MenAreGood
Netflix Adolescence: Entertainment or Propaganda?
March 26, 2025
post photo preview

​I was having a conversation with ChatGPT about the Netflix series Adolescence. We started discussing some of the reasons it might be anti-male. Having not seen more than a few clips of the series I had not really developed an opinion on it. (and FWIW I have no way of knowing if a spoiler alert is needed) But after reading the ideas it offered I was fairly convinced that it was correct. Then again, sometimes AI gets it wrong.

It does mention, but not elaborate on, the decades long intentional dismantling of male spaces and how this leaves boys now with few options for male spaces outside of gaming and the internet which are both under attack.

The following is ChatGPT’s take on the series. See what you think.



The Anti-Male Agenda in Netflix’s 
Adolescence

Netflix’s limited series Adolescence has sparked widespread debate, particularly regarding its portrayal of masculinity and male-oriented online spaces. The show follows a disturbing premise: a 13-year-old boy, allegedly influenced by the so-called "manosphere," commits a violent crime against a young girl. While media critiques of online radicalization are not inherently problematic, Adolescence appears to go beyond cautionary storytelling and into the realm of ideological propaganda. The series constructs a narrative that pathologizes male identity and spaces dedicated to discussing men’s issues. By examining the show’s premise, its selective framing of male spaces, and its lack of real-world precedent, it becomes evident that Adolescence is, in fact, a piece of anti-male propaganda.

A Contrived and Unfounded Premise

One of the most glaring issues with Adolescence is the far-fetched nature of its central premise. The idea that a 13-year-old boy would be driven to commit murder purely due to exposure to the manosphere is highly dubious. While youth violence is a real concern, particularly in the UK, there is no known case of a teenage boy murdering a girl as a direct result of consuming manosphere content. Most adolescent violence in Britain is linked to gang culture, drug-related conflicts, or personal disputes—not ideological indoctrination. By inventing a scenario in which a boy is radicalized into violence solely through online male spaces, Adolescence fabricates a moral panic, blaming men’s communities for crimes they have no real connection to.

Furthermore, the show fails to acknowledge that male-oriented online spaces are diverse. The manosphere, broadly defined, consists of self-improvement discussions, dating advice, critiques of modern gender dynamics, and—yes—some extreme elements. However, to suggest that these spaces directly create violent offenders oversimplifies and misrepresents the reality. Instead of engaging with the nuances of why boys and men seek out these spaces, Adolescence demonizes them wholesale, portraying them as nothing more than breeding grounds for misogyny and violence.

 

Selective Framing: The Pathologization of Masculinity

Beyond its premise, Adolescence reinforces a broader trend in contemporary media: the systematic pathologization of masculinity. Male struggles, particularly those of young boys navigating modern society, are rarely explored with empathy. Instead, when boys experience anger, alienation, or confusion, media narratives often frame them as threats rather than as individuals in need of support.

In Adolescence, the young male protagonist is depicted as impressionable, dangerous, and incapable of critical thinking. His journey into the manosphere is framed as a descent into darkness, ignoring the fact that many boys turn to these spaces in search of guidance, mentorship, and community. The show makes no effort to portray healthy male role models, positive masculine influences, or the legitimate grievances that lead young men to seek out these spaces. Instead, masculinity is framed as inherently toxic, with no possibility for positive expression. This portrayal perpetuates the harmful stereotype that male struggles are not worthy of sympathy, but rather should be feared and suppressed.

Additionally, the female characters in the series are portrayed as passive victims, with little exploration of their own complexities. This creates a one-sided narrative where women are innocent sufferers and men are the agents of harm. A more balanced approach would have examined the social pressures affecting both boys and girls, rather than resorting to a simplistic good-versus-evil dichotomy.

