As a researcher, it’s exciting when what you’re researching enters the public consciousness. I have been studying the manosphere since 2022, with a particular focus on inceldom, so I was delighted when Netflix announced the globally successfulAdolescence. From writer/actor Stephen Graham, of This Is England and Boiling Point fame, and playwright Jack Thorne, scribe of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, Adolescence is a four-part state-of-the-nation thriller that unfolds in real time. Since its release in March, this show, sometimes erroneously described as a documentary, has ushered in more public discourse than any show of recent memory except, potentially, Mr Bates vs The Post Office. This culminated in Prime Minister Keir Starmer urging all schools in the UK to show it. I will get to why this is problematic soon, though in some ways, this is good news: it’s a superbly acted, deeply moving piece of drama that uses some of the most impressive cinematography and choreography I have seen on the small screen to shed light on how and why millions of young men around the world are entering the manosphere.
Alphas, Betas and Chads: The ABCs of the Manosphere
For those who haven’t heard of it, the manosphere is a loosely defined ecosystem comprising sub-communities of mostly men who oppose modern feminism and uphold/idealise traditional models of masculinity, including the idea of a natural taxonomy of alpha males and beta males delineated by their ability to attract women. There is no official list of outlets, since it’s not a formal alliance, and member groups don’t always see each other as allies. Moreover, we also see some crossover between members and subject matters, suggesting the parameters are porous. For example, many incels begin as Pick Up Artists then lose faith when they cannot get their teachings to work for them. However, the following groups are generally considered canonical:
- Incels: believe that a combination of feminist social engineering and their own bad genetic inheritance has left them unable to attract women at all.
- Pick Up Artists (PUAs): lifestyle gurus who teach young men techniques to gain status and attract women.
- Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs): argue that institutions and legal structures systematically discriminate against men and push for equality.
- Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW): a separatist group of heterosexual men who have sworn off relationships with women because they see them as a misallocation of money and resources.
- Reboot communities: a generic term for anti-pornography groups who believe that, through abstinence, men can reconnect with an innate masculinity.
If the above is new information, it reflects maybe the most important point which Adolescence raises: in the current age, it is impossible for parents to know what their children are watching. So, in the world of TikTok and social media, are the kids alright online? Digital security is not limited to practices like password protection and avoiding phishing emails. Instead, there’s a need to understand what young men are engaging with and the perils of groupthink: the process by which people take on bad ideas when they join a community. In the case of the manosphere, that is the ‘red pill.’ Deriving its name from The Matrix, it refers to men seeing the world for what it really is. This alternative system of meaning suggests that men must wake up to the reality that feminist brainwashing has devalued masculinity and overturned a natural mating market. The manosphere argument goes that previously men and women who are both 10/10 paired up with each other, and so did the sixes and ones; a system where people matched on physical attractiveness. However, feminism has resulted in women overrating themselves and now most men are socially/sexually disadvantaged because women are dating upwards. This supposedly results in an uneven distribution in which supposedly 20% of men attract 80% of women, with only the most masculine (known as Chads) inspiring genuine desire.
Manosphere groups vary depending on whether members see themselves as prospective winners or losers in the dating market. For example, PUAs and Rebooters see themselves as able to beat an inherently unfair system by gaming it to their advantage. In contrast, incels see themselves as fundamentally unable to compete in it. They argue that their genes have rendered them scientifically unlovable; a problem they link to our modern reliance on dating apps, meaning they have only a few seconds to make an impression. In many cases, they give up entirely on the idea of self-improvement, taking what is referred to as the ”black pill”. This deterministic mindset, even bleaker than the red pill, says that life is futile, and they cannot overcome their natural disadvantage. It is associated with misogyny, harassment and, in some rare instances, acts of extreme violence. Adolescence leans on this last part, since the drama focuses on the circumstances under which a self-conscious 13-year-old, Jamie, stabs a girl in his class to death, and the fallout of this tragedy.
The problems with showing Adolescence to adolescents
Beyond my suspicions about art that the political establishment uncritically embraces, there are several reasons why I generally do not support showing Adolescence in schools unless it is part of a wider, carefully curated social education curriculum. But first, in terms of the positives, it touches upon important issues: self-image, online radicalisation, and the often corrosive effects of some masculine archetypes. It is important to find ways of engaging children; a compelling piece of TV may be one way to achieve this. Moreover, in my research, I have also spoken to former incels who first joined the community when they were around the same age as the fictional Jamie, following some banal Google searches about how to know if girls like them. It is something they can and will access, so it is crucial to identify and respond to possible pathways.
