Unintended consequences of Adolescence

One unintended consequence is that a company that David tenant is behind is linked to the makers and is now going to be going into schools “tackling misogyny” whilst claiming men can be women.

after some consideration, i am very concerned that this will be shown in schools.

this is aimed at adults to expose our collective inadequacies around safeguarding children from online harms and problematic / abusive relationships.

Children are not responsible for their own safeguarding

I disagree with the idea these kids don't need more mentors. That's just what they do need, particularly in the form of fathers.

Anyway, beside the point. I think if we are really committed to taking on the oppression pyramid, then we need to stop paying attention to it, not try and push away real issues.

I thought Deborah Ross's take on the reaction to the series was interesting.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b88499c7-f74c-4677-b1b5-93716d686b3b?shareToken=f559e1e1d563f6914d75b7b3ccbdeb7b

but… adolescence the show is about this is what leads to boys violently murdering girls. It’s not further marginalising girls to focus on how to bring up boys that won’t kill them?!
I disagree op. This is important and adds to women’s safety, as well as boys matter too.

I've been mulling it over and I think what bothers me is the sudden focus on toxic masculinity and how it affects men's mental health. Women have been dying for years because of this issue, but it's not until someone realises that it negatively affects men that there's suddenly a fuss about it. Do the hundreds if not thousands of women who've died or had their lives completely ruined not matter enough to address the issue? It seems not - we have to wait until men's lives are being ruined to get any meaningful conversation about it.

Global fame and adulation for the actor playing Jamie, he's a mega star purely based on the character he played.

Unintended role modelling, if girls disrespect you they deserve to be killed as shown by Jamie.

Blaming social media when parents are mostly to blame. Yes parents, mothers worshipping the ground their darling boy walks on who believe their precious male child can do no wrong and dads who are absent emotionally and disrespect their wives.

I'll admit, I haven't seen it.

But it is another programme in a long line of programmes where there is a dead female, and therefore they have no voice.

Could there be a way to highlight violence against women without creating a story with another dead woman?

I don't think this is really about poor white boys as such. It runs through all of society, you find these attitudes in the army, the police force, the arts, etc.
It's really about tackling social media as well as positive role models for boys. Look at the Scouts, they now accept girls because they couldn't survive as boys only. Again, this is presented as boys aren't allowed to have anything for themselves.

Another article from the Times

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e40ea92a-e3b5-48c0-afec-73a8b36d3083?
shareToken=1be949cfac37b715b708deaa40c047a2

In his 2021 McTaggart lecture Thorne spoke of television as an “empathy box”. With Adolescence, he says, he’s not asking for empathy for men who do terrible things. “I think we’re asking for understanding and I think that’s a distinction. If we don’t try and understand Jamie and try to understand that position, then we’re not going to solve the problem.”

But he does not believe creating a “minister for men”, as has been mooted by some politicians and the Higher Policy Education Institute will help.

“No, I think a minister for technology that actually wants to solve the online problem is the answer,” he says. “And actually this also falls under a minister for women because it’s about harm to women. This show is about harm to women.”

I taught in a prison for a few years. Prisons are full of hopeless boys and men. Often they are illiterate and they have never had proper jobs. They have chaotic families who turn their backs on them. They come out of prison with nothing and reoffend quickly. They are so in need of support and proper guidance. No government is prepared to address this issue and spend money on such a marginalised and hated group. They are hated and they are blamed ( often with cause) for much of the violence and crime in society.
I remember so clearly when black immigrants were treated in this way and whatever some people might think, the casual racism and hatred is nothing like the conscious racism every where fifty, sixty years ago.

For the last fifty years in teaching it has been the case that poor white boys have worse outcomes than any other group in society. Every other group out achieves them. I don’t consider Jamie in Adolescence a poor white boy. He has much on his side.
If a group is constantly marginalised and excluded it is bad for everyone. I remember the casual racism in the sixties and the seventies. The unthinking exclusion from all institutions, the stereo typing, proved to be dangerous and there was a huge cultural shift nationally and a zero tolerance of racism. Obviously, there is still a long way to go but if you focus on education, most grammar schools in London are full of black and brown children whose parents are determined that their children will have successful lives.
Education has not been able to provide the same push for poor white boys. If you do a tiny bit of internet research you see the huge gulf between girls in all areas of education and poor white boys. It is so dangerous to have such an unthinking disregard for such a large group. They haven’t really got any high profile people fighting for them ( Wes Streeting is doing a bit).
There has to be a big focus on supporting this very marginalised group. People who have nothing and no aspirations turn to anyone who appears to be on their side ( internet) . I have a friend who tried to teach at one of the worst performing schools in Sheffield. Boys there had no chance of escaping and bettering themselves. They are a hopeless group. They have the potential to be a dangerous group.
I haven’t any answers but I do recognise that this group needs significant input . They need politicians to have strategies, inclusion programmes, aspirational programmes so this group can have proper support without turning to false role models on the internet.

