UK Schools to give boys anti-misogyny lessons to stop toxic masculinity in wake of Netflix hit Adolescence

1742736328168.png

Schools are set to give students anti-misogyny lessons in the wake of hit Netflix TV show Adolescence about a teen boy who murders a female classmate.

The classes form part of the government's new relationships, health and sex education (RHSE) guidance, which will be introduced before the end of the academic year.

It comes after Sir Keir Starmer revealed at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday that he was watching the mini-series with his two teenagers - and that he backs the show creators' calls for it to be shown in parliament and schools.

The four-episode programme follows the Miller family, whose lives are torn apart when their 13-year-old son Jamie is arrested for stabbing a female classmate to death after being influenced by online misogyny.

The drama, released ten days ago, was the most-watched show on Netflix worldwide last weekend, gripping audiences with its sobering portrayal of how social media and misogynistic influencers can impact young boys.

Though Labour's classroom guidance is still being developed, it is understood to include content to 'support healthy relationships', to 'enable schools to tackle harmful behaviour and ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate', an insider source said, the Times reported.

From as early as primary school, children will be encouraged to 'express and understand boundaries, handle disappointment and pay attention to the needs and preferences of oneself and others', with content modified for older children to reflect the 'real-life complexities of romantic and sexual relationships', the source added.

The development comes as a win for the Netflix show's co-writers, Jack Thorne and actor Stephen Graham - who stars as the teen boy's father - who have said they wanted Adolescence to be a programme that 'causes discussion and makes change'.

The new guidance will encourage students to 'think about what healthy sexual relationships involve' - including 'consent', along with 'kindness, attention and care'.

As children progress to secondary school, classroom content will start to include the 'communication and ethics' needed for healthy romantic and sexual relationships.

Topics covered will range from dynamics of power and vulnerability, to tools to manage 'difficult emotions', like disappointment and anger, that can affect relationships.

The effects of misogynistic online content and pornography on both young people's sexual behaviour and their views of relationship norms will also be discussed.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has faced pressure to overturn RSHE guidance drafted by the previous Conservative government - which included bans on sex education for children under nine and discussions of gender identity.

Adolescence was praised last week by the parents of a survivor of the Southport stabbings for drawing attention to the 'terrifying' impacts of online misogynistic content on young men.

Axel Rudakubana, then 17, stabbed their daughter - known as Child A - more than 30 times during his brutal attack on a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in July last year. He killed three young girls - and was jailed for life in January.

The parents, in a statement read out by their MP during a debate on knife crime in the House of Commons on Thursday, said influencers like Andrew Tate are having a 'terrifying' impact on teen boys, who needed to be protected from this content.

Rudakubana cleared most of his online search history before the murders - so it is not known whether he viewed any content associated with Tate.

Triple murderer Kyle Clifford - who shot his ex-girlfriend Louise Hunt and her sister Hannah with a crossbow and stabbed their mother Carol - is known to have viewed Tate's videos before making his ferocious attacks.

Teachers were told in government guidance released last year to look out for signs of misogyny and 'incel culture' in students aged 14 and over, which could lead to sexual abuse, violence and suicide.

The education secretary warned teachers to watch out for teen boys who had been indoctrinated by 'manosphere' influencers into 'hating women'.

Last week, former England football manager Sir Gareth Southgate blasted 'callous, manipulative and toxic influencers' for leading young men towards misogyny.

At the BBC's annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, he said the 'sole drive' of these pernicious online creators is their 'own gain': 'They willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.'

MailOnline
Archive [March 23 2025]
 
Last edited:
The sheer, unbridled rage and shame this pig-shaped subhuman feels for whites and the white race collectively must be truly gargantuan. Kier Starmer looks in the mirror every single day and desperately wishes there were some newer, deeper low he could descend to in order to worship the feet of his sandnigger masters. How difficult it must be to eat like his corpulent ass does and go hungry every day, slavering for just a single suck of Muslim cock. Every bureaucrat, every police officer, ever clerk and civil servant combined with their cow-eyed worship of the Muslim roach infestation cannot even come remotely close to matching the PM's adoration.
 
