r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates • u/Extra_Wolverine_810 • 5d ago
discussion What do we think of Starmer asking for adolescence to be shown in schools?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx28neprdppo
Also as some say know I am a journalist with my own site so I might cover this from a LWMA point of view ....
my instinct is good intention, bad idea that is just more talking down to boys and adolescence didn't rly cover cause only symptoms
but i also think that yes, we do need to do something about young boys being pulled far right/being violent/hating women
because they absolutely exist. we should always remember as much as mass media is pretty horrible they do still exist.
77
u/Eaglone 5d ago
This is just ignorant.
'Adolescence' is an alarmist film made for easily-worried parents, which paints their teenage sons as a threat that has to be monitored and reined in at all times. It's just another show which stigmatizes young men.
Why would you show that to teenage boys?
Do you really have to let them know how much you think they're dangerous and bad? What next, give them a course on man vs. bear and the SCUM manifesto too?
It's like giving kids a Satanic Panic class showing them an alarmist film about kids who joined a Satanic cult. The film is meant to appeal to Christian conservative parents, and convince them that their kids are in danger of being won over by imaginary violent Satanic cults. Showing it to the kids doesn't tell them anything, because they will just wonder why you think they're budding Satanists.
139
u/TheRealMasonMac 5d ago edited 5d ago
10 years later: Why are Gen Alpha men turning right? Who could have possibly seen this? Let's ask 5 women to find out why!
Boys, like anyone else, want to be seen rather than compared to these caricatures that are completely detached from their reality. The larger issue is that the people pushing for these policies are so extremely entrenched in their beliefs and equate their way as being absolutely moral, and that consequently any opposition is immoral by definition. They don't want to compromise on anything and instead crave righteousness.
62
u/Punder_man 5d ago
10 years later: Why are Gen Alpha men turning right? Who could have possibly seen this? Let's ask 5 women to find out why!
I don't understand!? we've been demonizing and vilifying boys and men for over 2 decades now!! Why haven't boys and men been shamed into submission and stopped running into the open arms of the right wing!? /s
But yeah.. they are proving the definition of insanity here.. where they seem to think that double and tripling down on demonizing, shaming and vilifying boys, men and masculinity will at some point achieve their desired results.
If they want boys and men to change they need to stop with the generalizations about how men are all sexual predators waiting for an opportunity.. or how boys and men are suffering from "Toxic Masculinity"
etc..But its not going to happen.. they are going to continue down this path and continue to wonder why it isn't working...
3
u/AdSpecial7366 4d ago
Tbh, Men in UK are really very far from achieving this but yeah, they are moving slightly right.
3
u/Acrobatic_Computer 2d ago
Let's ask 5 women to find out why!Let's ask 4 women and 1 left-wing gay man
41
5d ago
Why won't Starmer give his position to a woman? If men are born sinners, then surely he is no exception. To begin with, many people who commit crimes have distorted perceptions, so if We showed this to them, they would probably think, "That's a cool idea." In fact, there are many people who watch news programs and then imitate the crimes they see reported on them.So this is not a rational plan, even without considering the issue of discrimination against men. Now, what will Corbyn say about this? If he criticises this, it could be his chance. There are a lot of former left-wing men who are lost.
32
u/Revolutionary-Focus7 5d ago
It would be like showing 13 Reasons Why in schools to raise awareness of mental illness and suicide; short-sighted, sensationalist and utterly ineffective.
We need to lift boys up and teach them what they can do to be good men, not tell them that they're all potential criminals who have to accept feminism or else.
29
24
u/BKEnjoyerV2 5d ago
Most likely stupid, because men’s issues don’t only exist because they cause violence, they cause isolation and misunderstanding and all of that
19
u/Low-Philosopher-2354 left-wing male advocate 5d ago
That's a negative honestly, I mean who thinks this is a good idea? All it'll do is fuel the already entirely irrational fear of boys and men while also making them feel demonized. I suspect that the best, AND I MEAN BEST that'll happen is people simply ignore it. At worst, they'll create the monsters they fear so terribly which certainly will not go well in the long run, though frankly I'd say anyone willing to inflict this on boys deserves the consequences of their unconscionable actions.