An Intentional Attack on the Manosphere

The series does not simply critique certain radical elements within the manosphere—it seeks to discredit the entire ecosystem. It is no secret that mainstream media has increasingly portrayed male-focused online communities in a negative light, often lumping together self-improvement influencers with more extreme ideological figures. Adolescence follows this trend, offering no distinction between the various branches of the manosphere. The result is an intellectually dishonest smear campaign.

For instance, the show could have explored why boys are drawn to these spaces in the first place. Many young men feel alienated in modern society, struggling with issues such as declining educational outcomes, increased loneliness, and a lack of positive male mentorship. Some turn to the manosphere for answers, seeking advice on confidence, fitness, career success, and relationships. Yet Adolescence ignores these legitimate reasons, portraying the manosphere as nothing more than a dangerous pipeline to extremism. This selective framing reveals an agenda: not to engage with the reality of young male struggles, but to vilify and delegitimize spaces where men discuss their experiences.

A Broader Cultural Trend

Adolescence is not an isolated example—it is part of a wider cultural movement that seeks to demonize men’s spaces while ignoring or downplaying issues affecting men and boys. In recent years, mainstream media narratives have become increasingly focused on framing masculinity itself as a problem. Terms like "toxic masculinity" are frequently used to criticize traditional male behaviors, while issues such as male suicide rates, fatherlessness, and educational decline receive far less attention.

This trend is particularly troubling because it creates a societal climate where men and boys are discouraged from seeking support. If male-centered spaces are continually framed as dangerous or hateful, young men may feel they have nowhere to turn. Rather than helping boys develop into well-adjusted individuals, media portrayals like those in Adolescence reinforce the idea that male identity is inherently flawed and in need of correction. This is not only unfair but potentially harmful, as it contributes to the very sense of alienation that leads boys to seek out alternative communities in the first place.

The Real-World Consequences of Anti-Male Narratives

The impact of shows like Adolescence extends beyond entertainment. Cultural narratives shape public perception and, eventually, policy. When masculinity is consistently portrayed as dangerous, it influences the way society treats boys and men. Schools, workplaces, and even legal systems may adopt policies based on the assumption that men are predisposed to harmful behavior.

For instance, the increasing emphasis on combating "male radicalization"—despite a lack of concrete evidence linking the manosphere to widespread violence—has led to social media crackdowns on men’s content. Meanwhile, discussions about the challenges facing young men are often dismissed or labeled as reactionary. Adolescence contributes to this hostile climate by reinforcing the idea that men’s spaces are inherently dangerous and that boys who question modern gender narratives are potential threats.

Conclusion: A One-Sided and Harmful Narrative

Netflix’s Adolescence is not just a cautionary tale about online radicalization—it is an ideological attack on masculinity and male-oriented spaces. By constructing a far-fetched premise, selectively framing male struggles, and failing to engage with the real issues affecting young men, the series functions as anti-male propaganda. Rather than fostering a nuanced discussion about the challenges boys face in modern society, Adolescence seeks to delegitimize male spaces and pathologize masculinity itself.

This type of media narrative is not only misleading but harmful. By perpetuating fear and suspicion toward boys and men, it discourages meaningful conversations about male struggles and alienates those who are already feeling lost. If we truly care about the well-being of young men, we must move beyond ideological portrayals and engage in honest discussions about the challenges they face. Unfortunately, Adolescence does the opposite, choosing sensationalism over truth and division over understanding.

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
July 15, 2026
The Women's Health Narrative Meets the DATA

What if one of the most common claims in health policy simply isn’t true?

We’ve all heard the refrain: women are underfunded, under-researched, and left behind by the medical establishment. It’s repeated so often that most people never stop to ask for the evidence.

In this roundtable, Jack Kammer, Ed Bartlett, Ed Stephens, Jim Nuzzo, and I compare that narrative with the available data. We examine research funding, clinical trial participation, life expectancy, and the unintended consequences of policies that consistently prioritize one sex while neglecting the other.

This isn’t an argument against women’s health. It’s an argument for evidence, fairness, and a healthier future for everyone.