Spend ten minutes on Reddit for a confirmation. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone pose a hypothetical, with the top response being "see [fiction movie] for your answer". They either can't tell that movies aren't real, or they think that Hollywood is full of prophets who can accurately predict the future. Either way I unironically believe that they shouldn't be able to vote or own property.
Keir Starmer referred to Adolescence off the top of his head as "a very good documentary to watch or..... drama" when asked about it in the last Prime Minister's Question session.
 
I think it's more embarrasing that politicians are admitting to getting their strategies from what they watched on netflix.
That’s not how they get them.
-The behavioural insights people and ‘others’ decide what the policy is.
-policy drawn up and ready to roll
-Netflix drama is commissioned to create talking points
-media is told to splash it everywhere
-embedded forum posters/social media units create social media discussion and steer consensus (I first noticed these posts in mumsnet of all places…)
-demand for policy
-oh look I’ve got a policy right here!
What you’ll see next is an ‘actual case’ of some kid, and it’ll be a white boy, convicted to great fanfare in the press of stabbing some girl who rejects him, and everyone will safely nod and say ‘it’s just like adolescence.’ And the ext set of policies will be total removal of online anonymity, starting with the young of course ‘for their own protection.’
Meanwhile not a single actual child abuse or trafficking ring will be stopped, not a single high profile child abuser will be stopped, and millions of men from cultures who treat women as chattel will be blithely allowed into the country
 
Quel surprise. This was an obvious behavioural insights job, with a planned ‘response’ chain, and policies ready to roll.
The whole response to this show was completely inorganic. The entire internet and MSM started raving about it almost the instant it dropped. It was trending everywhere and it felt really pushed, not like something that everyone actually loved. There's a thread on mumsnet where one poster sort of cautiously suggested it's all a bit overblown and while she was voted unreasonable, as soon as a few more posters popped up to say it wasn't good, the floodgates opened and more and more posters started criticising it.

If it's not so popular on mumsnet, which is it's exact target demographic, then it's going to be less popular in all other demographics and it's just being deliberately astroturfed to fuck.
 
Looks like he has some children in his closet.
Oy vey, please cool it with the anti-semitic remarks.
The sheer, unbridled rage and shame this pig-shaped subhuman feels for whites and the white race collectively must be truly gargantuan. Kier Starmer looks in the mirror every single day and desperately wishes there were some newer, deeper low he could descend to in order to worship the feet of his sandnigger masters. How difficult it must be to eat like his corpulent ass does and go hungry every day, slavering for just a single suck of Muslim cock. Every bureaucrat, every police officer, ever clerk and civil servant combined with their cow-eyed worship of the Muslim roach infestation cannot even come remotely close to matching the PM's adoration.
Reminder that Keir Starmer is married to a Jewish women, which makes his children Jewish as a result. I just thought that was interesting.
 
If it's not so popular on mumsnet, which is it's exact target demographic, then it's going to be less popular in all other demographics and it's just being deliberately astroturfed to fuck.
If the conversations I've heard in the last couple of days are anything to judge by, then they've likely cornered the social-justice-oriented church crowd (along with similarly oriented secular groups), who are among the biggest enablers of immigration and other trendy political stances.
 
That’s not how they get them.
-The behavioural insights people and ‘others’ decide what the policy is.
-policy drawn up and ready to roll
-Netflix drama is commissioned to create talking points
-media is told to splash it everywhere
-embedded forum posters/social media units create social media discussion and steer consensus (I first noticed these posts in mumsnet of all places…)
-demand for policy
-oh look I’ve got a policy right here!
What you’ll see next is an ‘actual case’ of some kid, and it’ll be a white boy, convicted to great fanfare in the press of stabbing some girl who rejects him, and everyone will safely nod and say ‘it’s just like adolescence.’ And the ext set of policies will be total removal of online anonymity, starting with the young of course ‘for their own protection.’
Meanwhile not a single actual child abuse or trafficking ring will be stopped, not a single high profile child abuser will be stopped, and millions of men from cultures who treat women as chattel will be blithely allowed into the country
There's an evil self-help book that was published that leans in on this "nudging" technique to corral people into the "correct" choice for their own good. It's all about creating choice architecture in order to ensure any possible negative responses are primed to be almost unthinkingly carried out.
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness :
From the winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics, Richard H. Thaler, and Cass R. Sunstein: a revelatory look at how we make decisions