Personally I think you cannot address the impact of misogyny upon woman & girls without unpicking and addressing toxic masculinity. That would be like trying to deal with flooding without assessing where the water is coming from…

They should be seen as two parts of one issue. So, for example, domestic violence increases exponentially after wars/conflicts. There is lots of data internationally about this, and in part it is to do with the brutalisation of men in combat based wars. However, after WW2 there was a massive surge in VAW in response to the fact that men felt - and were - isplaced by women. They had ‘taken’ their jobs while they were away fighting and now were skilled in manufacturing and farming, they had become used to having money of their own (though in many countries such as the UK, they didn’t get the right to have private bank accounts for another 30 years), they learned to cope without/to not need a man. The data shows that VAW increased on a societal level in the US in particular on a level not fully explained by war trauma/PTSD. Ie there was a recognition that men felt marginalised. It is suggested in academic circles that this is where the seeds of current toxic masculinity were planted - within the shift in power in a traditionally patriarchal society where men, even poor working class ones, were ‘on top’.

What seems to have happened is that middle class men have managed to hold their place within the power/social pyramid, but poor men have sifted lower down in terms of rights and how they are perceived. I think - and I believe adolescence was trying to point to this by not casting a black actor as the teen - that this demotion of poorer males, the erosion of their social status, is what underpins toxic masculinity across all ethnicities. Poor immigrants (legal or illegal) who have nothing will resent the group who are next on the societal ladder. And it is women. Because we are still, after all this time, not far from the bottom. Just my opinion…

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271466-victoria-smith-on-start-the-week-bbc-radio-4?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Jack Thorne on role models:

Adolescence writer calls for 'radical action' not role models https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0egyyq1z47o

I can see why it feels like this but i disagree.

for once this is men speaking out and men taking the responsibility.

male writers. Men are talking about it.

One of the writers has said that we don’t need “more male role models.” We need radical change.

for once this to me feels like the men taking responsibility.

this will ultimately benefit women.

also - how far have we come in a month? I started a thread where Victoria smith was talking about exactly these things with other women on start the week, radio 4. Really no good till the men are the ones doing it all.

I don't want to put words in OP's mouth but consider it this way:

You have a son and a daughter.
Your son is heading in the direction of Jamie.
Your daughter just lost a swimming gold to "Jacqueline" who she had to watch undress and she had to undress in front of into skins which take 15-30 mins to put on.
You, mum, are actually doing stuff. running around fighting for your daughter and your son. Emailing swimming boards about risk assessments and actually booking therapy for your son and putting limits on networks you don't understand.

Your husband is talking. That's all he does. He never talks about your daughter. Only about "Jacqueline" and your son. He tells you how much you are in this together.

There'd be a focus on growing the boys into good men in society. then your daughter would overall benefit. But actually there is still a detriment to her here. The adverse impact on attention did happen. Can you see it?

I don't see this as OP standing aside. I see it as OP standing up to remind people swarming from popular issue to popular issue that society is a whole and holistic care is also an option.

I’m really struggling to understand your reaction to this particular drama is that you’re worried that “advancement of a marginalised group” (working class white boys, in your OP) is going to have an adverse impact on attention given to women’s issues.

If I had a son who I felt was heading in the same direction as Jamie then I react as a mother to help my son, not stand aside as a woman because this is a male problem for males to fix. Maybe I’ve misunderstood something in your OP - if so I apologise for misinterpreting.

I’ve just finished watching it . I thought the acting very good despite the dialogue hard to understand . However I learnt very little about incels or misogyny and I don’t think the message and horror was portrayed sufficiently. A lost opportunity.

I'm not sure that this particular issue is about the advancement of marginalized groups. It's about better relationships, it's about confronting toxic ways of thinking and behaving, it's about improving society for everyone.

I think OP has a valid point. I'm seeing the framing of things like the gender pay gap being presented as an attack on white working class men. The concept of equal pay for work of equal value has always been misunderstood.
The way girl's progress in education is being belittled as preferential treatment; a system that discriminates against boys.

I have this odd feeling we're back to the "these two things cannot be true at the same time."

That's a fallacy which undermines women massively.

It is possible to realise that support is being advocated for one group over another group without it being about sentiment and jealousy our criticism.

It should be possible to highlight deficiency in the upbringing of boys whilst advocating for women to be respected as a sex class. But we as a society are getting this wrong somehow.

That's what op is highlighting.
Sticking fingers in ears to make sure people hear the messaging about the boys just might cause more issues.

Again who's being called on to "sort it"? It's an important question which fell out of the first few responses.

I'm going to buck the trend here and say that I agree with the OP - up to a point anyway. I think her main concern/annoyance is over the fact that we always get pushed aside to make way for the latest "man woe". Women seem to be a temporary cause, with our concerns and discrimations filling in when there aren't male problems to address.
Having said that, I agree that addressing men's problems SHOULD help ours too, and that there definitely are problems to be addressed.
I just wish our own concerns were seen as more than "fillers".

I was heartened to see this article in my local free local paper today:
Project calls on Dublin men to tackle domestic violence
It refers to the White Ribbon campaign, which doesn't get the publicity it deserves. This is the UK branch:
White Ribbon UK

I think I'll post this on the 'Lost Boys' thread too, it's good to have something positive to point to!

This with bells on.

“One group of men has now got the attention of the nation” - are you envious of this group? Do you think “the nation” can only have its eyes on one problem at a time? Isn’t this a very complex issue that affects us all and which has a complex set of root causes?

I don’t understand the privilege pyramid. Can you provide a diagram of such a pyramid please? Who designed it? Is it specific to the UK or Europe or the world?

TIA