Adolescence: Toxic Masculinity’s Role in a Gender Violence and Misogyny Epidemic

Introduction

A study by King’s College London reveals that 57% of Gen Z boys and men believe that society has ‘gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men’ at the same time that 1 in 3 women have been or are subjected to physical and or sexual violence and 97% of women (in the UK) between 18–24 have been sexually harassed. Of course, these two are contradictory and illogical and their co-existence is downright insane. The beliefs exemplified in the KCL study show the perceptible impact of the anti-feminist movements and the widespread promulgation of toxic masculinity on young men’s views of equality and gender. Graham Thorne and Stephen Graham’s Adolescence is a timely warning and counterbalance against those forces to prevent gender-based violence (particularly in young demographics) from becoming a ‘regular occurrence’.

At first, it seems inconceivable that Jamie could have killed Katie. He and his father, and likely the viewer are all in denial of his guilt. Such ubiquitous denial stems from the fact that nothing appears outwardly malicious about Jamie.

However, as Stephen Graham remarked in a recent interview, [Adolescene] ‘is not a whodunnit, it’s a why did they do it’ and hence it is revealed shortly thereafter that Jamie was the perpetrator of Katie’s death, exposed by CCTV, much to the shock of his family.

There were several times I remarked that Jamie did not seem like a ‘bad kid’, notwithstanding his status as a murderer. Of course, the above statement is at best paradoxical and oxymoronic and at worst totally impossible and utterly ridiculous. However, it is not necessarily wrong.

That Andrew Tate Shite

Regretfully, Jamie’s behaviour (and the countless real-life examples who emulate him) is the byproduct of youthful vulnerability and the overbearing influence of the ‘red-pill’ ideology which has indoctrinated Jamie into the cesspit of toxic masculinity, the ‘manosphere’ and the ‘incel’ community. In other words, the “Andrew Tate shite” as explicitly mentioned in the show. Whilst at various points Jamie provides a facade of normality and innocence, intrinsically he is deeply radicalised by these influence[r]s and their endangering ideologies are the sine qua non for his unprovoked murder of classmate Katie.

Whilst the influences themselves may do well at concealing themselves from the masses, the impact it has on Jamie’s behaviour is desperately apparent.

This is particularly evident in Episode 3 when Jamie speaks to Briony- the psychologist tasked with an independent review of Jamie. Briony, despite Jamie’s doubts, managed to uncover a substantial amount about Jamie’s psyche and what was truly going on in the 13-year-old’s head.

Self-loathing

A particularly noticeable element of Jamie’s internal monologue is his self-loathing nature. The former is exemplified when Jamie is asked if he thinks that girls see him as attractive, he replies “No, of course not…because I’m ugly” and later remarks “I’m the ugliest I suppose”. Not only does this show Jamie’s reductive and cynical perception of attraction and relationships as a whole, but it is also indicative of his defeatist attitude and his worryingly low levels of self-esteem. These insecurities are synonymous with toxic masculinity, where men tend to evaluate themselves merely on appearance comparing themselves to unnatural, unhealthy and essentially unattainable figures. It’s important to remember that Jamie is at the very beginning of his adolescence and has already integrated a deeply unhealthy view of himself.

The desire to be gratified

This self-loathing and feeling of being “ostracised” leads to Jamie requiring external gratification to fill the void he has left himself. Subsequently, at the (somewhat abrupt) end of his interview with Briony, he is incredibly insistent on ascertaining the impression he has made: “Do you like me…don’t you even like me a bit…what do you think about me.” Regretfully, Jamie’s lack of self-belief and seemingly self-hatred leads him to seek solace from an alternative source, an unsustainable means of well-being and detrimental to anyone’s mental health. From personal experience, as I’m sure you can attest, comfort and security in oneself are significantly more conducive to contentment. Sadly, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy which is having a profound effect on the men’s mental health crisis we are seeing globally at the moment. Whilst it is clear that Jamie struggles and battles his self-image, he would “never” speak about his feelings with his closest friend Ryan. Ryan, like Jamie, is equally concerned with gratification- during an interview with DI Banscombe, questions if Banscombe was “like really popular with girls and stuff” and when questioned about popularity and interactions with girls, Ryan remarks ‘I don’t know why they matter so much but they do’. Whilst not the perpetrator, Ryan is equally indoctrinated, supplying the knife and suggesting he thought Jamie would just “scare her”. It is deeply concerning, and a damning indictment of their radicalisation, that this is seen as a rational excuse for Ryan’s complicity in Jamie’s assailance.