New York Times bestseller
Named a Best Book of the Year by The Economist and the Financial Times

Every day we make choices—about what to buy or eat, about financial investments or our children’s health and education, even about the causes we champion or the planet itself. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. Nudge is about how we make these choices and how we can make better ones. Using dozens of eye-opening examples and drawing on decades of behavioral science research, Nobel Prize winner Richard H. Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein show that no choice is ever presented to us in a neutral way, and that we are all susceptible to biases that can lead us to make bad decisions. But by knowing how people think, we can use sensible “choice architecture” to nudge people toward the best decisions for ourselves, our families, and our society, without restricting our freedom of choice.
---
The Behavioural Insights team, popularly known as the ‘Nudge Unit’, is playing a big role in helping the government formulate its response to coronavirus / https://www.bi.team/
These are the people behind every government media circus everytime a brown does something heinous and the natives get uppity. "Encouraged" " be best prompted" "empowered" "evidence-based education" and "reduce people's susceptibility" is repeated with ominous regularity in everything these glowie fucks do.
The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), also known unofficially as the "Nudge Unit", is a UK-based global social purpose organisation that generates and applies behavioural insights to inform policy and improve public services, following nudge theory.[1] Using social engineering, as well as techniques in psychology, behavioral economics, and marketing, the purpose of the organisation is to influence public thinking and decision making in order to improve compliance with government policy and thereby decrease social and government costs related to inaction and poor compliance with policy and regulation. The Behavioural Insights Team has been headed by British psychologist David Halpern since its formation.
Established in 2010 within the UK government, we were the world’s first institution dedicated to incorporating a better understanding of human behaviour into public policy, programs and products.

Our then seven-person team took a behavioural science approach to problems facing the country, like getting people to pay their taxes on time or helping them find employment. But we didn’t just assume that our ideas would work. We ran large-scale trials to empirically test their impact and shared the lessons widely.
Over time, we created sector-leading methodologies and evidence-based results

Through testing, we started to build up evidence of how behavioural science could work in many areas. What messages make people pay overdue taxes faster. How to help people burn out less at work and stay in their jobs. New ways of reducing needless antibiotic prescriptions. Peer-reviewed academic journals began – and continue to – publish our research.

We developed cutting edge methodologies for applying behavioural principles to public policy and beyond. Methodologies we created, such as TESTS and the EAST framework, along with our own behavioural online experiment platform, Predictiv, are widely used and recognized in the field today.
Our behavioural approach was so effective, others replicated it

Similar teams started popping up in the public and private sector. Now, more than 200 behavioural units are operating worldwide. BIT’s team began to grow as well. Leading academics, sectoral experts and researchers were attracted by the practical power of our approach. To increase our positive social impact, we needed to expand.
In 2014, we became independent and international

BIT branched out of the UK government so that we could help solve even more challenges with behavioural science and evaluation. As an independent consultancy, we could work around the world and develop a wide range of expertise.

We completed our first project outside of the UK in 2014 in Guatemala, where we helped increase tax compliance three-fold. Shortly after, we became a partner in a groundbreaking $42 million philanthropic initiative to bring rigorous evaluation to 50+ US cities.
Today, we do much more than nudge

BIT is a global research and innovation consultancy with deep local expertise. We have more than 220 staff, and operate from seven offices around the world. Together we provide unrivalled behavioural science expertise, amassed through the delivery of more than 1,700 projects across hundreds of countries. Our reach extends well beyond ‘nudging’.

Our academic affiliates are some of the world’s greatest minds, including Professor Richard Thaler, winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics, and Theresa Marteau, director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge University.

We also collaborate with many of the universities with major behavioural science programs, including Harvard University, Cambridge University, the National University of Singapore, Oxford University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University and the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Nesta is our strongest partner

In 2021, BIT was acquired by Nesta, an innovation charity. We are now part of the Nesta Group, and in London we share offices with Nesta’s 280 colleagues. We share a vision and purpose, coming together to design, test and scale solutions to society’s biggest challenges, and committing together to be world leaders in driving innovation for social good.
 