Link to the Feminist pdf that calls for 20 Billion dollars for women’s health!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IKEEZMGXtRNxU4n5K_M1d6k2w-ZP_wVT/view

Jim Nuzzo

The Nuzzo Newsletter on Substack http//jameslnuzzo.Substack.com
X: https://x.com/JamesLNuzzo

Jack Kammer

Jacks Substack Men’s ...

00:35:24
July 11, 2026
Mantoon: A Visit to the Doc

A visit to the Doc.

00:00:14
June 13, 2026
The Feminist Fortune Teller

Can you guess what she will say?

00:00:15
August 10, 2026
Feminism Cannot Be Reformed: It Must Be Destroyed Root and Branch

Janice Fiamengo’s new book is out, and this excerpt from the Foreword gives you a pretty good idea of what to expect. Janice goes straight to the heart of feminism and gives ample reasons for its demolition.

This is an important book. I hope you’ll get a copy for yourself—and maybe send one to someone who is even a little bit open to seeing the reality of feminism rather than the equality mask presented by feminists and so much of the media.

https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/feminism-cannot-be-reformed

Well worth watch it’s good seeing men calling out women’s bull shit when the same women are not use to fair honest responses!

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1JtTnYLC7K/?mibextid=wwXIfr

July 02, 2026
From Shooter to Heroine: The Glorification of Feminist Violence

I recently joined Hannah Spier, Janice Fiamengo, and Jim Nuzzo for a fascinating discussion about one of our culture’s most striking double standards: why violence by women is so often explained, excused, or even celebrated, while violence by men is treated very differently. We examine Valerie Solanas, the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, the SCUM Manifesto, and the film I Shot Andy Warhol, asking what the celebration and romanticizing of Solanas reveals about gynocentrism, empathy, and cultural bias. I think you’ll find it both thought-provoking and eye-opening.

12 hours ago
post photo preview
What If Schools Are Missing the Brightest Boys?



What If Schools Are Missing the Brightest Boys?

We are starting to hear more these days about boys who struggle in school, boys who can’t sit still, or fall behind in reading. This is bringing to light that all too often schools are not built for boys.

But recently I started thinking about the other end of the spectrum. What if schools aren’t just failing some of the boys who struggle? What if they’re also missing some of the brightest boys?

The Variability Hypothesis

Researchers have pointed out for years what they call the greater male variability hypothesis. What this means is that on average, men and women score about the same on measures of intelligence. But males tend to show greater variability and outnumber women at both the low and high ends. This means you will find more boys with significantly low IQ’s but also more boys with very high IQ’s. This tells us that based on this variability hypothesis, boys are likely to outnumber the girls in the upper regions of IQ.

A School Built for the Average Child

That realization led me to another thought. If boys are naturally more variable, then a school system designed for the average child will fail boys at both ends of the spectrum. Think about it. The struggling boy needs something different from the average classroom. So does the exceptionally gifted boy. Yet schools often become increasingly standardized and focused on bringing everyone toward the middle. The children who are furthest from average—whether below or above—are often the ones who receive less. The boys predominate at both ends.

Why Might Boys Gifts be Overlooked?

People who are gifted often do things that may encourage ordinary teachers to overlook them. Things like:

  • become bored with repetitive work

  • finish assignments quickly and then appear inattentive

  • question teachers

  • refuse busywork

  • focus intensely on a narrow interest while neglecting other subjects

Some of these behaviors may not look like giftedness. They may look like inattentiveness, defiance, laziness, or simply a ​s​tudent who isn’t doing what he is supposed to do.

That got me wondering. If some gifted boys are being overlooked because they don’t necessarily look like the ideal gifted student, would we see any sign of that in who actually makes it into gifted programs?

But What about the numbers?