Elevated Sexual expectations

Another element of Jamie’s behaviour which shows how deeply toxic masculinity has infiltrated his worldview is his view of sex, sexual relations and women as a whole. It’s not the first or last time I will say it, but I urge you to remember that Jamie is 13 and by this how deeply concerning his remarks are. An enormous part of the ‘manosphere’ that the show discusses is the absence of sexual interaction which spurs the ‘incels’ on- particularly the 80/20 rule which is so frequently mentioned in the show. In other words, this worldview promulgates that sex and intimacy are a (if not the) defining feature of a man. Hence, the lack thereof is something that the toxic man wishes to avoid by any means necessary. This is evident with Jamie. When asked about his sexual experiences to date, Jamie suggests “I’ve had two girls show me their tits and one of them touched my knob.” Notwithstanding the slightly vulgar term that Jamie uses, after mild questioning from Briony, Jamie admits that this account is falsified and that (unsurprisingly- given he is 13) he has not had any sexual encounters of this kind. Moreover, when asked what he considers “normal” at his age, he believes that ‘kissing and [genital] touching’ is appropriate. Note, as I’m sure you know, that the age of consent in the UK is 16, three years senior Jamie. This is, inter alia, one of the most damaging parts of toxic masculinity. It skews and misaligns young men’s expectations and autonomy over sexual conduct which leads to a greatly premature desire and subsequent repression of sexuality which is worsened significantly by an incredibly dangerous pornographic industry which Jamie suggests ‘everyone sees’.

Further Commodification

This leads to Jamie’s motivation for killing Katie. We learn that Katie has shared an explicit photo of herself with another boy in Jamie’s year who subsequently disseminated this photo across the year. Jamie seems to somewhat admire this boy, placing him on a pedestal. Here we see Jamie’s first instance of commodifying Katie (and the girls). In a deeply denigrating remark, Jamie says “he won’t get any more [nudes]” and that “he should have collected more pictures.” After this, Jamie disparagingly refers to Katie as ‘quite flat’ but admits he “liked seeing it [Katie].’ Jamie, by virtue of what he sees on social media (and online), is conditioned to be particularly critical of girls but fundamentally is attracted to them. Regardless, his description of a fellow 13-year-old is deeply objectifying and perverse; characteristic of the manosphere movement.

Toxic masculinity fuels rape cultures

Here is where Jamie’s facade cracks, and rapidly. He reveals that he had “asked Katie out”. Jamie, once again deeply cynical, goes on to suggest that he “thought she might be weak”, “a slag” and that her ‘weakness[es] made her more gettable.’ In other words, Jamie, whether he meant to or not, was hoping to prey on someone who he saw as vulnerable, easy and straightforward. Such a chain of logic leads to a culture which fuels sexual assault, domestic or gender-based violence and rape, and Jamie is not immune from this. Disturbingly, Jamie goes on to assert that he ‘could have touched any part of her body if he wanted to’ indicative of how he has been convinced (wrongly) that he has the autonomy to bypass consent and that he is inherently superior suggesting that he “should have killed her”. Jamie tries to decouple the intent and the (lack of) action suggesting “Most boys would have touched her…so that makes me better…don’t you think?’. Of course, it matters significantly that Jamie believes he could have done so in the first place and regardless this ideal is deeply flawed and epitomises the rape culture aforementioned. This also serves as another example of Jamie seeking affirmation from another.