Reminder that Keir Starmer is married to a Jewish women, which makes his children Jewish as a result. I just thought that was interesting.
According to wikipedia, his wife's father was Jewish by birth, but her mother wasn't and converted when marrying him. I dunno how Jewish that makes the wife exactly. Their kids are being raised as Jewish, though, whatever that means.
 
You're familiar with the literary concept of Chekov's Gun, right? You don't include something in a narrative unless it's in some way relevant to the story. There's a reason why these lines of dialogue were included. You're absolutely supposed to watch it and take away from it that the boy was influenced by things he saw on the Internet. The show is open-ended in suggesting what the solution to the 'issue' might be, but it is extremely direct and laser-focused on what it believes the issue is.
Having now finished it, I disagree. I think there's more of a Chekov's armory at play. There's lots of things that are hinted to have contributed.

Jamie approaches Katie because she sent a boy a topless photo on Snapchat, who then shared it around the school. Everyone makes fun of her for being a flat chested slag. Jamie, who thinks he's ugly and nobody could ever like him because girls are only interested in the top 20% of boys, thinks he's now got a shot because everyone's rejected her and asks her on a date to the fair. Katie laughs in his face and starts bullying him for being an incel, and eventually he stabs her to death.

The psychologist interview reveals he thinks 13 year olds having sexual contact is normal. He's seen nudes of multiple girls in his class. He pretends he's been groped by girls to try and seem normal, although he's actually a virgin and while he mostly wants to just do age appropriate dates (going go the cinema, holding hands, having a kiss) he's also completely blasé about having seen hardcore pornography and feels he has to be engaging in heavy petting at that age to not be seen as a freak.

There's other aspects - his Dad is a man's man and doesn't know how to relate to a sensitive boy who doesn't like sports and gets embarrassed at his boy not being tough enough. But they're actually just a lovely family who didn't really know what to do, and let him have unfettered internet access. None of the adults in the show understand what the modern Internet is like for the kids - the policeman can't interpret the emoji bullying Katie was doing until his son explains it, the psychologist mistakenly refers to his "Facebook feed" and is surprised to learn that the 13 year old boy thinks it completely normal to see pornography. The parents acknowledge that they could have done more but just assumed it was fine to let him have his computer in the room, because that's what all kids do these days.

The manosphere comes up and while Jamie has seen some content, he says he doesn't actually like it - he only agrees with "the 80/20 rule" that the internet has created unrealistic expectations for most girls and most tellingly imo, the show doesn't actually refute that (since that's exactly how Katie reacts). Andrew Tate is namechecked mostly to explain the language that the kids are using, and the well meaning clueless teacher says "I've heard the kids talking about him". But that comes after there's a group of kids being little shits filming TikToks (unrelated to manosphere).

I really don't think this show is saying the manosphere is the problem. It's saying letting children have uncontrolled access to the internet is the problem, that parents and teachers don't really understand the reality children are living in anymore, and that kids are largely lacking role models who are engaged with them. Consequently the children don't respect or listen to the adults or take anything seriously, because they live in a parallel society unlike anything that the adults in their lives understand. Which... seems pretty spot on to me.

There's definitely other elements commenting more widely on what a British bloke is like - the mother and daughter are largely focused on placating the short-fuse father during the last episode, and maybe we're supposed to assume that because Jamie internalised the idea that "woman placates man" is why he finds his interactions with both Katie and the psychologist so challenging and why he comes to threatening/murdering these women who aren't kowtowing to him. But for the most part the school scenes and this 13 year old talking so casually about pornified expectations around girls and relationships are highly disturbing - but in some places, not really that exaggerated at all.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think this show is saying the manosphere is the problem. It's saying letting children have uncontrolled access to the internet is the problem, that parents and teachers don't really understand the reality children are living in anymore, and that kids are largely lacking role models who are engaged with them. Consequently the children don't respect or listen to the adults or take anything seriously, because they live in a parallel society unlike anything that the adults in their lives understand. Which... seems pretty spot on to me.
Your summary is helpful and informative. It's a very different show to what has been widely claimed, it seems.