The next thing I did was check current enrollment in gifted programs. To my surprise, recent national data from the NCES show that girls now slightly outnumber boys in gifted and talented programs in the US. That was a bit of a surprise. Not because girls aren’t gifted. I am sure some are. But if there are more boys with high IQ’s, shouldn’t we expect more boys than girls among the exceptionally gifted? Equal numbers would already raise an interesting question. A female majority raises an even bigger one.

What are the actual differences?

One source I read said that an IQ of 130+ was the point that many gifted programs consider starting. But what is the sex ratio of boys and girls at the 130+ level? Since we find that more girls are in the gifted programs than boys we would expect more girls, right?

Here’s what I found:

One estimate is that boys outnumber girls at the 130+ IQ level at a ratio of 15:10. This means that for every 100 students who have a 130 IQ or higher you will likely have about 60 boys and 40 girls. As you go higher in IQ it leans farther towards boys. When you reach the 170+ range there are nearly 6 times as many males as females. Here’s a chart that shows these estimates: (the estimates are from AI and I chose a very conservative estimate from chatgpt to include here. I will include Grok and Google below)

 


You can see that boys predominate at the highest genius levels of IQ. Boys and girls are actually quite similar in the normal ranges of IQ, but the boys predominate at both the highest levels and the lowest while the girls cluster more in the middle. But how many boys and girls are likely to have scores above 130?

If we assume the mean to be 100 and a standard deviation of 15 we would expect that about 2.3% of people will have an IQ of 130 or above. Given that estimate at a typical high school that had 1100 students you would likely find about 25 students with 130+ IQ’s. Given our previous estimate of 15:10 we would expect that group to be 15 boys and 10 girls. Clearly more boys than girls.

It is certainly true that there are more factors in choosing students to participate in gifted programs other than iQ, but IQ is a very solid factor and that factor tells us more boys should be included. It does make us wonder about girls outnumbering boys in today’s gifted programs.

Why fewer boys?

Many gifted programs now consider: classroom grades, teacher recommendations, organization, homework completion, classroom participation, work habits, portfolios, and other indicators of academic success. Those are worthwhile qualities but it seems to me that they are indicators of how adjusted someone is to the school and the schoolwork. This is not necessarily the same thing as exceptional cognitive ability. A brilliant boy who is disorganized, restless, bored, inconsistent, or socially awkward may not look gifted inside a modern classroom. Imagine a teacher seeing these sorts of traits, would the teacher see him as gifted? He may simply look difficult. Or distracted. Or immature. His intelligence can easily become hidden behind his behavior. He will likely appear as a problem, not as a candidate for special treatment.

The Question Worth Asking

I do think there is an important question here. Are gifted and talented programs simply not recognizing gifted boys? Are there gifted boys who never get the opportunity offered by these programs? My experience says yes. I remember watching my own children and their friends when in high school. There were numerous special programs for girls including, camps, trips to the NIH, girl only events, and much more, but nothing even close to that for the boys. I watched and saw highly gifted boys who were overlooked for any such treatment. It seems in our attempts to give girls special treatment the boys have suffered.

Perhaps We’ve Been Looking in the Wrong Direction


For years we’ve focused on boys who struggle. We should continue to do that. But perhaps we’ve overlooked another group of boys who also need our attention. The exceptionally gifted. The unconventional thinkers. The boys whose intelligence doesn’t always arrive wrapped in neat handwriting, completed homework, and model classroom behavior. If greater male variability is real—and decades of research say it is—then boys don’t simply present more problems. They also present more extraordinary potential. The challenge for education is not to make every child average. It is to recognize exceptional need wherever it appears. And that includes the children at the very top.

Perhaps the question isn’t whether boys are underrepresented in gifted programs. Perhaps the better question is this: Are today’s schools identifying giftedness—or simply identifying the students who fit school best?

Men are good.