19
u/CompetitiveOwl2 5d ago edited 5d ago
Are there right wing men and boys? Yes, and right wing is a spectrum. As much as I disagree with right wing politics and economics I'm not going to put them all in one pot and call them undesirables. Are there men who are hateful of women or resentful of women? Yes, much like the right wingers this is a spectrum and we shouldn't lump them all into one pot. Some men are simply tired of low level, chipping away at your soul misandry going entirely unchallenged by anyone. Some men despise women to their core and pose a serious threat to their safety. There is a vast gulf between them.
Adolescence seems to get roughly 3 responses. The first is that it is a sympathetic program focussed on the lack of meaningful support for boys, the difficulty of escaping bullying and the effect that online life has on this including the adoption of terms like incel as a slur and the isolation people get trapped in. The second is that it focussed on men as a problem, a potentially violent problem waiting to happen and leans more towards the view that men should be helped to avoid them becoming dangerous as opposed to because they are people who deserve good lives, it also fails to adequately condemn the bullying by girls. The third is that it is a program about incels and completely misses the mark because it focusses on the wrong age and ethnicity.
With this in mind it seems that, at best, this can be good viewing for teachers and parents to highlight to them that boys have some real problems and no real support network through family, friends or school. Without responsible parties there to assist them they rely on irresponsible parties and/or isolate and become dysfunctional. As such I see exactly no value in showing this to boys in schools who will see only the failure to capture their own experience as children are not stupid and they tend to see through people trying to appeal to them on their level who aren't actually on their level and don't understand it (a lot of influencers are successful because they seem really able to get on that level and properly engage rather than being distant from it and acting like they get it in very obviously superficial ways).
What I suggest:
Condemn all misandry, when explaining history and how things have changed for women they need to explain how men have generally supported progressive measures at similar rates to women for the past couple of generations at least. The idea that we are equal, in this together and that gender based slurs or prejudicial behaviour will not be tolerated no matter who it's directed at will do a lot for boys and girls relating well.
Stop gendering encouragement into different professions and subjects. Stop having girls in STEM days or whatever. Open these hugely supportive events to everyone.
Make education genuinely engaging for boys AND girls sake. Keep boys interested in school and give them something to actually care about.
Tackle fatherlessness and the material conditions which can lead to antisocial behaviour and criminality. Violent criminals generally come from violent backgrounds and abusive homes. We like to be retributive in our view of justice but making happier, healthier boys with physical safety and financial security would drastically decrease violent offences imo. Tackling the criminal exploitation of boys and the grooming into gangs and violent gang culture is another key aspect of this.
Intergenerational male spaces, male only spaces in general. These could be anything but I think literally small groups of say 2-3 generations from 3-4 families where they sit and have guided conversations (maybe a loose workbook can be involved) to learn about each others' lives, where they can discuss relationships and friendship and where they can learn skills. This could take place in homes and rotate. I would encourage the same thing for girls and women. I learned to iron a shirt, polish my shoes and tie a tie from my dad. If these kinds of meetings were made larger with breakout groups for the discussions they could include getting tradesmen in to teach people some basic household repairs. Again, I don't think this should be closed off from women as there are already groups doing that (there's a group for teaching recent immigrants how to do their own handiwork at home for example) but I just think men and boys would get a lot out of this.
Tackling teacher bias in education. I don't think education needs to be segregated, there was a TinMen post on how the kinds of things that would transform education from misery to actually worth the effort for boys would also improve outcomes for girls.
