The last piece I wrote for FE Week, about the extremely troubling rise in misogyny and the damaging insidiousness of the ‘manosphere,’ was written before the TV drama show Adolescence was released. I have been reflecting on the resounding and widespread visceral reaction to that programme.
As you all surely must know by now, (who can have missed it!) the programme involves a young teenage boy committing an act of terrible violence against an innocent girl, following his radicalisation into incel ideology via the internet; or rather, by those promoting misogyny, violence and hatred on the web.
The programme provoked such an extraordinary reaction it was even discussed in parliament, with PM Sir Keir Starmer suggesting every child attending school should watch the series. If it is Question Time, Prime Minister, I am interested to know exactly what you think that would achieve?
The assumption that every child would relate to, understand and interpret the messaging in that script is a bold one. The 13-year-old perpetrator had a loving family, albeit with a slightly emotionally stunted father who couldn’t express his feelings very well. A pretty stereotypical portrayal maybe?
Too many of our children and young people do not live in a loving, binary family setting, and concern about online behaviours is not on the radar of parental awareness.
Maybe, I would respectfully suggest, an alternative response would be to introduce serious restrictions on what is permissible and available on the net and actually protect our children before they become the manipulated fodder of those who are making fortunes out of creating such bleak and devastating misery.
As reported by The Guardian, over 850 men are arrested every month for child abuse offences online, including police, doctors and teachers. The ‘spiralling global crisis’ saw the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation remove over 300,000 web pages last year, each containing hundreds and thousands of illegal images. The explosion of free-to-view pornography is creating a short and rapid pathway to serious criminal offending.
The Online Safety Act does not go far enough
The Online Safety Act does not go far enough to protect children. It does not ban harmful pornography, choking, strangulation, images of sexual violence or nuanced content which promotes child abuse or incest at the behest of the algorithms which control content. We are moving at a glacial pace when lives are at stake. It is not good enough.
The National Crime Agency is collaborating in a joint taskforce with counter terrorism to tackle the increasing threat of young men and boys being radicalised by misogynistic online content to the point of seeking out vulnerable girls and young women with intent to cause them harm. Serious stuff.
Yet this misogyny is not classed as extremism. It might appear, to the naked eye, that we have the power and authority to control this situation. But we are choosing not to do so. One rational conclusion is that the online industry is worth billions; and there’s the rub. If we allowed this content to be put up then surely we can also take it down?
I am grateful that Adolescence initiated so much discussion and awareness. But it does beg the question; do we need to make a TV programme before such topics are taken seriously? Have we not been shouting for years now about the danger our children are in from the unpoliced internet?
Do we not already know that chat rooms are showing our kids how to kill themselves and hurt others? Do we not already know that sexual violence is becoming a dangerous ‘norm’ and that incel ideology is just one click away? And yet we are doing so little about it. And what we are doing has taken us years.
I understand how impossible it is to put the genie back in the bottle, but we can at least do our absolute best to put strict and rigid laws in place to protect our young people; including a total ban on certain content and legal definitions of misogyny and inceldom which are appropriate for the terror and harm they inflict.
It is our moral duty of care to do so, and do so quickly.
Your thoughts