1. Grok
Safe, conservative approximate male:female ratios (drawing primarily from greater male variance with equal or near-equal means, plus notes on the effect of a small mean difference) are in these ranges:
  • Above 140: roughly 1.5–2.3 : 1 (central/safe figure often cited around 2 : 1)

  • Above 150: roughly 1.7–3.1 : 1 (central around 2.5–3 : 1)

  • Above 160: roughly 2.2–4.5 : 1 (central around 3–4 : 1)

  • Above 170: roughly 3–7+ : 1 (central around 4–6 : 1, with high uncertainty)

    1. Google

      1. IQ 130: Approximately 1.5 : 1 to 2 : 1

      1. IQ 140: Approximately 3 : 1 to 4 : 1

      1. IQ 150: Approximately 5 : 1 to 8 : 1

      1. IQ 160: Approximately 10 : 1 to 15 : 1

      1. IQ 170: Approximately 20 : 1 to 30 : 1 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 
Read full Article
August 06, 2026
post photo preview
Maybe It’s Time We Invented a Few Words Too



Maybe It’s Time We Invented a Few Words Too

It is truly remarkable how feminism has been able to create words that bolster their ideology and simultaneously demean men. Some of these have been accepted by the general culture and have even become household terms.

Over the years we‘ve seen mansplaining, manterrupting, bropropriating, himpathy, misogynoir, kyriarchy, toxic masculinity, gender washing, leg hair harassment, and ​many others.

​These words have a double punch. They not only describe a behaviour, they also imply a motivation. For example, mansplaining describes a man who is explaining a phenomenom but it also carries the idea that he is doing this out of sexism, arrogance, or a desire to assert male superiority.

​So these phrases don’t merely describe a beahviour, they shape it.​ And underneath it lies the reality that these phrases are actually relational aggression in a more hidden form. Hurtful words that are easy to deny.

Once a behavior has a ​c​atch phrase ​attached, people begin to notice it everywhere. ​And sometimes it encourages people to agree with the feminist lens of its creator.

So I started wondering...Why ​not create a counterpoint? Perhaps it’s time the rest of us invented a few words of our own. Not because we need more labels​ and not because we revel in using relational aggression. But because satire often reveals something ordinary argument cannot.

Here are a few candidates.


Feministsplaining

 


the act of a ​f​eminist explaining something to a man in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner, without regard to h​is own expertise.




EmpathyGapping

 

​The act of offering compassion and empathy to everyone...except when it comes to men.



OvaryActing

 


Finding patriarchy in places where normal people would just call it a bad day.





NarrativeProofing

 

When all the data, even contradictory evidence proves the narrative is sound.




Herpocrisy

 

The remarkable ability to spot bad behavior in men while somehow missing the identical behavior in women.




TheoryWashing

 

When inconvenient facts show up, cover them with enough theory until nobody notices.





Patriarchoscope

 

A precision instrument used to locate patriarchy in any situation. Batteries never included. Confirmation bias always is.

Examples:

  • Boys failing in school? Patriarchy.

  • Men dying younger? Patriarchy.

  • Men committing suicide? Patriarchy.

  • Men working dangerous jobs? Patriarchy.

  • Men drafted into war? Believe it or not... patriarchy.


Of course, these definitions are satirical.

​Well, maybe....

The interesting thing about satire is that it exaggerates just enough to expose a pattern.

If you ​h​ad a chuckle while reading these, ask yourself why. Is it because the​y are ridiculous? Or because they ​are plausible? That may be the larger point.

The words we invent ​are not simply descriptive—they encourage us to interpret reality in particular ways. Maybe that​ is why creating new ​words has become such a powerful part of modern political and academic movements​?

So here’s my challenge. Can you invent a new satirical term?

Leave it in the comments.

Who knows?

If enough people use it, maybe one day some graduate student will cite it in a journal article.

Men Are Good

 
 
 
Read full Article
August 03, 2026
post photo preview
Seeing Men Clearly - Excerpt - Gynocentrism 2

Last week I shared the opening chapter of Seeing Men Clearly. This chapter introduces the central concept on which the rest of the book is built. My hope is not to assign blame, but to better understand the hidden forces that shape how we think about boys and men. As always, I welcome your thoughts.

