Do horrified viewers of the fictional Netflix series ‘Adolescence’ care about real adolescent boys? — The Centre for Male Psychology

jessi387 · 2025-04-06T22:17:19+00:00

Perfect example of Plato’s allegory of the cave. People staring at shadows on the cave wall , mistaking them for reality

Angryasfk · 2025-04-07T05:25:24+00:00

An interesting analysis. Feminism is certainly a secular religion, and does require accepting as fact its sweeping generalisations and ridiculous assertions about the past, which are typically at best half truths.

However the problem with Adolescence is that it is written by people who’ve swallowed this stuff whole. It is NOT really based on true stories. The Croydon and Liverpool stabbings don’t really have much in common with the plot. The killer lives in an intact and financially stable family where the father is genuinely loved and respected by the females of the household. The school he attends seems to have mostly male teachers as well. The truth is that it’s really formulaic rather than a result of real research on primary sources. It’s as if they’ve read a Gender Studies “help guide” as to what’s going one.

Now the ideological nature of the show is laid clear by the fact it blames everything on “the manosphere” and this “terrible content” that’s responsible for all of this (along with the father’s “anger issues” of course). And it’s cheered on by the usual suspects. But would these “usual suspects” (and the writers of this show) accept that gangster rap and drill music is the cause of violence amongst black teens, and that it should also be banned??? Somehow I think we’d hear “but no, but no, but no” all the time. Instead they might possibly ask us to consider the reasons why such music is so attractive to black kids/youth: why they’re so alienated; why they feel such rage.

But when it comes to boys/the “manosphere”, and this includes the exact same boys/youths; suddenly no, it’s the content! And don’t bother thinking about why they’re attracted to it, it’s the “content” that causes all the problems!

The whole thing is as transparent as a pane of glass.

AfghanistanIsTaliban · 2025-04-06T21:47:22+00:00

My field is, of all things, comparative religion. I’ve spent forty years studying feminism, which I classify(like every other ideology on either the Left or the Right) as a “secular religion.”

I don't agree with this sentiment. It's not that political ideologies are religions, but rather, it's that religions are forms of ideologies. And calling every ideology on the political Left/Right a "secular religion" seems a bit handwavey and incorrect, considering the existence of non-secular political - mostly right-aligned - ideologies like Islamism (incl. Jihadism), Kahanism, Dominion theology (incl. New Apostolic Reformation), Liberation theology, etc.

But ideological versions of feminism are analogous to a particular kind of religion (which has a history that goes back not centuries but millennia). I refer to fundamentalism, which relies on a profoundly dualistic vision of the world: one in which “we” are perpetually victimized and “they” are perpetually “privileged.” All of history is therefore a titanic war between “us” and “them,” one that will end ultimately with “our” victory (reward) and “their” defeat (punishment). In the case of feminist ideology, women are innately good (the source of all virtue and happiness) and men innately evil (the source of all vice and suffering).

I wouldn't say that feminists believe that women are inherently good, but they believe in the conspiratorial belief of patriarchy theory and may also use this theory to justify other beliefs. Certain feminist grievances such as gendered DV may contradict quantitative data. There is a psych study that examines the feminist gender paradigm in intimate violence theory:

The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data

Abstract:

Feminist theory of intimate violence is critically reviewed in the light of data from numerous incidence studies reporting levels of violence by female perpetrators higher than those reported for males, particularly in younger age samples. A critical analysis of the methodology of these studies is made with particular reference to the Conflict Tactics Scale developed and utilised by Straus and his colleagues. Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for “qualitative” studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. A case is made for a paradigm having developed amongst family violence activists and researchers that precludes the notion of female violence, trivializes injuries to males and maintains a monolithic view of a complex social problem.

same thing with rape:

The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions

Abstract:

We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men.

the study also cites CDC data

For example, in 2011 the CDC reported results from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), one of the most comprehensive surveys of sexual victimization conducted in the United States to date. The survey found that men and women had a similar prevalence of nonconsensual sex in the previous 12 months (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men).5 This remarkable finding challenges stereotypical assumptions about the gender of victims of sexual violence. However unintentionally, the CDC’s publications and the media coverage that followed instead highlighted female sexual victimization, reinforcing public perceptions that sexual victimization is primarily a women’s issue.

But theory isn't necessarily the problem. It's possible to hold a theory that is backed by empirical evidence, such as the theory of evolution. The real problem lies in what happens when you are exposed to new information. Do you change your beliefs and possibly find a compromise, or do you hold on to them while trying your best to poke holes in such information?

The author forms an interesting proposition:

As I keep saying, all people need to establish healthy identities, both personally and collectively. And they cannot do so without being able to make at least one contribution to society that is (a) distinctive, (b) necessary and (c) publicly valued. Failing that, some people get the idea that even a negative identity is better than no identity at all. Those who do accept negative identities, however, are likely to turn not only against society (through crime) but also against themselves (through dropping out of school or employment, addiction, suicide and so on).

Here's an interesting read: Why People Enter and Embrace Violent Groups

The current research provides empirical evidence regarding why people enter terrorist groups. Specifically, in two studies former members of terrorist groups were asked for either their primary reason for joining (Study 1, former LTTE members), or for their life narratives in which they spontaneously referred to reasons for joining (Study 2, former members of radical Islamist groups). Mindful of the classic distinction in attitude-change literature advanced by Kelman (1958), we inspected participants’ responses. We identified two pathways through which people may join violent groups: compliance and internalization. Compliance occurred when individuals joined groups because they were persuaded by a charismatic persuasive agent, exposed to propaganda, or coerced. In contrast, internalization occurred when individuals joined groups because of a convergence between the self and the group associated with their personal, relational, or collective identities.

The results of these two studies offered empirical evidence in line with our hypotheses. As expected, compliance was more frequently cited among former LTTE members than among former Islamist radicals. While almost half of former LTTE members reported compliance as a reason for joining the group, Islamist radicals cited compliance much less frequently. Also consistent with our expectations, former members of Islamist groups cited internalization more frequently than former LTTE participants: while more than three quarters of the reasons given by Islamist radicals for why they joined the group referred to internalization, less than half of former LTTE participants reported that this was a motive for joining.

World-Three · 2025-04-08T00:00:52+00:00

There is a subreddit for the show. Indulge at your own peril...

No_Ask_1913 · 2025-04-07T19:21:59+00:00

Interesting how this has no actual evidence or sources.

"This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views"

"That is my hypothesis. I cannot prove it, because I’m neither a scientist nor a social scientist"

Title	Do horrified viewers of the fictional Netflix series ‘Adolescence’ care about real adolescent boys? — The Centre for Male Psychology
Author	iainmf
Upvotes	245
Comments	7
Date	April 6, 2025 8:21 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jt3i5f/do_horrified_viewers_of_the_fictional_netflix/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/do-horrified-viewers-of-the-fictional-netflix.1548759 https://theredarchive.com/post/1548759

Comments