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
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
June 05, 2025
Debunking the UN's Attack on the Manosphere

There is a growing wave of attacks against what’s being called the “manosphere.” These attacks are coming primarily from feminist organizations and media allies who claim that the manosphere (the electronic patriarchy) is filled with misogynists who hate women and promote violence.

The truth, however, is quite different. What they’re labeling the "manosphere" is, in many cases, a loose network of voices pushing back against decades of feminist misinformation. That pushback — often grounded in research data, lived experience, and reasoned critique — is what truly alarms feminist ideologues.

To them, this movement represents a threat. It challenges their long-standing narrative by exposing its flaws, hypocrisies, and one-sided portrayals of gender dynamics.

What’s really happening is that young men are waking up. They’re realizing they’ve been fed a steady stream of blame and shame, and they’re beginning to walk away from the ideology that cast them as the problem.

In this segment, Jim ...

00:50:58
June 02, 2025
The Decline of Feminism and the Manspreading Chair - Regarding Men 27

Recorded 2020 - This conversation was recorded several years ago, but it’s just as relevant today. Janice, Tom, and Paul take a sharp look at the absurdities of modern feminism—including the infamous, award-winning “Manspreading Chair.” They also discuss the growing signs that feminism may be in decline. Take a listen and see what you think.

00:29:04
May 22, 2025
Feminism: Untrue and Unhealthy

Join Tom and David Shackleton for a unique discussion of Feminism: Untrue and Unhealthy. David challenges conventional narratives and offers insights that many others shy away from. The conversation touches on his groundbreaking books, The Hand That Rocks the World and Daughters of Feminism, offering a glimpse into the thought-provoking theories that make Shackleton an important figure in our understanding of men and women. Stay tuned for a look at his ideas that continue to shape our understanding of gender.

The Hand that Rocks the World https://www.amazon.com/Hand-That-Rocks-World-Inquiry-ebook/dp/B00WRBW7X

Daughters of Feminism https://www.amazon.com/Daughters-Feminism-Women-Supporting-Equality-ebook/dp/B07CK19VJK/

00:43:50
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play

Dr Orion Teraban from PsycHacks addressing male disposability.

This is an amazing video and he really lays out the case for men to value there lives. It’s amazing to a tualy see such a Video.

May 09, 2025
The Margins of Mercy

This is an excellent essay on moral exclusion and its impact on men. It explores how men are often pushed outside the boundaries of moral concern and highlights feminism as a likely driving force behind this dynamic.

https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/the-margins-of-mercy

April 26, 2025
MHD - The Princess Treatment Exposed

I follow MHD on Patreon and enjoy many of his vids. Here’s one of his videos that was also on youtube. See what you think.

May 29, 2025
post photo preview
Men in Feminism: The Wrong Conversation
a look at a recent journal article

Context Matters: Why This Article's Tone Is Especially Misplaced

It’s important to note that this article (Men in feminism: A self-determination perspective and goals for the future.) was published in a special issue of Psychology of Men & Masculinities, themed “Uncharted Territory” and intended to explore the possible future of research on men and boys. That context makes the tone and framing of this particular piece all the more jarring. The article isn’t a research study but an opinion-based essay focused on promoting strategies to increase male support for feminism. What? While such a topic might make sense in a feminist journal, its placement in a journal dedicated to understanding men and boys—and especially one tasked with envisioning their future—seems oddly out of place.

Rather than offering new insights into how men might thrive, heal, or participate meaningfully in future gender discussions, the article reverts to a familiar script: men are framed as the problem, their psychological needs treated as secondary, and their involvement tolerated only when it's filtered through feminist ideology.

The piece positions feminism not as a framework for mutual transformation, but as a moral litmus test — one that men must pass by internalizing guilt, accepting blame, and proving themselves worthy through re-education. Instead of exploring what it means to be a man in today’s world or considering the genuine challenges boys and men face, the article doubles down on one-sided concern. Feminism, it declares, is a “nuanced and multifaceted movement that aims to improve the lives of women.” Really?

If this is what the future of men’s studies is supposed to look like — a repackaging of guilt and exclusion — then it offers little to the men it claims to engage.

Coercion in Disguise: The SDT Contradictions

What’s especially troubling is how the article invokes Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a framework — while blatantly disregarding its foundational principles. SDT emphasizes intrinsic motivation, rooted in three key psychological needs: autonomy (freedom of choice), competence (a sense of effectiveness), and relatedness (a feeling of connection and belonging).

Yet the article undercuts autonomy from the start by quoting ​Bell ​Hooks approvingly:

“Sexism and sexist oppression... can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility.”

Compelled? That directly contradicts the heart of SDT. Autonomy means choosing to engage out of personal conviction — not guilt, coercion, or external pressure. Framing men’s involvement in feminism as something they must do or be blamed for failing to do strips the motivation of all autonomy.

Worse still, the article insists repeatedly that even when men do participate, they should not expect empathy or appreciation. Instead, they are reminded:

“Satisfying men’s psychological needs does not mean absolving them from responsibility for ways they contribute to gender inequality and sexist oppression.”

Even when men try to help, they are portrayed as morally compromised — always in debt, never fully trustworthy. That guilt-laden framing suffocates genuine engagement.

The article also centers on women's needs exclusively, showing no reciprocal curiosity or concern about men’s experiences, values, or pain. It also relieves feminist women from any responsibility to be patient, non-judgmental or even make the men feel welcome. The goal is not dialogue — it’s correction. This is captured clearly in lines such as:

“It is not feminist women’s responsibility to make men feel welcome or to agree with men, adding emotional labor on top of gendered oppression.”

And:

“We do not mean to imply, however, that it is women’s responsibility to provide patient and non-judgmental spaces for men as this places an additional burden on women.”

So if feminist women are not responsible who is? The article recommends that rather than feminist women helping men understand feminism they should farm out that task to male feminists. This outsourcing of the task to feminist men — rather than encouraging feminist women to engage directly — creates a dynamic where emotional safety is offered only if men are already ideologically compliant:

“Women have good reasons for not trusting men immediately.”

There is no vision of mutual growth or shared humanity. Men are to be “retrained” by others — not included as equals. This fails to model dialogue or mutuality and instead sets up a hierarchy: feminist women as gatekeepers of virtue, men as potential liabilities who must prove themselves.

The result is a message that frames men as morally obligated to support women because of their supposed complicity in oppression, offers no space for their own stories or struggles, and then bars them from expecting even the basic empathy that would allow for meaningful exchange.

This isn’t just intellectually inconsistent — it’s emotionally cold and strategically self-defeating. It asks men to invest in a movement that clearly does not care whether they feel welcomed, understood, or respected. In doing so, the article violates not only the principles of SDT, but any realistic pathway toward lasting engagement or authentic partnership.**


A Better Way Forward: Respect, Not Re-education

For more than 50 years, our public institutions, media, and educational systems have focused intensely on the needs and struggles of women and girls. Perhaps it’s time we reverse the lens — to spend the next 50 years focusing just as deeply on boys and men.

Imagine this: billions of dollars dedicated to researching male development, crafting education and healthcare systems tailored to boys’ needs, launching public campaigns about male well-being, creating commissions and councils that advocate solely for men’s voices. And while all this unfolds, women and girls are politely asked to wait on the sidelines — to watch without participating, without complaint, as the cultural spotlight shifts away from them.

Would that feel fair?

For many women, such a proposal would feel outrageous — as if their lives, their needs, their experiences were being brushed aside. And that reaction is exactly the point.

Because for the past half-century, that is precisely how many men have felt: ignored, blamed, and left out of the conversation. While women were told “you matter,” men were told to man up. While girls’ self-esteem, safety, and education were prioritized, boys quietly fell behind — in school, in mental health, in family life. And yet, few women stopped to ask: What about the boys?

If the idea of sidelining women now feels wrong, then perhaps it’s time to acknowledge how wrong it was to sideline men for so long. The belief that men were powerful oppressors who deserved no empathy was a cultural myth — one that too many accepted without question. And the damage of that myth is now all around us.

We don’t need to swap one form of exclusion for another. What we need is balance. We need to understand that men have struggles, too — and they deserve just as much care, compassion, and attention. Real progress doesn’t come from focusing on just one sex. It comes from listening to both.

Let’s stop pretending that empathy is a limited resource. There’s enough to go around. But first, we have to be willing to offer some to the half of the population who has gone without it for far too long.

