Unpacking Adolescence (Netflix): A Therapist’s Reflection on Masculinity, Power Dynamics and Shame

Contains Adolescence spoilers and discussion of violence/abuse.
I also have a video covering this on YouTube if you prefer to watch/listen.
​
Adolescence (Netflix) has sparked a lot of important conversations about social media, masculinity, the manosphere, and more. As someone who has long been concerned about the rise of misogyny and the manosphere, I’m glad this show exists. It’s also rare to see a show that focuses on the perpetrator’s family and the abuse and stigma they experience. I’ve always been fascinated by what leads people to cause harm. I’m a counsellor in private practice and I used to work for a domestic abuse charity with perpetrators doing group and 1:1 work with predominantly men (you can read more about my experiences here). In this blog, I’m doing a deep dive into Netflix drama “Adolescence”, exploring the influence of the manosphere, power dynamics, gender roles, shame and trauma. These are just my theories/opinions and may differ from others, and also keep in mind that counsellors and psychologists are trained very differently.

Image: https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81756069

​The dangers of the manosphere

The manosphere refers to online spaces for men’s rights activists, pick-up artists, incels, and other groups that share misogynistic and anti-feminist views. Incels have been in the headlines over the past few years because of violent attacks, like the Plymouth shooting in which Jake Davison killed his mother and four others. He’d been viewing incel content and posting about how he struggled with dating, and how he was a virgin and disillusioned with life.

In The Secret World of Incels (Channel 4), one self-described incel says he’d never spoken to a woman. When the host takes him to a bar to talk to women, he looks absolutely terrified. Many of these men are vulnerable but looking for connection and belonging. Some struggle with social skills, some may be neurodivergent, and find the outside world overwhelming. Online spaces feel safer, but they can easily be pulled into dark, dangerous mindsets.

Another recent murder case with a manosphere link involved Kyle Clifford, who killed his ex-girlfriend after she ended their relationship. He also killed her mother and sister. He’d been searching for Andrew Tate’s podcast beforehand. Of course, this alone doesn’t explain why he committed murder, but it does point to a wider issue with the influence of Tate and others like him. Tate isn’t an incel himself, but he’s part of the wider manosphere. While incels believe they can’t attract women, Tate boasts about having control over them and teaches men how to manipulate women. He and his brother have been charged with “rape, human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women,” and have been under house arrest in Romania but have recently been allowed to travel to the US. There are many sub-groups within the manosphere, each with different codes and views. They don’t always agree, but what they do share is misogyny and a hatred of feminism.

Young men get lured into this world because they’re searching for validation or belonging. In Adolescence, Jamie has been exposed to misogynistic content, but he says he’s “not into the incel stuff”. That may not be true, but it doesn’t really matter. You don’t need to be an incel or a Tate fan to absorb misogynistic ideas. You don’t even need to be active in these communities to cause harm. Still, there’s no doubt that the manosphere fuels and worsens existing misogyny in society. If we as a society want to send a clear message that this behaviour is unacceptable, then a conviction for Tate could be part of that. At the moment, he still seems to hold a lot of power and can do what he wants (also supported by other powerful men such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump).
 
Jamie didn’t kill Katie because of one factor, it was a combination. The manosphere, misogyny, entitlement, his home life, parental relationships, and trauma all contributed. It’s complex, and while the show gives us many of these pieces, viewers interpret it differently. I’ve seen a lot of comments saying we should ban phones in schools or clamp down on social media. Personally, I think that’s too simplistic. That approach could make parent-child relationships even more strained, and rebellious teens will just find a workaround. Saying Jamie killed because he watched too many YouTube videos in his bedroom doesn’t cover it. Yes, that played a part, but we also need to talk about the gender roles and patriarchal values permeating our society.

​Gender roles

Jamie’s family might look like a typical family, which I believe was intentional, to show that kids don’t need to come from chaotic homes to end up in trouble. But what’s seen as “normal” often hides layers of gendered expectations, with patriarchal and heteronormative influences.

In episode 4, you get little moments that speak volumes:

- Dad pressuring mum for sex in the morning, even though their daughter is upstairs.
- Mum cooking a huge full English breakfast for dad.
- Mum and daughter hiding upstairs later, “as they do”, tip-toeing around dad’s moods.

​In episode 3, Jamie describes his mum as not particularly good at anything, which may be a sign of distance between them and his lack of respect for her. He says his sister is clever, and I wondered if he may have felt she was the favourite child. The van being a 3-seater in episode 4 might symbolise how the family dynamic has shifted without Jamie around, there being no space for him. The grief of this is demonstrated in a deeply heartfelt way in episode 4, as if they’d lost a child.

