The Netflix adolescence miniseries, several weeks after its release, continues to make people discuss. There are those who consider it a masterpiece, those who found it boring and who, like me, consider it a good product and nothing more. Regardless of personal opinion, it is undeniable that his impact in the public debate was disruptive, so much so that he even attracts the attention of the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, who proposed to use it in schools as an educational tool. “I think young people should see her,” he said.

The “already seen” with thirteen

But using an entertainment product for educational purposes always involves risks. Feeling the words of Starmer, I in fact had a strong déjà vu: do you remember thirteen? Another Netflix series that, in 2017, caused a sensation to the point that petitions left to project it in schools, with the idea that would have sensitized young people on bullying and suicide. Yet, within a few years, vision has been prohibited from minors, since several studies have highlighted a correlation between the series and an increased suicidal risk among teenagers. In other words, instead of helping young people, its use as an educational tool could have amplified discomfort and suffering. Who assures us that the same does not happen with teenagence?

The critical issues of adolescence

The series has several critical issues. One of the most obvious is the representation of the Incel phenomenon (involuntary celibates): men who, unable to unlock themselves on a psychosexual level, live in frustration and often pour their anger on women, accusing them of unjust selection criteria. Some incels even come to declare themselves openly misogynies or supporters of the patriarchate. Not only that: Teenascence also refers to the so -called Redpill, the extremist ideology to which many Incel adhere to justify their condition, attributing it to external and immutable factors, such as aesthetics and genetics. I have been dealing with this phenomenon for years, trying to dismantle the most dangerous principles and encouraging those suffering from involuntary celibacy to ask for psychological help, instead of taking refuge in the manosphere (the set of forums, chats and groups populated mainly by men and often hostile to women). But are we sure that introducing the theme of the Incel and Redpill among the youngest, without an adequate psychosocial framework, is truly educational?

The series is designed for an adult audience

It could have the opposite effect: instead of discouraging certain ideologies, it could end up feeding them, attracting new followers without facing the deep causes of psychosexual discomfort. Teenagence treats the phenomenon in a superficial, almost didactic way, without providing tools to understand it thoroughly. The point is that this series, despite the title, is not designed for teenagers, but for an adult audience. Its goal is to warn parents on toxic educational models (including Andrew Tate, guru of the machismo, explicitly cited) that their children can meet online. The message is clear: in the post-digital post-revolution world, the parental model has lost power in the face of the multitude of discoative models circulating on the net. Even a child can radicalize without anyone noticing. Ultimately, Teenascence is a good series, but it will not be the solution to counter gender violence and its ideological buildings. If you decide to show it to a minor public, perhaps in schools, the presence of an expert psychologist would be essential, in particular on the Dynamics of Redpill. Only in this way could other young people be preventing that they end up irreparably attracted and missed by this world.