frames male identity as inherently fragile, susceptible to corruption, and prone to violence, often leaning on contemporary cultural anxieties rather than offering a nuanced interrogation of gender.

From the outset, *Adolescence* positions masculinity as a volatile force shaped by external pressures, notably the online “manosphere” and figures like Andrew Tate, who is explicitly name-dropped in episode two. Jamie’s descent into violence is tied to his consumption of misogynistic content, which the series suggests preys on his insecurities—his perceived unattractiveness, social isolation, and failure to meet peer-enforced standards of male dominance. This narrative arc implies that masculinity, when left unchecked or exposed to toxic influences, becomes a breeding ground for rage and destruction. The show’s third episode, a standout for its intense two-hander between Jamie and a child psychologist (Erin Doherty), lays bare his internalized beliefs about women as objects to be conquered or punished, a worldview ostensibly absorbed from digital spaces. Here, masculinity is not just flawed but diseased—a condition exacerbated by a lack of adult guidance and societal failure to “correct” i

This portrayal, however, risks oversimplification. By centering Jamie’s actions on his engagement with incel ideology and cyberbullying—symbolized by coded emojis like the dynamite “red pill” on his Instagram—the series reduces complex psychological and social dynamics to a cause-and-effect morality tale. Masculinity is pathologized as a monolithic entity, vulnerable to radicalization, rather than a multifaceted identity shaped by individual agency, upbringing, and broader cultural forces beyond the internet. The show’s focus on Jamie’s “normal” family—loving yet oblivious parents in a typical suburban home—underscores this critique: if even a stable environment can’t prevent such an outcome, the implication is that masculinity itself is inherently predisposed to toxicity, awaiting only the right trigger.

Moreover, *Adolescence* juxtaposes Jamie’s unraveling with the grief of his parents, particularly Eddie, whose quiet devastation (epitomized in the finale’s teddy bear scene) contrasts with his son’s explosive anger. This dichotomy reinforces a binary view of masculinity: the stoic, broken father versus the volatile, corrupted son. While the series avoids overtly vilifying Jamie—casting him as both perpetrator and victim—it rarely explores alternative expressions of male identity that might challenge its central thesis. The female characters, including the murdered Katie and the psychologist, serve primarily as mirrors to reflect male dysfunction, leaving little room for a broader examination of gender dynamics.

Critically, the series’ reliance on the manosphere as the primary villain sidesteps deeper systemic questions. Knife crime, a stated inspiration for the show, is a real issue in the UK, but *Adolescence* filters it through a narrow lens of online radicalization, sidelining factors like economic disparity, mental health, or peer culture outside digital spaces. By framing masculinity as a pathology fueled by social media, the show aligns with a popular narrative that risks demonizing young men rather than understanding them. Its technical brilliance and emotional weight are undeniable, but this portrayal can feel didactic, prioritizing a cautionary tale over a more probing dialogue about what masculinity could be, beyond its potential for harm.

In conclusion, *Adolescence* compellingly dramatizes masculinity as a fragile construct, prone to collapsing into violence under the weight of toxic influences. Yet, its strength as a visceral narrative is tempered by a tendency to pathologize rather than dissect, presenting male identity as a problem to be solved rather than a complexity to be explored. For all its merits, the series might leave viewers questioning whether it illuminates the crisis of modern boyhood or simply amplifies a familiar alarm.

Scroll down to join the discussion

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.