Introduction
Four minutes into Netflix’s Adolescence, armed police smash through the door of a working-class home in Northern England, weapons drawn, shouting for a family to get on the ground. They’re looking for 13-year-old Jamie Miller, who they find in his bedroom, small and terrified, clutching a stuffed bear. Within moments, he’s in handcuffs, his parents screaming that there’s been a mistake, that their boy couldn’t have done anything wrong. But there’s been no mistake. Security footage shows Jamie stabbing his classmate Katie Leonard four times, killing her outside their school. The murder weapon is still missing. The question isn’t whether Jamie did it. The question is why.
Over four episodes, each filmed in a single continuous shot that traps viewers inside the nightmare alongside the Miller family, Adolescence attempts to answer that question. What emerges is not a simple story of a troubled child from a broken home, but something far more unsettling: a portrait of an ordinary boy from a loving family whose identity was quietly shaped by online status economies and misogynistic scripts until violence began to feel like the only form of control available to him.
Adolescence turns a murder investigation into an autopsy of modern boyhood, showing how online status economies and misogynistic scripts can shape identity until violence starts to feel like a form of control. The series reveals that Jamie wasn’t born a murderer. He was conditioned into one through exposure to “manosphere” ideology that taught him women were obstacles to overcome, that rejection was a form of oppression, and that violence could restore the control he’d been promised as his birthright. The tragedy is that Jamie’s radicalization didn’t require extraordinary circumstances or obvious warning signs. It required only a smartphone, isolation in his bedroom, and a social environment that had already primed him to feel inadequate as a boy.
This essay explores how Adolescence dramatizes the psychological mechanisms through which online misogyny colonizes adolescent male identity, how status anxiety in boys creates vulnerability to extremist narratives, and how violence becomes reframed as control when powerlessness feels unbearable. Drawing on research about online radicalization, adolescent development, masculine identity formation, and the relationship between perceived injustice and aggression, the essay argues that Jamie’s story represents not an aberration but a predictable outcome of systems that teach boys to equate masculinity with dominance and to interpret any threat to that dominance as justification for violence.
The Manosphere as Identity Infrastructure for Vulnerable Boys
To understand what happened to Jamie Miller, we must first understand the digital ecosystem that shaped him. Jamie spent hours alone in his bedroom, door closed, light on until the early morning, immersed in what researchers term the “manosphere”: an interconnected network of websites, forums, and social media communities that promote rigid masculinity, misogyny, and opposition to feminism (Ging, 2019). The manosphere isn’t a single ideology but an ecosystem of overlapping communities including men’s rights activists, pickup artists, and incels (involuntary celibates) who share core beliefs about gender, power, and male victimhood.
The show reveals Jamie’s exposure to this world through investigators’ analysis of his social media. He’s absorbed terminology and concepts: the “red pill” (awakening to supposed truths about female nature), the “80/20 rule” (the belief that 80% of women pursue only 20% of men), the hierarchy of “alphas” and “betas,” the mockery of “simps” who show kindness to women. These aren’t just words. They’re a comprehensive framework for understanding the world, a lens through which every interaction becomes evidence of a rigged system where Jamie has been assigned to lose.
Psychological research on online radicalization demonstrates that extremist communities don’t typically recruit through explicit ideology. They recruit through offering belonging, explanation, and validation to people experiencing distress or isolation (Kruglanski et al., 2014). For adolescent boys struggling with social status, physical development, academic pressure, or romantic rejection, the manosphere provides a seductive narrative: your struggles aren’t your fault, the system is rigged against men, women are simultaneously inferior and unfairly powerful, and other men understand what you’re going through.
Jamie fits the vulnerability profile perfectly. He’s not athletic, which creates shame for both him and his father Eddie, who admits feeling embarrassed watching Jamie struggle at football. He’s quiet, spends most time alone in his room, lacks close friendships, and has never had romantic success. In episode three, when the psychologist Bryonie asks if he thinks women find him attractive, Jamie answers flatly: “Of course not.” This self-perception, rooted in appearance anxiety and social comparison, creates psychological susceptibility to messages that his unattractiveness isn’t personal failing but systemic injustice.
Research on adolescent development illuminates why boys Jamie’s age are particularly vulnerable to these narratives. Early adolescence (ages 11-14) involves intense identity formation, heightened sensitivity to peer evaluation, and desperate need for belonging (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Boys at this developmental stage are acutely aware of masculine hierarchies and where they fall within them. They’re also developing abstract reasoning that allows them to understand systemic explanations for personal experiences. The manosphere exploits both: it validates boys’ felt experiences of inadequacy while providing a system-level narrative that locates blame externally.
The terminology itself serves important psychological functions. Calling someone a “beta” or “incel” transforms individual rejection into identity category. Once labeled (or self-labeled) as occupying a subordinate masculine position, boys begin interpreting all experiences through that framework. Katie’s rejection of Jamie isn’t just one girl’s preference. It’s confirmation of his categorical inadequacy, evidence that he’s been sorted into the undesirable group the manosphere claims exists. This cognitive pattern mirrors what psychologists call a “fixed mindset” about identity: the belief that fundamental qualities are unchangeable (Dweck, 2006). If you’re an incel, you’ll always be an incel. The category is destiny.
Critically, the manosphere doesn’t just describe this hierarchy. It valorizes certain responses to it. “Taking the red pill” means accepting harsh truths about female nature and male victimhood. “Going your own way” means rejecting women entirely. And in its darkest corners, the manosphere celebrates men who enacted violence against women who rejected them, particularly Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in 2014 and whose manifesto has become foundational text in incel communities. These narratives don’t explicitly command violence, but they create a framework where violence can be understood as justified response to perceived injustice, as taking back control from a system designed to deny it.
Status Economies and the Gamification of Adolescent Masculinity
Jamie’s vulnerability to manosphere ideology didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It developed within a broader social environment that had already trained him to understand masculinity as competitive achievement within rigid status hierarchies. The show reveals this through his school environment, where social positioning is constantly negotiated, displayed, and weaponized through both in-person interaction and digital platforms.
When Detective Inspector Bascombe investigates Jamie’s school, his own son Adam (a student there) helps decode the social dynamics. Adam explains how students use emoji codes on Instagram to signal alliances and hierarchies. A dynamite emoji means “red pill,” calling someone out as having awakened to manosphere ideology. When Katie posted that emoji on Jamie’s Instagram, she wasn’t just teasing him. She was publicly labeling him as an incel, marking him as occupying the lowest masculine status: the boy who will never be sexually successful, who other boys should distance themselves from to avoid contamination.
This public shaming through digital platforms reflects how contemporary adolescence operates within what sociologist Sherry Turkle describes as “always-on” visibility and evaluation (Turkle, 2011). Previous generations experienced bullying primarily in physical spaces with temporal and spatial boundaries. Contemporary adolescents face evaluation that’s constant, quantified, and permanently archived. A mocking comment doesn’t disappear when school ends. It remains visible, accumulating reactions, potentially spreading to wider audiences, creating a permanent record of humiliation.
Research on status and aggression in adolescents demonstrates that perceived threats to social standing trigger defensive and sometimes violent responses, particularly in boys who feel they have limited alternative routes to status (Faris & Felmlee, 2014). For Jamie, Katie’s public mockery represented a devastating status blow. She didn’t just reject him privately. She broadcast his inadequacy to their peer network, marking him as sexually undesirable in ways that could affect how others perceived and treated him going forward.
The gendered dimensions of this status threat are crucial. Masculine status, particularly in adolescence, is heavily tied to perceived sexual success and romantic competence (Pascoe, 2007). Boys police each other’s masculinity through accusations of being gay, weak, or unsuccessfully heterosexual. Jamie’s identity as a boy who “will never be attractive to women” isn’t just personal disappointment. It’s a form of masculine failure that threatens his standing among male peers and his sense of himself as adequately male.
The manosphere exploits exactly this anxiety by reframing it as collective experience rather than individual inadequacy. The communities don’t tell Jamie he’s uniquely undesirable. They tell him he’s part of a large group of men disadvantaged by systemic forces (female hypergamy, evolutionary psychology, feminist social engineering). This transformation from personal failure to group membership serves protective psychological functions. Social identity theory demonstrates that belonging to groups, even stigmatized ones, provides cognitive structure and emotional support (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Jamie may be an “incel,” but he’s not alone in that category, and the communities promise that the category itself represents truth about the world rather than inadequacy within him.
This is where status economies intersect dangerously with extremist narratives. The manosphere doesn’t just validate boys’ felt inadequacy. It promises them a form of status within its own alternative hierarchy. Boys who “take the red pill” are praised for seeing truth others deny. Those who reject “simping” and treating women with basic respect are celebrated as strong and independent. The ideology creates an inverted status system where traditional markers of masculine success (romantic relationships, respect for women, emotional intelligence) become signs of weakness, while adoption of misogynistic beliefs becomes evidence of strength and awakening.
For Jamie, who lacked status in conventional hierarchies (athletics, academics, popularity, romantic success), the manosphere offered an alternative framework where his very failures could be reinterpreted as virtues. He wasn’t unsuccessful with women because of personal inadequacy. He was unsuccessful because women are hypergamous and shallow, and recognizing this truth made him more enlightened than boys who continued “simping.” The status he couldn’t achieve through traditional routes became available through ideological commitment to a worldview that explained and justified his position.
Perceived Powerlessness and the Logic of Violent Control
The most psychologically devastating aspect of Jamie’s radicalization is how it transformed his perception of violence from unthinkable act to rational response. When he confronted Katie with a knife in his pocket and she rejected his invitation to the fair, he didn’t stab her in uncontrollable rage. He made a calculated decision that killing her represented a form of control he could exert when all other forms had been denied him.
In episode three, Jamie explains his reasoning to psychologist Bryonie in a scene that’s both chilling and illuminating. He describes receiving a topless photo of Katie on Snapchat (likely shared without her consent by other boys). He interpreted this as evidence she might be “weak” because other students were calling her a “slag.” He asked her out specifically because he thought her vulnerability might make her more likely to accept someone like him. When she rejected him anyway and then mocked him online, he experienced this as a particular betrayal: even a girl he’d identified as weak and desperate wouldn’t choose him.
This narrative reveals the cognitive framework manosphere ideology provides for interpreting rejection as injustice. Jamie didn’t just feel sad about Katie’s rejection. He felt entitled to her acceptance based on his assessment of her status. When she violated what he’d constructed as the proper hierarchy (where “weak” girls accept attention from any boy), her rejection became something more than personal preference. It became evidence of the very female nature the manosphere had warned him about: that women are cruel, that they enjoy exercising power over men, that they deserve punishment for these transgressions.
Psychological research on aggression demonstrates that perceived injustice is one of the most powerful triggers for violent response (Berkowitz, 1993). When people believe they’ve been treated unfairly, particularly in ways that threaten their fundamental worth or status, they experience moral outrage that can justify retaliation. The manosphere’s genius is in providing comprehensive narratives that frame male sexual and romantic struggles as profound injustices perpetrated by women collectively, rather than as unfortunate but morally neutral outcomes of individual preference and attraction.
The concept of “aggrieved entitlement” illuminates Jamie’s psychology. Sociologist Michael Kimmel uses this term to describe men who believe they’ve been denied privileges they deserved, leading to resentment and sometimes violence (Kimmel, 2013). Jamie felt entitled to female romantic attention not because he’d achieved anything particular but because manosphere ideology had taught him that male desire creates female obligation, that his attraction to Katie should matter more than her lack of attraction to him, that her refusal represented theft of something rightfully his.
This sense of entitled grievance transformed violence from crime into restoration. In Jamie’s framework, Katie had wronged him through rejection and public humiliation. The manosphere taught him that such wrongs demanded response, that allowing women to disrespect men without consequence perpetuated the gynocentric system that oppresses males. By stabbing Katie, Jamie wasn’t committing random murder. In his understanding, he was asserting control, demonstrating that he wouldn’t accept powerlessness, enacting the kind of “retribution” that Elliot Rodger and other incel killers before him had modeled.
The show doesn’t glorify this reasoning, but it takes it seriously as a psychological reality. Jamie genuinely believes his actions were, if not justified, at least comprehensible within the framework he’d absorbed. When he finally admits to Bryonie that he feels women aren’t attracted to him, when he parrots manosphere talking points about the 80/20 rule and female nature, he’s not being deliberately manipulative. He’s revealing a worldview that’s become foundational to how he understands himself, relationships, and power.
This is perhaps the show’s most disturbing insight: that ordinary boys in ordinary circumstances can be conditioned to view violence against women as logical response to perceived powerlessness. Jamie didn’t require severe abuse or psychopathy. He required only exposure to ideologies that validated his insecurities, framed them as systemic oppression, identified women as responsible, and provided historical examples of men who responded with violence. The progression from isolated insecure boy to radicalized killer wasn’t inevitable, but it was frighteningly predictable given the influences shaping him.
The Failure of Protective Systems: Family, School, and Society
Adolescence refuses to locate blame solely in Jamie or the manosphere. Instead, it conducts what co-creator Stephen Graham calls an examination of how all protective systems failed simultaneously: family, school, and broader society. The show’s final episode focuses on Jamie’s father Eddie, whose 50th birthday becomes a meditation on parental failure and masculine inability to communicate emotional complexity.
Eddie is not a bad father by conventional metrics. He loves Jamie, provides for his family, maintains a stable home. But the show reveals patterns of emotional repression and limited masculine modeling that created vulnerability in his son. Eddie admits he felt embarrassed watching Jamie struggle at sports, a shame he communicated nonverbally even if he never spoke it directly. He demonstrates angry outbursts that mirror Jamie’s explosive rage in episode three. He cannot tell his wife he’s struggling or his son that he loves him, communicating through silence and avoidance rather than vulnerability and connection.
Research on father-son relationships and masculine socialization demonstrates that boys learn how to be men primarily through observing male models, particularly fathers (Pleck, 2010). What they observe isn’t just explicit instruction but emotional patterns, communication styles, and responses to stress and failure. Eddie models a masculinity characterized by emotional restraint, shame about inadequacy, and difficulty expressing tenderness. Jamie absorbs these patterns, learning that men don’t talk about feelings, that masculine inadequacy is shameful rather than addressable, that anger is more acceptable than vulnerability.
This modeling created conditions where Jamie was unlikely to seek help from his father about social struggles, romantic rejection, or online influences. The manosphere became a substitute father, offering the masculine guidance and validation his actual father couldn’t provide. But where Eddie’s emotionally limited but fundamentally decent masculinity might have oriented Jamie toward responsibility and care, the manosphere offered a masculinity rooted in grievance, entitlement, and domination.
The school system also failed protective functions. Teachers were aware Jamie was isolated, struggling socially, spending excessive time alone. But they lacked frameworks for understanding online radicalization and didn’t recognize warning signs until after violence occurred. The show reveals that many students knew about manosphere terminology, that “incel” and “red pill” were common insults, that misogynistic attitudes were pervasive enough to constitute a recognizable subculture. Yet no intervention occurred because adults literally didn’t speak the same language as the students they were supposed to protect.
This generational disconnect reflects broader social failure to adapt protective systems to digital realities. The manosphere operates in spaces parents and educators often cannot access or understand. It uses coded language that seems innocuous to outsiders but carries specific ideological meaning within communities. It normalizes extremism gradually, moving boys from relatively mainstream content (fitness advice, dating tips) toward increasingly misogynistic material through algorithmic recommendation and community progression. By the time external signs become visible, internal radicalization may already be profound.
The show’s most damning critique is reserved for broader society. Co-creator Jack Thorne emphasizes that the series doesn’t offer solutions because the problem is systemic, requiring collective rather than individual responses. Jamie’s radicalization occurred because multiple systems created vulnerability simultaneously: economic precarity creating parental absence and stress, educational systems failing to adapt to digital realities, social media platforms profiting from engagement regardless of content toxicity, and cultural narratives about masculinity that continue emphasizing dominance and control rather than emotional intelligence and respect.
This systemic analysis resists the common response to such tragedies: identifying individual pathology or parental failure as singular cause. Jamie’s mother Manda says desperately in the final episode, “We made him,” accepting responsibility for her son’s actions. But the show suggests a more complex truth: they didn’t make him alone. Digital platforms made him. Peer cultures made him. Broader masculine scripts made him. Economic systems that left his parents working constantly and unable to supervise closely made him. The manosphere made him. And the collective failure to recognize and intervene in his radicalization made him.
The Cost of Silence: What Boys Don’t Say and Adults Don’t Ask
Perhaps the most haunting aspect of Adolescence is what remains unspoken throughout. Jamie doesn’t tell his parents about his struggles. Katie doesn’t report the harassment she experienced. Eddie doesn’t express his fears about his son. Teachers don’t ask direct questions about students’ online lives. The entire tragedy unfolds in silence, in the gaps between what people know and what they’re willing or able to articulate.
Psychological research on adolescent help-seeking demonstrates that boys, particularly, are reluctant to disclose emotional struggles or request support (Gulliver et al., 2010). This reluctance stems from multiple sources: masculine norms that equate help-seeking with weakness, fear of judgment or punishment, lack of trust in adults’ ability to understand, and absence of language for describing internal experiences. For Jamie, admitting he felt undesirable, that he was spending hours consuming misogynistic content, that he felt entitled to Katie’s romantic attention would have required vulnerability that masculine socialization had trained him to suppress.
The show illustrates this through Jamie’s interactions with psychologist Bryonie. For most of their session, he’s defensive, dismissive, performing the detached toughness he’s learned signals masculine strength. Only when she pushes persistently does his facade crack, revealing the ideology and pain beneath. But in normal life, without criminal investigation creating forced disclosure, these conversations never happen. Boys suffer in silence, parents remain unaware, and radicalization progresses invisibly until it manifests in crisis.
This silence is gendered and systematic. Research demonstrates that parents have different conversations with sons versus daughters about relationships, emotion, and risk (Chaplin et al., 2005). They talk more with daughters about feelings, relationships, and social dynamics. With sons, they emphasize achievement, independence, and emotional control. This differential socialization means boys often lack both vocabulary for discussing emotional complexity and parental modeling that such discussions are appropriate or valuable.
Eddie embodies this pattern. He cannot tell Jamie he loves him even in crisis. He cannot discuss his own struggles with his wife Manda. He exists in emotional isolation that he then reproduces in his son. The show suggests this intergenerational transmission of masculine emotional constriction as contributing factor to Jamie’s vulnerability. If he’d felt able to discuss his social struggles, his shame about his body and romantic prospects, his confusion about masculinity and sexuality, perhaps intervention could have occurred before ideology calcified into violence.
The school environment reinforces this silence through cultures that punish vulnerability. Students mock each other for emotional expression, for not conforming to masculine or feminine ideals, for revealing insecurity or need. The constant evaluation and status competition make authentic disclosure risky. Jamie couldn’t admit to peers that he felt undesirable without confirming their assessments and lowering his status further. The only “safe” space for these admissions became online communities that validated his grievances and radicalized his responses.
Conclusion: When Violence Becomes Control in the Absence of Other Power
Adolescence ends without resolution or redemption. Jamie pleads guilty to murder. His family is left devastated, facing community hostility and permanent loss. Katie is dead. No explanation makes the tragedy comprehensible or bearable. The show refuses the consolation of simple answers or the suggestion that individual resilience or parental vigilance could have prevented what occurred.
Instead, it leaves viewers with an uncomfortable recognition: that Jamie Miller is not an aberration but a warning. He represents what can happen when boys are taught that masculinity means dominance and control, when they’re given digital access to communities that transform insecurity into grievance and grievance into justified violence, when protective systems fail to recognize radicalization occurring in bedroom spaces parents cannot access, when silence about emotional struggle becomes normalized as masculine strength.