Subversion

This worldview of female inferiority rears its ugly head once again in his treatment of the psychologist. In fits of rage, Jamie aggressively shouts “You not tell me when to sit down…look at me now…get that in the fucking little head of yours” and “What the fuck was that? Signalling him away like a fucking queen…fucking hell”. In addition, Jamie stares down Briony in an intimidating manner and throws his chair across the room before being detained by the security in the prison. Jamie shows his blatant disregard for Briony, despite her being much his senior, and almost seems to revel in her discomfort-teasing her over being scared of a 13-year-old: “How embarrassing is that?”.

Statistically one of your boys ain’t joking

I recently watched a fantastic piece of spoken poetry by Sam Browne which encapsulates the message conveyed in Adolescence. The first of which is the insufficiency of the current school system; ‘a form of misguided discipline’. Jamie’s school, notably chaotic, tries to enforce a very traditional notion of discipline — “stay in your lines”, “phones away”, and “shirts tucked in”. I’m not saying this isn’t necessary to some extent, but that it greatly misses a much-needed discipline, disciplining normalised misogyny- the current system leads to ‘four guys with loose shirts and six who had sexually assaulted’. The kids are deemed “fucking impossible” but their behaviours aren’t challenged. Look how normalised misogyny is on the playground, the disparaging remark of being “banged by a girl.” The school and police are so oblivious to the root cause of Jamie’s violence — after all, it is Adam, DI Banscombe’s son, who reveals the importance of what had occurred online. Adolescence’s Jamie is Sam Browne’s Billy. ‘See Billy’s aren't evil, they’re just a failure of a system’ and Billy. Without the views of toxic masculinity and by-the-by misogyny being challenged as a counterbalance to the manosphere, you can not effectively challenge gender-based violence. There is ‘an ignorance around anomalies’ and just as Eddie couldn’t believe Jamie could do this to Katie ‘no one wants to think that one of their boys would make their misogyny violent’. Whilst it may seem innocuous or trivial ‘statistically one of your boys ain't joking’.

Adolescence exemplifies the danger of patriarchal and male-centric societies which perpetuate heteronormative behaviour as the only form of masculinity.

In the vast majority of interactions between the two genders in Adolescence, the female character is the subsidiary, the inferior, the weaker and the lesser- the same way that Jamie viewed Katie. These subtle subjugations contribute to an epidemic of misogyny. The police officer speaks of how easily replaceable Briony is as a psychologist suggesting he could do the same job seamlessly, DS Frank — whose name is forgotten in one of the classrooms — is the junior of DI Banscombe. Frank epitomises the patriarchal society she finds herself in suggesting “the perpetrator gets all the frontlines…Katie isn’t important, Jamie is”. Moreover, this gender balance remains the same despite lesser competence, Miss Ferumore is a far more composed and responsible figure than Mr Malik who is her senior and Jamie opts for his Dad as his responsible adult despite his Mum remembering his intolerances and fear of needles. Jamie employs a male solicitor, adores a history class full of boys and admits he has “no female mates.” One may think that such male-centrism is limited to this very narrow scope of the main characters in the show. However, Quint who appears in the paint shop in the last episode shows how this arrangement serves to amplify the male dominance: “I’ve seen photos of her [Katie]...you’ve got my support..there’s loads of us [men] who would get behind it.”