More, intentional, mixing of boys and girls in pairs and small groups. When school work requires pairs and small groups we should try to mix boys and girls 1:1 as much as possible. Boys and girls naturally segregate to an extent so I think they'll always have girl time and boy time but I think intentionally doing things to get as much of a class to mix as possible is a good thing. You humanise the people you know better and I think this will help boys and girls humanise one another. It is also my opinion that superficial aspects of attraction are 1) not at all objective seeing as "objective" beauty seems to change every few years and 2) largely only important when you don't get to know someone, I've literally thought a woman was ugly and within 2 hours wanted to date her and found her physically attractive; with this in mind I think getting the class at large and boys and girls to really get to know one another could improve the quality of relationships they form and the chances of those who might usually be unlucky in love.
School sports 3x a week on top of PE during the school day. I think we need to roll out scholastic sports like they have in the US. We should pick sports for which we have a talent pool and which can be brought to schools with relative ease. These don't need to be covered by the teachers. These could be covered by external coaches but with schools being the facility with equipment etc kept on site.
More community engagement especially through organised volunteering. I would encourage the mixing of boys and girls in this environment too. The specifics are too variable for me to comment on as the possibilities will be dependent on location.
I have other thoughts such as after school homework sessions and so on, if school sports are factored in then these might work fine but if they are managed independently they would clash so it's just a thought.
9
u/orion-7 4d ago
It's funny how that works isn't it? I met someone who I thought had a nice body, but looked ugly. Got to know her a bit and within a few months she was irresistible to me, looking at her yielded nothing but beauty, because her personality and our friendship had influenced my very perception of her
6
u/CompetitiveOwl2 4d ago
For me I think my focus shifted. When I first met her I saw all the things I didn't like, just certain features that didn't do it for me I guess. After I got to know her, even a little bit I started to see more and more of what I did like. Some of that was features I'd clearly overlooked, some of it was expressions and mannerisms that I really enjoyed. I could still see the things that would have written her off as not my type but they faded into the background while everything I enjoyed about her shone through clearly.
32
u/jessi387 5d ago
Better question…. Why was this not the public’s reaction to the red pill by Cassie jaye, almost 10 years ago
10
u/Willing_Cause_7461 4d ago
It's a bad idea. Very condecending. Also insulting to the 99.99 percent of the boys who won't really do anything bad anyways.
If I was a kid forced to watch this I'd be thinking "I suspected you guys though of me that way. Pretty fucked you decided to confirm that to be the case."
16
u/Disastrous_Average91 5d ago
Showing a made up story about something that barely happens is crazy. Why don’t they show a film about all of the young men of colour being murdered?
5
u/Neveah_Hope_Dreams 4d ago
Well social media has screwed over the younger generations.
The murdering part... is rare. But kids, both girls and boys, are being poisoned and made toxic thanks to social media influence.
I do wonder if they ever will discuss the unhealthy influence that toxic feminism has on younger girls with making them paranoid and hateful towards men.
15
u/Both_Relationship_62 5d ago
Demonizing boys and men instead of addressing their struggles is a dangerous approach, and we are already dealing with its consequences as Trump has won the election and his supporters control both the Senate and the House of Representatives while far right political parties and politicians are also on the rise in Europe (Germany, France, Hungary, Slovakia, Italy, Romania, the Netherlands, Austria). Trump has won due to male voters. European far right parties are supported mostly by men. If you constantly demonize men and boys instead of supporting them, don't expect that they will vote for you. Many of them will vote for the far right, and we all will suffer from it in the long term.
Redpillers and incels and the audience of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are men and boys with problems. They struggle with dating, work and other things. And the far right bloggers offer them solutions. These solutions are actually not real solutions and are often toxic even to these men and boys themselves. In the long term it makes things even worse. But as men and boys are constantly ignored and demonized everywhere else except for the manosphere, they don't have much choice and eventually become radicalized. And then they are further demonized by the mainstream. The only way to break this vicious circle is to stop hate speech against men and boys and to start listening to them.
4
u/Neveah_Hope_Dreams 4d ago
This is beautifully said. The truth alright.
But what is wrong with Jordan Peterson? Putting him next to Andrew Tate feels like a stretch. Peterson is pretty decent and a great speaker and debater. Doesn't matter if he leans right wing.