Journal
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/future-boys-men-masculinities

Article
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fmen0000480

Read full Article
May 27, 2025
post photo preview
Using AI with Men's Issues


I’ve created several custom GPTs focused on men’s issues. A custom GPT is essentially a private AI tool built on uploaded material. For example, one of the links below connects to Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody. When you click the link, you'll be taken to a page where you can ask the AI questions about the book. It will search the content and provide a summarized answer.

In my testing so far, the responses have been clear and insightful. Occasionally, the AI rephrases ideas in its own words—but in most cases, these interpretations are accurate. Still, keep in mind that AI isn’t perfect. While it’s a powerful tool, its answers shouldn't be treated as final authority.

Currently, there are four custom GPTs available:

I plan to expand this library and would love to hear your suggestions—what other material would you like to see added?

Note: You’ll need a free account with chatgpt account to access any of these resources.


GPT Icon
 

Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws

By Tom Golden

This GPT is designed to offer clear, professional, and well-sourced insights into the often overlooked experiences of male victims of domestic violence. It explores societal blind spots, institutional biases, and the unique challenges men face in being seen, believed, and supported.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68178dd19bfc8191a3475bcd8051917e-sex-bias-in-domestic-violence-policies-and-laws

____________________________________

 

Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of three books, this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the lives and healing processes of men and boys.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-680ed336677c8191a3527bdf1d4bf17f-understanding-men-and-boys-healing-insights

________________________________________

GPT Icon
 

Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of Stephen Baskerville's classic book Taken Into Custody. this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the difficulties surrounding divorce.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68239e442d0c81918469f94d38850af5-taken-into-custody-stephen-baskerville
_________________________________________


GPT Icon
 

Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance

By Tom Golden

Research studies by James Nuzzo, PhD, and others provide insights into boys' muscle strength and physical performance.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6824833d14d48191be9491084dd4cc8b-boys-muscle-strength-and-performance

Read full Article
May 25, 2025
post photo preview
Memorial Day: Honoring the Invisible Sacrifices


As we honor the men and women who have given their lives in military service this Memorial Day, we often focus on the visible sacrifices: the battles fought, the bravery displayed in combat, and the ultimate price paid with death. However, there are sacrifices that often go unnoticed, those that are felt long after the uniforms are put away, those that exist in the quiet aftermath of war: the mental and emotional toll on soldiers.

For many soldiers, the impact of their service does not end when they return home. While some are physically wounded, others carry psychological scars that may never fully heal. These wounds are not visible to the eye, but they are felt deeply—affecting every aspect of life, from relationships to career choices, to the personal sense of self.

The emotional and mental struggles faced by veterans often go unspoken. Issues like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and survivor's guilt can haunt them for years after the war has ended. While physical injuries can often be treated or managed, the invisible wounds are far harder to address. The pain of loss, trauma, and the moral injuries sustained in combat don’t always show up on medical charts but are carried within.

Many soldiers come home, not only grieving the comrades they lost on the battlefield but also burdened with the weight of the actions they were forced to take in the name of war. The emotional turmoil of witnessing violence, the confusion of being asked to do things that conflict with their moral compass, and the isolation that can come from feeling misunderstood by those who have not shared their experiences, can lead to an overwhelming sense of alienation.

For families of fallen soldiers, the grief is layered. While they mourn the loss of a loved one, they also often wrestle with the emotional aftermath of their service. The long-term impacts on mental health are felt across generations, as the families of soldiers who return physically and mentally scarred deal with the ripple effects of trauma. The strain on marriages, parent-child relationships, and community ties can be immense, yet the support and understanding for these issues are frequently lacking.

Memorial Day is not just a time to remember the men who died in combat—it is also an opportunity to acknowledge the immense emotional and mental cost of war that continues to impact those who survive. It is a reminder that the invisible wounds of battle—those that affect the mind and spirit—deserve as much attention and compassion as the visible ones.

This Memorial Day, as we honor those who have fallen, let us also remember those who carry the unseen scars of war. Let us stand with those who have borne the emotional and psychological burdens of military service, offering our support, empathy, and a commitment to their long-term healing. After all, the sacrifice of our soldiers is not only paid on the battlefield—it is carried on long after the guns fall silent.

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