 



What Is Gynocentrism?

The pattern described in the previous chapter has a name: gynocentrism.

The term is unfamiliar to many readers. It is sometimes misunderstood and often assumed to be accusatory.

Properly understood, however, it is neither an accusation nor a criticism.

As used in this book, gynocentrism refers to a cultural tendency to treat female vulnerability as morally primary. It does not mean hatred of men. It does not mean women are favored in all domains. It does not mean women never suffer injustice.

Rather, it describes a reflex—a hierarchy of concern that operates quietly beneath policy debates, media narratives, and social assumptions. When harm occurs, we instinctively ask: “How does this affect women and children?” We are often slower to ask: “How does this affect men?”

That asymmetry is not always conscious. In fact, it rarely is.

Not a Conspiracy—A Reflex

Gynocentrism is not a coordinated plot. It is not an organized agenda. It is not a secret doctrine taught in classrooms. It is a moral reflex that predates modern politics.

Its origins are open to debate. Some argue it reflects evolutionary pressures in which societies that protected reproductive capacity were more likely to survive. Others point to historical realities in which women were more physically vulnerable in violent environments. Still others emphasize psychological empathy biases that lead human beings to respond more strongly to those perceived as vulnerable.

These debates are worth having. But they are not central to this book. The central question is not origin. It is operation. What happens when a reflex becomes institutional default?

From Instinct to Structure

When a bias is widely shared, it begins shaping decisions without requiring coordination. It influences headlines, research questions, funding priorities, policy language, and perceptions of moral urgency. Over time, the reflex becomes structure. And structure often feels neutral. It rarely is.

If female vulnerability is treated as axiomatic, institutions will naturally become skilled at detecting and remedying harms affecting women. Male vulnerability, by contrast, will often require additional explanation before receiving equivalent attention. This does not require malice. It requires only default settings.

The Hierarchy of Urgency

Consider public reactions to harm. When women are victims of violence, the response is often swift and collective. Advocacy groups mobilize. Media attention intensifies. Funding initiatives follow.

When men are victims—even in substantial numbers—the reaction is often more muted. The suffering may be acknowledged, but it is less likely to be framed as a systemic moral emergency. The difference lies not in the worth of individual lives. It lies in the hierarchy of urgency.

Gynocentrism is the cultural gravity that helps create that hierarchy.

Why It Is Difficult to See

The hardest biases to recognize are often those that align with our moral self-image. Most people see themselves as compassionate. We celebrate protection. We admire sacrifice. We view concern for the vulnerable as a virtue.

When a bias appears in the form of kindness, it does not feel like bias. This is one reason gynocentrism often goes unnamed. To question it can feel like questioning compassion itself. But examining a reflex is not the same thing as rejecting it. It is simply asking whether the reflex should remain invisible.

The Question This Book Asks

The purpose of this book is not to argue that women should be protected less. It is to ask what happens when the protection of one group becomes the default moral frame through which all gender issues are viewed.

When that frame becomes embedded within institutions, predictable patterns begin to emerge. Educational practices may assume a single developmental model. Policies may allocate resources asymmetrically. Research may frame male suffering as secondary. Cultural narratives may normalize male disposability. These patterns are not random. They follow from the reflex.

Gynocentrism is not the enemy. Unexamined bias is the problem.

If we are serious about fairness, equality, and moral consistency, we must be willing to examine the hierarchies we have inherited—especially those that feel virtuous. The chapters that follow explore how this reflex operates in modern institutions. Not to inflame. But to illuminate.

 

We've seen how a hidden moral hierarchy can shape the way we respond to suffering. But how does that hierarchy become embedded in schools, research, laws, and public policy? In the next chapter, we'll explore how a cultural reflex gradually becomes an institutional reality.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals