"Adolescence": Misogyny as a Civilising System
In the series, the victim becomes a ‘headless statue,’ a character about whom nothing is known. The plot attempts to ‘explain’ why femicide occurs, yet it never addresses the problem at its root.
A Netflix series has sparked significant discussion on social media. Adolescence is based on two adolescent femicides and encapsulates the reality of adolescence, focusing on power structures and social subgroups within the school environment. Although fictional, it is inspired by real events and has quickly been recommended as a crucial tool for raising awareness about ‘incels,’ the ‘red pill,’ and the ‘manosphere.’
In the series, masculinity—or, more specifically, misogyny as a power system—is dissected through various dialectical resources that support the notion that addressing these issues could resolve the problem. This false sense of control, akin to the placebo effect, creates the illusion that combating individual manifestations of misogyny would resolve the underlying issue. The idea that, without ‘incels,’ the femicides that inspired the series would not have occurred is misleading. However, the most optimistic, albeit misguided, belief is that such events will not repeat. Like in a narcissistic narrative, we want to believe—not just ‘believe,’ but feel—that we are organising collective action ‘against evil,’ overlooking the fact that, in a promised future of happiness within an abusive structure, we are likely acting on a non-existent premise.
The term ‘incel’ functions as a euphemism for the male power structure, much like many other terms.
The victim becomes a ‘headless statue,’ a character about whom nothing is known. The plot seems to ‘explain’ why femicide happens, but it never addresses the problem at its root in its four episodes: misogyny as a ‘civilising’ system.
Misogyny—the hatred of women simply for being women—is the very structure upon which all other systems of male power are built. Habituation and gaslighting facilitate life within this system. Who could endure, day after day, with the boot of an oppressor on their neck? This is why nature is wise: we stop feeling it because the fundamental goal of life is survival.
How can we survive as women if we only exist within this system to witness our own deaths? The series illustrates that what is ‘civilised’ is to accept this ‘civilising’ misogyny and the role assigned to us: to be murdered by a ‘Jamie’ with a knife, to see a photo of our nakedness fall into the wrong hands, to reject a ‘Jamie’ and tacitly bear the blame for bullying through emoticons and encrypted messages understood only by those who use them. This phenomenon represents a form of reactive, indirect abuse, executed by a headless statue—without family, hobbies, friends, pets, or dreams. We would cease to be considered ‘civilised’ if we asked for something different from what the system offers. Accepting misogyny makes us ‘decent,’ rewards us, and grants us a certain relevance in the eyes of those who remain stunned, without a radical analysis that directly challenges the very structure that gives meaning to the lives we know, alongside the human pacts that, in order to exist, must also operate within the language of global misogyny.
A father who cries and clutches a pillow, showing repentance to the camera and the audience, but ignores and erases Jamie’s mother, is presented as a normalised and seemingly loving family dynamic. What is ‘civilised’ is for the mother to accept this misogyny—the role of the man who sets the pace and imposes family priorities based on his own needs. What is ‘civilised’ is agreeing with and accepting the normalisation of dehumanisation and submission to agents of power—that is, to men and their misogyny—so that the system continues to function. The system operates due to our position within it, because if we change places, the system collapses. So why do we recommend a series that continues to show us the place we must remain in for the system to keep functioning? Why do women continue to pay the price for even having the conversation about ‘incels’?