A lot of things we consider “normal” carry deep-rooted gender roles. They might seem small, but they’re shaped by centuries of patriarchal thinking. Male violence isn’t just about individual behaviour, it’s also about these bigger social patterns. Men are more likely to kill others and kill themselves. I’m speaking in binary terms here but am also aware anyone of any gender can cause harm, and of the increased abuse faced by trans and non-binary people.

Jamie’s interactions with the psychologist showed us how he views women, how he mirrors his father’s emotional patterns, and how tied he is to masculinity ideals from the family, such as needing to be good at football. At home, he sees the women tiptoeing around his dad’s emotions, anger being the primary emotion shown by him, likely influenced by his own upbringing.

Image: https://thetab.com/2025/03/14/stephen-graham-reveals-the-heartbreaking-real-stories-that-inspired-adolescence-on-netflix

​Domestic abuse

Jamie’s dad talks about being beaten by his father and says he would never hit his kids. Jamie echoes this when defending him, saying his dad “never hit anyone”, to minimise the effect of his angry and threatening behaviour. In my work with perpetrators, I often heard “I never hit her” as it was used to deny abuse based on the assumption that domestic abuse involves physical violence towards someone. However, intimidation, shouting, throwing things, and certainly pulling down a shed in this case, can make people feel scared therefore is a form of control and abuse.
​
Domestic abuse also can involve emotional abuse and coercive control which can be more subtle, so it’s harder for a victim to prove, and it often can involve gaslighting so they may blame themselves. Jamie's dad attacked a teenager, vandalised a car park with paint and verbally abused the staff at the shop, which I'm surprised he wasn't arrested for. This is not only due to the circumstances following Jamie’s crime, he’s described as having “a temper” before that. Jamie seems defensive about talking about his dad and tries to minimise his dad's angry behaviour. I took this to be due to his need for his dad's approval and love, and loyalty to him and masculinity standards.

Shame

Both Jamie and his dad are carrying underlying shame. Anger can be a response to shame, like a defence. An example of this shame is when they describe how his dad couldn't look at him during a football game. For Jamie, it becomes a conflict of needing validation but never feeling good enough. He didn’t seem to gain that from either parent, he may have felt in the shadow of his sister, and he was rejected by girls, specifically Katie. That deep shame and craving for approval fuelled a lot of his behaviour, especially with the psychologist.
​
When the psychologist ended the sessions suddenly, it likely felt like yet another rejection for Jamie. From a therapeutic perspective, I found that ending abrupt and harmful (but she was a psychologist tasked with an assessment, so this is different). In therapy, it’s often the relationship that provides some of the healing. If Jamie had access to long-term therapy, especially with a female therapist, he could potentially start experientially unpacking these patterns. He might experience through the therapeutic relationship that his shame and vulnerability are accepted, that he doesn’t have to react with anger, and that he is worthy of love and connection. Jamie had started to form an attachment to the psychologist in the sessions and was left feeling vulnerable and powerless when she ended abruptly. He repeatedly shouted “tell my dad I’m ok” as he was escorted out, which I interpreted as his fear that his dad would find out about his vulnerability, so he was trying to “save face” and didn’t want his dad to think him weak.  

​Insecurities

The manosphere is quite obsessed with appearances. Women’s appearance is often rated from 1 to 10, and men are boxed into “alpha” or “beta” roles. “Looksmaxxing” is the idea that you should constantly improve your looks to get women, but this can easily spiral into body dysmorphia. There’s a good Channel 4 documentary on it if you want to dive deeper called “The Toxic World of Perfect Looks”. Behind the misogyny, entitlement and blame in the manosphere is a lot of insecurity. Many of these men are looking for validation because they feel worthless, and this often is tied into body image and appearance concerns. For incels, they can feel hopeless because they don’t look like a “chad” (the masculine ideal) and are angry at women for only going for the top 20% of men (this is the 80/20 theory). Men in these communities can feel entitled to women/sex and hate feminism for the choice and power it has given women. Having less power, and women and people of other genders and minoritized groups potentially having more, is seen as threatening to their power. It’s not of course; equal rights for others doesn’t mean fewer rights for men.
​
When working with perpetrators, we used an iceberg exercise. The angry outbursts are what you see above the surface. Underneath was often shame, jealousy, vulnerability, and a fear of being abandoned. We’d also talk about the “man box” and how masculinity standards are upheld, preventing these underlying emotions from being explored. Insecurities were common, and often they had fears of their partners leaving them or cheating on them. This led to jealousy and controlling behaviours, including isolation of their partners e.g. preventing them from going out with their friends. Sometimes this insecurity can stem from abandonment trauma or attachment difficulties in the early years, if for instance they didn’t have a caregiver who was able to meet their physical and emotional needs.

Fear of abandonment often leads to controlling behaviour. We see this when perpetrators become jealous and isolate their partners. The fear drives them to try and control the relationship, or prevent it from ending. When the partner tries to leave, the risk of stalking, harassment and murder increases dramatically. The connection between domestic abuse, coercive control and homicide is demonstrated by Jane Monckton-Smith in the 8-stage Homicide Timeline which she explains in this video. Coercive control is about trapping somebody in a relationship, so when the victim leaves, they lose control. Killing the victim is the ultimate form of regaining power and control. The aforementioned Kyle Clifford case follows the homicide timeline; he had a history of violence, he used coercive control, and when she decided to end the relationship he lost that control and power so he killed her (and family members), and then attempted to take his own life. In Adolescence, Jamie was not in a relationship with Katie, but her rejection still triggered deep shame and rage. Killing her became his way of regaining power.

Jane Monckton-Smith wrote a book called In Control which I highly recommend for anyone interested in learning more about domestic abuse and coercive control. 

​Power dynamics

Episode 3 gives us a fascinating power struggle between Jamie and the psychologist. She has authority and therefore power because of her role, but she tries to reduce this and build rapport with him with the hot chocolate and sandwich. However, the sandwich is one he doesn't like, perhaps used as a tool to see how he would respond. The phrase “make me a sandwich” is a common misogynistic stereotype, perhaps the show was giving a nod to this. Jamie asks a few times if he’s being tested, and he’s not wrong. Ultimately, she has a job to do in assessing him, but it seems she knows she needs to use her gender as a way of drawing out his thoughts and behaviours around women. She reassures Jamie and tries to build the relationship (e.g. by also moving her chair closer to his). There likely wouldn’t have been the same angry responses with the male psychologist they mention. When the male guard steps in Jamie immediately backs down, also demonstrating how he treats men with more respect than women.
​
I saw Jamie’s outbursts as a response and defence to his vulnerability and shame. When he felt exposed or like he was losing control, he used intimidation, just like his dad does at home. The way Jamie spoke, the language he used and tone, was similar to how his dad shouts at his mum in episode 4. It’s a sad, destructive pattern. What Jamie really wants is love and validation, but all he knows is how to express anger because that’s been modelled to him.

​The “monster” narrative

Some people online have called Jamie a “psychopath” or suggested he has a “split personality”. Personally, I don’t agree with using these labels for anyone, but especially not a child. Nobody is born evil. There is no “psychopath” gene and a “split personality” does not exist. Society creates the conditions for violence and abuse.
​
The "monster" narrative detaches the person away from "normal" society and distracts from the everyday issue of violence and abuse in our society. It's especially important in cases of sexual violence when labelling sex offenders as “monsters” as this denies and minimises how sexual violence is committed mostly by "normal" people who the victim knows. Most abuse and violence happens close to home. By labelling Jamie a monster, we miss the bigger picture and lose the chance to prevent this harm from happening again.

​Trauma

Adolescence isn’t a “whodunnit,” it’s a much-needed “why.” It helps us explore the multi-faceted reasons people cause harm and encourages discussion. People who cause harm have often experienced trauma, though not always in the big, obvious “capital T trauma” sense (e.g. sexual abuse, physical assault, neglect). Complex, relational trauma can be just as damaging, but harder to recognise as it can be more about subtle patterns in relationships. With Jamie this is shown in his complex relationship with his dad, emotional distance from his mum, and struggles with friendships. This could be a form of emotional neglect, growing up without a space to express emotions or seeing how to regulate them.

It’s important to say this isn’t about blaming his parents. They did what they thought was best, and like many of us, they were shaped by a culture built on patriarchal, heteronormative values and gender expectations. Without unpacking all that, even well-meaning parents can pass on harm without realising. In my work with perpetrators, it was about breaking these cycles and helping them challenge their behaviours and beliefs. When those cycles break, it creates ripple effects that can make positive change for their children, grandchildren, and beyond. Trauma and abuse are generational. If we really want to create change, we need to pay attention to the subtle narratives and societal undercurrents that feed into this harm.

​It’s not just about controlling what kids look at online, it’s about adults recognising how they uphold these harmful ideals, often without even knowing. It’s not just about learning what emoji codes mean (these likely differ in different online spaces and are always changing). It’s about standing against the rise of misogyny, and understanding trauma, modelling ways of being and communication, dismantling gender roles and more. The answer to such a nuanced problem is not simple, hence no answers are given in Adolescence, but at least it got us all talking.

Let’s keep this important conversation going – share your thoughts in the comments!

If you're interested in further reading about the manosphere, I recommend the book "Men who Hate Women" by Laura Bates.

If you’ve made it all the way to the end, thank you so much for reading! You might like to check out some of my other blogs on domestic abuse, or on eating disorders if you fancy something completely different.
​
You can also find out about my counselling service here.