The autopsy Adolescence performs on modern boyhood reveals multiple causes of death: structural, cultural, familial, individual. Online status economies that quantify and broadcast social hierarchies, making adolescent cruelty more visible and permanent. Misogynistic scripts that teach boys women are simultaneously inferior and unfairly powerful, that rejection is injustice, that violence can restore control. Family patterns that model emotional repression rather than vulnerability. School systems unprepared for digital radicalization. Broader cultural failures to update masculine ideals or create protective interventions adequate to contemporary risks.
Jamie’s violence wasn’t random outburst or inexplicable evil. It was the logical endpoint of processes that shaped his identity, his understanding of gender and power, his interpretation of rejection as injustice, and his belief that violence represented restoration of control when all other forms had been denied him. The manosphere didn’t create his insecurities or his struggles. It provided a framework that transformed them from personal challenges into systemic oppression, identified women as responsible, and modeled violence as comprehensible response.
Eleanor Roosevelt’s assertion that “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” assumes individuals control their self-perceptions and can resist external messages. But Adolescence demonstrates how boys like Jamie are systematically conditioned to feel inferior through masculine status hierarchies, how online communities exploit that manufactured inadequacy to radicalize them toward misogyny and violence, and how by the time anyone recognizes what’s happening, identity has already been colonized by ideology that makes violence feel not just justified but necessary.
The show’s refusal to offer solutions is itself instructive. There is no individual fix for systemic problems, no parenting technique that can overcome platform algorithms designed to maximize engagement through outrage, no school policy that can substitute for broader cultural transformation around masculinity and power. What Adolescence offers instead is recognition: that we are producing boys like Jamie through the systems we’ve constructed, that violence is becoming a form of control for adolescents who feel powerless in every other domain, and that until we fundamentally reimagine how boys are taught to understand masculinity, relationships, and power, more Jamies and more Katies are inevitable outcomes rather than preventable tragedies.
The series ends with the Miller family destroyed, their ordinary life revealed as having contained unrecognized dangers that erupted into irreversible harm. Every parent watching recognizes the possibility that their own child’s bedroom contains similar risks, that the hours spent online might be shaping identities in ways they cannot access or address. This recognition is terrifying precisely because it’s accurate. The manosphere is real, its reach is vast, and its victims include both the boys it radicalizes and the women they harm.
If there is any hope in Adolescence, it lies in its refusal to look away from what we’ve created, in its insistence that we see clearly how ordinary circumstances can produce extraordinary violence when masculinity is taught as control and when boys learn that violence is the only power available to the powerless. The first step toward prevention is recognition. The autopsy reveals cause of death. What we do with that knowledge, whether we allow it to transform how we raise boys and structure their worlds, remains to be seen. But ignoring it, pretending Jamie is aberration rather than warning, ensures the tragedy will repeat until we finally accept that the problem isn’t individual pathology but collective failure to protect boys from ideologies that turn them into killers and girls into their inevitable victims.
Reference
References
- Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Chaplin, T. M., Cole, P. M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2005). Parental socialization of emotion expression: Gender differences and relations to child adjustment. Emotion, 5(1), 80-88.
- Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
- Faris, R., & Felmlee, D. (2014). Casualties of social combat: School networks of peer victimization and their consequences. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 228-257.
- Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculinities of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22(4), 638-657.
- Graham, S., & Thorne, J. (Writers), & Barantini, P. (Director). (2025). Adolescence [Television series]. Netflix.
- Gulliver, A., Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2010). Perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health help-seeking in young people: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 10(113), 1-9.
- Kimmel, M. (2013). Angry white men: American masculinity at the end of an era. New York: Nation Books.
- Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., Bélanger, J. J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna, R. (2014). The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest impacts violent extremism. Advances in Political Psychology, 35(1), 69-93.
- Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Pleck, J. H. (2010). Paternal involvement: Revised conceptualization and theoretical linkages with child outcomes. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 58-93). Hoboken: Wiley.
- Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83-110.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
- Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.