A Letter to Will Leitch About His Article on Netflix's “Adolescence” Show
Mr. Leitch completely missed that the show is feminist-driven propaganda
Dear Mr. Leitch,
I respectfully ask that you take the time to read this letter about your recent article in The Washington Post, The best TV show I’ve seen in a decade.
As a brief introduction, I’ve been a lifelong reader of the Post who has long noticed the paper’s feminist bias, provable by its imbalanced coverage of domestic violence1 and made undeniable by its 2018 publication of the op-ed Why can't we hate men? Since then, I’ve been sending letters to Post columnists who have written articles that perpetuate this bias.
So, why am I writing to you?
Because you’ve completely missed that the show is anti-male propaganda masquerading as entertainment.
In fact, the show’s entire raison dêtre can be described by the definition of propaganda given in 1933 by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Germany Minister of Propaganda:
“The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.”2
If you think I’m exaggerating, please view the video The Anti-Male Propaganda in Netflix's Adolescence.
A summary of the video is also provided by a companion Substack post Netflix “Adolescence”: Entertainment or Propaganda? It is available only to paid subscribers, but is summarized below.
An Anti-Male Agenda: “The series constructs a narrative that pathologizes male identity and spaces dedicated to discussing men’s issues. By examining the show’s premise, its selective framing of male spaces, and its lack of real-world precedent, it becomes evident that Adolescence is, in fact, a piece of anti-male propaganda.”
A Contrived and Unfounded Premise: “The idea that a 13-year-old boy would be driven to commit murder purely due to exposure to the manosphere is highly dubious. While youth violence is a real concern, particularly in the UK, there is no known case of a teenage boy murdering a girl as a direct result of consuming manosphere content...”
Selective Framing: The Pathologization of Masculinity: “… the young male protagonist is depicted as impressionable, dangerous, and incapable of critical thinking. His journey into the manosphere is framed as a descent into darkness, ignoring the fact that many boys turn to these spaces in search of guidance, mentorship, and community. The show makes no effort to portray healthy male role models, positive masculine influences, or the legitimate grievances that lead young men to seek out these spaces.”
An Intentional Attack on the Manosphere: “It is no secret that mainstream media has increasingly portrayed male-focused online communities in a negative light, often lumping together self-improvement influencers with more extreme ideological figures. Adolescence follows this trend, offering no distinction between the various branches of the manosphere. The result is an intellectually dishonest smear campaign.”
A Broader Cultural Trend: Adolescence “ … is part of a wider cultural movement that seeks to demonize men’s spaces while ignoring or downplaying issues affecting men and boys. In recent years, mainstream media narratives have become increasingly focused on framing masculinity itself as a problem. Terms like "toxic masculinity" are frequently used to criticize traditional male behaviors, while issues such as male suicide rates, fatherlessness, and educational decline receive far less attention.”
Conclusion: “Netflix’s Adolescence is not just a cautionary tale about online radicalization—it is an ideological attack on masculinity and male-oriented spaces. By constructing a far-fetched premise, selectively framing male struggles, and failing to engage with the real issues affecting young men, the series functions as anti-male propaganda. Rather than fostering a nuanced discussion about the challenges boys face in modern society, Adolescence seeks to delegitimize male spaces and pathologize masculinity itself.”
Or you should read at least a few of the following online items that also challenge the close-minded, misandrist perspective of this show:
1. Netflix’s “Adolescence”, from The Illustrated Empathy Gap website3: documents how “…the public lapped up Adolescence and have fallen 100% for the propaganda.”
The post summarizes what British crime statistics show about the faux-realism of Adolescence:
About 8.7% of stabbing victims are female, about 13.1% of knife crime offenders are female. Like other forms of non-domestic violence, knife crime tends to be male-on-male.
Non-whites are about 5 times more likely to be knife crime offenders than whites (though whites account for most knife crimes due to weight of numbers). Non-whites are also more likely to be the victims of knife crime, by a similar factor.
Only about 4.5% of knife crime victims are under 16, so the story of “Adolescence” which associates this age range with the problem is misleading.
In short: white male adolescent offender and young white female victim is the least common combination in knife crime. The probability of the plot of Adolescence diminishes rapidly still further when the personal and familial characteristics of Jamie are taken into account.
2. An Honest Review of the Netflix Drama ‘Adolescence’ by a Qualified Teacher: examines how the show “falls short as a classroom tool, weaving in UK statistics on knife crime and social media to highlight its misrepresentation of these pressing issues”.
3. There's no tsunami of 'toxic' misogyny - esp. not from white boys: a Substack article that shows how “The hysteria surrounding Netflix's Adolescence is exactly that: hysteria”.
4. The delusion of the UK's cultural elites: describes the show as “regime propaganda” and reveals how the show ignores that usually both the victims and the perpetrators of murder are young, majority black and Asian men, and that crimes like these aren’t due to “the manosphere”, but to things like family breakdown, robberies, and gang fights.
5. In Every White Boy, a Potential Killer (Netflix’s Adolescence ramps up the anti-male propaganda) by anti-feminist Janice Fiamengo who summarizes the show as “… 13-year-old white boys are highly unlikely to kill their female classmates, particularly if, like Jamie, they are from normal homes with no history of violence or mental illness. The whole of the series is an ideologically-driven fantasy [emphasis added].
Mr. Leitch, that you would fail to see the underlying propagandistic purpose of Adolescence clearly shows that you and many of your associates at the Washington Post are mostly clueless about what feminism has become, about feminism’s dark side. If I may suggest, to learn more you might want to start by reading my letter to Christine Emba in response to her July 2023 “Men are lost” article.
My letter includes discussion of how feminism: is founded on lies, has become a hate movement, propagates “idiot hypocrisy” by telling obvious falsehoods, and briefly describes the damage caused by six decades of feminist lies and indoctrination.
Please do take the time to read my letter to Ms. Emba.
Sincerely,
Stephen Bond,
Publisher of "Letters to The Washington Post" Substack
My observation was confirmed by a February 2023 report by The Coalition to End Domestic Violence that described a 10-Year Suppression of the Truth on Domestic Violence by the Washington Post.
The Nazi Conscience, Claudia Koonz, 2004, p. 13
The website provides updated information to a book, The Empathy Gap: Male Disadvantages and the Mechanisms of Their Neglect, which a comprehensive analysis that proves how “…men and boys are extensively disadvantaged across many areas of life, including in education, healthcare, genital integrity, criminal justice, domestic abuse, working hours, taxation, pensions, paternity, homelessness, suicide, sexual offences [British spelling], and access to their own children after parental separation.”