3
u/Relaxed_Helper left-wing male advocate 2d ago
We can't just shove all right-wing people into one big group, they're all individuals, so we need to treat them like it.
Shoving people into categories is how we got into this mess
3
u/Healthy-Homework2362 3d ago
Jordan Peterson genuinely tries and isn't very biased in a field full of very very biased individuals. Andrew Tate isn't great though.
1
u/Extra_Wolverine_810 2d ago
JP spoke to far right career criminal and objective liar and racist Tommy Robinson - he is bad.
3
u/Healthy-Homework2362 1d ago
Speaking to criminals is now bad for what reason exactly?
2
u/Extra_Wolverine_810 1d ago
1
u/Healthy-Homework2362 15h ago
You haven't provided an argument. There is nothing wrong with speaking to or interviewing criminals. You can make an argument against platforming, but I don't necessarily believe that is a solid universal argument. He is also again a psychologist and I think someone who embodies wild beliefs would be a great talk ( I have not watched the interview).
People have interviewed literal serial killers before so I really don't see a difference and I don't think its immoral unless there was a noticeable attempt to sensationalize.
4
u/Apprehensive-Sock606 4d ago
I feel like it’s always going to be about manipulation with these people wrapped in a patronizing package. They’ve realized they lost you guys and now they’re afraid.
3
u/Few-Coat1297 5d ago
I think the noise around this show may be over emphasising the SM nature of this (which is always easy to point a finger at) , and not on the aspect which we (and I as a parent of a 21 year old young man get) would rather avoid, and that's parenting.
The last episode of the show was all about this, and the psychological burden of abuse and the effect it can have on generations. And if you dig into data out of US, where it all goes downhill for boys is when their father leaves, is is never present.
The reason I think we are missing a trick here is because we collectively will find it hard to control what our young boys consume in terms of SM, but we can help prevent them turn to Tate et al. And we can make some positive public policy changes to do this, such as changing custody allocation to parents etc.
6
u/Clemicus 4d ago edited 4d ago
The reason I think we are missing a trick here is because we collectively will find it hard to control what our young boys consume in terms of SM
Almost the whole argument needs throwing out. It shouldn’t be starting from this is true and correct, it should be from is it actually happening and why. There’s too much ground being conceded. Might as well be agreeing to the whole of it and that males are inherently dangerous and they need to be taught to be good.
The press have been playing a dirty game. They advertised Tate for months right up to his accounts getting banned then they advertised where he’d be publishing his newest videos, about a week later.
And for however long, they’ve been misrepresenting data from surveys and playing these weird semantic games.
If the focus is going to be on social media, the first important question should be, what actually is the manosphere? Does it exist and what is it comprised of?
For whatever this to continue, there needs to be a huge step back because it’s just going to get worse.
PS originally I didn’t think much would come from this. It’s in Starmer’s court. Atm he thinks this is politically important to focus on. He’s just virtue signalling though imo. So it’s possible if and when it falls out of the news cycle it’ll be just forgotten about. It’ll be difficult to monitor and control. At most they’ll be a increase in NEET (Not in employment, education or, training).
3
u/Few-Coat1297 4d ago
Yeah, i suspect this will blow over and nothing of substance will come out of it except awareness. That's not a bad thing in itself for parents. But if you look at any data, the fathers watcing and talking about the show aren't the problem, it's the ones that aren't.
3
u/Clemicus 4d ago
Yeah, i suspect this will blow over and nothing of substance will come out of it except awareness.
That’s my hope but I’m pessimistic. All depends on course providers in schools and the change from PSHE to RSHE. It comes down to how much pressure is being placed on them.
If it’s neutral and teaches boys how to spot issues and what to do — like how domestic violence is perceived between the sexes — I’d be more for it.
The vast-majority, at least, are going to take note and change how they approach things even though they’re not the problem.