Still, since its drama revolves around a brutal murder, the use of Adolescence could promote an alarmist discourse in which conversations around inceldom and the wider manosphere revolve around the few worst-case examples of violence as opposed to more commonplace acts of misogyny. It is also arguably even trickier to have an empathetic conversation about the male mental health crisis when the consequences of it are framed in such ways. Jamie’s specific journey into inceldom is also left vague, and its particular narratives are not explored in much depth; how did he come across incel content in the first place? This is not a criticism of the show per se, since it was not written to be an educational resource as much as a look at troubled family dynamics. But it does raise the question of how teenagers who identify with the material, either as victims or perpetrators of misogyny, will respond to it.
For instance, though Adolescence makes little attempt to humanise Jamie’s victim, which in itself is arguably harmful, it could result in girls re-experiencing traumatic moments if they’ve been on the receiving end of abuse. Or perhaps some boys who are as self-conscious as Jamie may find him relatable and see themselves in him, taking on the logic of why he kills a girl who bullies him. As adults, there’s a lot of reading between the lines, seeing teenagers engaging with a grown-up world they barely understand. Without a wider insight into relationship dynamics, different types of sexism, and how our impressions of what’s important change with time, much could be lost on them.
This brings me to the next point. I am not arguing that teachers cannot devise useful classes around the show. However, considering how much they are already stretched, it seems like yet another responsibility being thrust upon them. Educational resources should be evidence-led and created in collaboration with experts. For instance, the section about incels speaking in a secret language of emoticons works as shorthand for parents and people over 30 to highlight how different our experiences of tech are compared to digital natives. Yet it is not supported by any research I have ever seen into inceldom or the manosphere more broadly, so it could be misleading or confusing to children who simply use the red 100 symbol to indicate their agreement, rather than signalling the belief in a conspiracy to neuter men. There would also be an irony associated with teachers whacking on a video that explicitly suggests that them showing videos is part of the problem.
On this point, the depiction of schools and teachers in Adolescence leaves much to be desired. With tens of thousands of them leaving the profession every year due to burnout, poor work-life balance, and increased workload, a programme that depicts the problems as individual rather than systemic will arguably deter children from seeking support from educators. There is a wider systemic context for the caricatures we see in it, but this is implied rather than explored and may not come across, with individual scenes shown out of context or in the polarised world of schools, where even the most well-meaning teachers can be seen as antagonists. It would be clumsy to see a teacher onscreen declaring that they cannot give the same commitment to their oversized classes after a decade of budget cuts. Yet without that acknowledgement, it can unintentionally further the impression that they are not interested in their pupils’ problems.
Of course, nothing can be further from the truth. Since the show came out, I have spoken with several teachers and there is a real push to tackle the spread of the manosphere. Similarly, I have talked to high school classes in the past and know that there is a hunger among pupils themselves to look at the phenomenon too. Relationships are complicated and the often volatile world of online content can meet their understandable hunt for answers with hostile and dehumanising rhetoric. In that respect, I welcome Adolescence opening the door since it is crucial to respond to young people’s misunderstandings and harmful ideas that they may have surrounding manhood, sexual consent and gendered harassment. However, I would strongly urge the government not to push an initiative around a TV show without first consulting people who have worked with the groups concerned and who can contribute towards a nationwide approach that can work in the long term. Because the manosphere isn’t going anywhere soon.
Conclusion
Online misogyny is an increasing problem that is bleeding into classrooms. I can see it worsening with declining living standards and cuts to support for young people. As the gap between what young men think they need to be and their present circumstances grows, it is unsurprising that many are turning to “gurus” like the alleged sex-trafficker Andrew Tate for a cheat sheet or giving up altogether. Survey data from incels finds that approximately a quarter are NEET (not in education, employment, or training), 50% live at home, approximately 40% experience anxiety and depression, around 20% are autistic and approximately 45% in the UK are from ethnic minority backgrounds – in all cases, these numbers are far higher than the general population. I am not implying that any of these groups have a natural inclination towards inceldom as much as to suggest that we must employ a sociological lens when seeing what boys and young men may be most vulnerable to its worldview. While it does not follow that incels are marginalised for being young men, it does follow that among young men they are often marginalised.
Stating this is not to validate their notions of victimhood or their alpha to beta hierarchy. Instead, it is to point out that if we can predict the likelihood of someone being an incel based upon their demographics or psychological profile then it is not merely an individual-level problem. Countering inceldom requires a rounded knowledge of the social sciences, including inputs from psychology, sociology, criminology, and gender studies. It also requires carefully constructed interventions to prevent escalation, as well as addressing inequalities in employment and housing, in addition to a seismic shift in how men’s mental health gets discussed. If this were a priority for the government, they would invest in these areas and create trauma-informed and evidence-based educational materials, rather than a superficial quick-fix resort of promoting a Netflix miniseries, no matter how impressive the camerawork is.
Suggested citation: Smith, D.S (2025). Inceldom: Adolescence and beyond, SLSS Research Blog (RGU), 2025/05. Available at: https://rgu-slss.blog/?p=2191