The problem is, the content doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. I don't think anyone taking such a firm stance over it, on any side of the argument, has actually seen it. Rather, its mere existence has started a conversation, as the kids on tumblr liked to say. It has presented a few soundbites, mentioned Tate, and given the talking heads the chance to re-frame the debate away from "migrants have increased petty violence and crime" and into one of "internet misogynist racists making white kids stab girls". This is a politically acceptable issue to have a national debate about. The media talking points, the political grandstanding, the immediate launch of policies and educational initiatives designed to combat "hate", all of that stuff is the real purpose and all of it was siting on the sidelines, waiting for this opportunity. The show itself is incidental. It could be two hours and forty minutes of a silent, black screen and it would have about the same outcome if that was the outcome they wanted to achieve.
 
I really don't think this show is saying the manosphere is the problem.
The show might not be. The news articles and the politicians definitely are.

The things they are looking to backdoor in because of this will be as oppressive as ever. Big two on my guess list are;
1) No online anonymity. Tie a real world identity to your internet presence or else can't access a long range of internet services.
2) No anonymous browsing. Under the guise of monitoring people accessing "harmful content" they'll want access to everything everyone is using on the internet in realtime. Banning of VPNs almost certainly to be suggested within the next couple of years, downloading anything that lets you access anonymously like TOR will be door knocks from the thought police. Who'll also be door knocking when you express such harmful thoughts as "Kier Starmer is a petty little dictator who envies how oppressive China is."
 
we need to reverse what andrew tate did to this generation of males
... by intensifying all of the social messaging that made the line Tate is selling look attractive in the first place. What could possibly go wrong?

Seriously, every time i get force fed the shitlibs' "anti-hate" messaging, it makes me more hateful, and I know I'm not alone.
 
It can be a lot more subtle too. The biggest one I tend to notice is distorted views on how long things take or simplified views of complicated processes. There's a lot of people out there who get impatient at how long things actually take in the real world when it's something portrayed in movies as happening relatively quickly or instantly. Then there's stuff like court cases or computer hacking. Look how many stupid pop culture lists exist that need to explain to people 'akshually those things don't really work like that at all.'
I'm do freelance programming in my (extremely limited) spare time. Believe me, the average person thinks a simple app can be built ground up in about 15 minutes (just like the light skinned black girlbosses do on the TV!) and a complex one might maybe take a week.

I can kind of excuse that one because unless you've set up a dev environment and then spent 4 hours trying to get Gradle to just FUCKING WORK JESUS CHRIST you really have zero clue about what goes into the process. It's not like programming is part of your life unless you're at the very least a hobby coder.

It's when people think building a garage is a one day job that makes me wonder if the average person has ever done anything except watch TV.
 
... by intensifying all of the social messaging that made the line Tate is selling look attractive in the first place. What could possibly go wrong?

Seriously, every time i get force fed the shitlibs' "anti-hate" messaging, it makes me more hateful, and I know I'm not alone.
relax buddy you’re well in your 40s so i think ur in the clear
 
There's definitely other elements commenting more widely on what a British bloke is like - the mother and daughter are largely focused on placating the short-fuse father during the last episode, and maybe we're supposed to assume that because Jamie internalised the idea that "woman placates man" is why he finds his interactions with both Katie and the psychologist so challenging and why he comes to threatening/murdering these women who aren't kowtowing to him. But for the most part the school scenes and this 13 year old talking so casually about pornified expectations around girls and relationships are highly disturbing - but in some places, not really that exaggerated at all.
Nah dude that's absolutely retarded. Just the mere act of having Angry Dad character in cucked modern day Britain is enough to show that, like American leftist media, UK media wants to act like it's 2004 and there aren't hordes of brown men raping young girls and having their own girls be married off at the age of 13. OrLGBT propaganda in schoold exposing small kids to gay porn.

When that is the reality the children live in, no fucking shit they have weird ideas about sex. But let's be real, 13 year old children wanting to get their dick wet was always a thing. It's not some edgy thing like teenagers wanting to ass fuck (unless it's with their older male peers, which is considered beautiful and brave), they don't want male to show any emotion while arguing that they are blocking their emotions.
 
Back