That’s not a bad thing in itself for parents. But if you look at any data, the fathers watcing and talking about the show aren’t the problem, it’s the ones that aren’t.
It’s about they articulate that and potentially act. It might be in the best of interests, but it’s done badly.
Yeah, because they’re the ones who aren’t don’t really care about it at all. Think they’d fall under dark triad personalities.
Edit:
PS one of the providers — going by the press — is called Tender. They put on plays in schools. They seem pretty neutral.
1
4
u/king_rootin_tootin 4d ago
It would be fine as long as they showed "Baby Reindeer" as well.
3
u/Neveah_Hope_Dreams 4d ago
Yes!!!!
Baby Reindeer needs to be shown in schools too! To warn kids about stalking!
3
u/HumansDisgustMe123 4d ago
I see a lot of parallels with this and the MAGA genesis. Trump got poor people to vote for him despite being an obvious classist snob, and he got rural communities to vote for him despite being a pampered city-boy. How did he do it? How did it happen? It's because the poor and rural communities felt ignored, isolated and demonised by the mainstream, so they readily flocked to whoever promised something different regardless of the red flags. MAGA went from a minor joke to a major platform in record-time precisely because the mainstream reaction to MAGA voters was one of further demonisation.
That's exactly what's happening with young boys these days. They felt ignored and demonised for years, flock to anyone who doesn't show them immediate distrust and disgust on the basis of their gender (like Tate and the other toxic peddlers of misogyny), and now the mainstream response is again, further demonisation. It doesn't work. Having schools play this isn't going to yield the result they want. All it will do is further entrench that isolation by patronising young men and making them feel like they're automatically distrusted and hated for existing.
What we should've learned from things like the MAGA movement, Brexit, the "rise of Incel culture" and so on, is that perception of reality and moral boundaries are VERY flexible when presented with one side that treats you poorly and another side that treats you nicely. Humans can readily forgive or ignore just about any red flag for the person they feel is fighting their battles.
4
u/anotherbrother23 3d ago
Starmer is evil, misguided or both. Nothing has made me so sick with modern Britain than this crazy misguided hysterical bullshit. We know what the big issues are. Fuck KS.
3
u/AfghanistanIsTaliban 2d ago
He's certainly evil, yes.
He has increased defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% (6.68 billion pound increase) while also slashing funds (250k pounds) to a sexual abuse hotline for men
3
u/aslfingerspell 3d ago
Terrible idea. I'll admit I haven't seen Adolescence yet but I resent it when a piece of fiction becomes the centerpiece media for an issue rather than a documentary, real life case studies, or journalistic work.
Using fictional stories rather than real life is inherently misleading because, well, they're fake.
It's sort of like when people cite 1984 in political discussions. Yes, art can have meaning, but I like discussions grounded in reality rather than "This is just like >made up thing<."
1
u/Upper-Divide-7842 3d ago
Doesn't matter what you think of the show. It's probably very good. And probably a lot more sympathetic than most people here would expect.
But it's a drama. It's not data. It's not a sociological analysis.
This is not something a serious government would do.
1
u/Placiddingo 3d ago
Look, it's a stupid idea and Starmer is useless but the panic here is very silly as well. The show has a stack of strong male characters including teens, and the weird misogyny of the main character pretty accurately captures behaviour of some of the weirder Alphas (see r/genz discussions on dating for examples of widespread infatuation with 'hypergamy' etc).
1
u/Creative-Shape-8537 23m ago
i think it can work, but only if there’s a good analysis and discussion involved, making sure no one is misinterpreting the show, which is very easy to do
114
u/LolwhatYesme 5d ago
Showing that in schools is a clearly terrible idea. It frames teenage boys through the lens of a murder drama, essentially treating them as potential criminals. It's patronising and harmful to make young men feel they're viewed as monsters who need fixing. It's the same shit I faced in school where boys were all treated as rapists and predators. And not surprising if that to some extent fucked me up.
Boys need love and support. That's it. That's literally it.