Intergenerational Trauma as a source of Toxic Masculinity

This brings us to the particularly intriguing character of Eddie Miller (Jamie’s dad) played by co-creator Stephen Graham. Eddie, it seems inadvertently, falls victim to placing heteronormative and toxicly masculine standards on Jamie. Eddie is not immune from ‘male rage’ with Jamie noting “he once pulled down a shed in a proper rage” and “that he gets angry with himself but never hit her [ Jamie’s mum].” Eddie speaks of his traumatic childhood: “When I was his age, my dad used to fucking batter me.” By virtue of this trauma, it seems Eddie’s view of masculinity is confined to a very archaic and prescriptive view of men as tough and stoic. Consequently, we learn that he had taken Jamie to play football in the hopes that it would “toughen him up” which in retrospect the pair both reflect upon with shame, albeit for differing reasons. It is clear that both father and son find their masculinity to be insecure and indefinite. Jamie portrays this clearly in his unnecessary insistence that he is “not gay” twice during his interview with Briony. Jamie, like his father, has been conditioned to see masculinity through a narrow lens of heterosexuality, individualism and self-sufficiency fitting a ‘man box’ of behaviours.

How could I hate my father without hating me?

Loyle Carner, a vocal advocate against the risks of toxic masculinity, epitomises the issue for Jamie and Eddie. Carner frequently discusses fatherhood, in both retrospective and prospective terms, emphasising the importance of ‘breaking the cycle’ of toxic masculinity. Questioning, ‘How could I hate my father without hating me?’ in Nobody Knows (Ladas Road). I am not saying Eddie is a bad father, far from it. However, his view of masculinity imparts itself onto Jamie. For example, the “terrible temper” that wife Manda points out (and is a victim of) leads to Eddie being reduced to tears pondering “Did I give him that?”. Briony, ever the catalyst for revelations, allows Jamie to assimilate their toxic view of masculinity: “Mend things, make things, like sport, Go to pub”. Ultimately, Jamie “idolised” his father and is fundamentally a byproduct of his behaviours and outlook. Eddie is by no means the sole or even main cause of what Jamie does, that being said he acknowledges that “he wanted to be better” and that his underlying views of masculinity may have shaped Jamie’s appetite for these views somewhat.

Obliviousness

The driving force, as aforementioned, behind Jamie’s uncharacteristic behaviour and gender-based violence is social media and more specifically the radicalising influencers which he consumes. We learn that Jamie would “come home, slam the door, straight on the computer and he never said nothing.” The family, whilst acknowledging some of the content he was watching — “going on about how to treat women and how men should be men…all that shit” — are completely oblivious to the tangible and substantial impact it was truly having on Jamie assuming that because “he was in his room, we thought he was safe, what harm can he do in there?” Of course, to Katie and her family’s distraught, we learn how awfully mistaken they were. Adolescence significantly is cyclical. The show opens with the police barraging into the family home, and we all assume Jamie’s innocence as he sits startled in bed. By the closing scene of the show, Eddie is alone in Jamie’s bed, Jamie has pleaded guilty, his innocence disintegrated and the dangers of his bedroom are desperately apparent. By means of comparison, we see Eddie and Manda discussing their organic story of getting together, in the absence of social media, whilst their daughter sits idly between them on her phone throughout. This glimpse into the past shows young men’s metamorphosis from organic and innocent into radicalised and vulnerable- the thrust of the four-piece series.

Conclusion

Thus far I have spoken of Katie, Jamie, Eddie and all other collateral characters as fictional, inside a TV show. The problem is that Adolescence is not fictional, it serves as a microcosm of society and adolescence today. Adolescence is not based on any particular of the tragic child murders we have seen in the UK recently but is rather a call to action, a warning against the dangers posed by the influences of toxic masculinity and our complicity and obliviousness to them. In a time when 3,000 cases of gender-based violence are reported per day and deemed as a ‘national emergency’, schools, parents and society at large must be acutely aware of the risks posed by these movements and it is paramount these forces are counteracted and antidoted, particularly as these influences gain growing political autonomy. Embracing positive masculinity, the likes of Jamie Laing’s messaging this week to eradicate this epidemic of gender-based violence. Epitomised in these words sung by Emilia Holliday, who plays Katie posthumously.

‘That nothing comes from violence

And nothing ever could

For all those born beneath an angry star

Lest we forget how fragile we are.

Thanks for reading.

Max. X