France to use UK drama Adolescence to teach teenagers about toxic masculinity
France has followed the UK and the Netherlands in allowing the Netflix drama Adolescence to be used in secondary schools as part of efforts to teach teenagers about toxic masculinity and online harms.
The French education ministry will offer schools five classes based on excerpts from the critically acclaimed mini-series, which has provoked a global debate about the impact on young boys of misogynistic content online and on social media.
The producer of the series – the second most-watched English-language series ever on Netflix, with more than 140m views as of 1 June – had granted the government the rights for educational use, the education minister, Élisabeth Borne, said.
Borne told LCI television the excerpts were 'very representative of the violence that can exist among young people' and would be shown to pupils aged about 14 and older, accompanied by specially developed teaching materials.
It was aimed at raising awareness of the problem of 'overexposure to screens and the trivialisation of violence on social networks', as well as the spread of so-called masculinist ideology advocating violence against women, Borne said.
Adolescence, which launched on 13 March, tells the story of a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a female classmate after being radicalised by toxic online material such as that posted by the self-styled misogynist influencer Andrew Tate.
Netflix made it available to UK secondary schools in April, to accompany teaching resources from a relationships charity, in what Keir Starmer, the prime minister, called 'an important initiative'.
The Dutch-speaking province of Flanders in northern Belgium has also begun using Adolescence in secondary schools. 'The series shows how digital influences and loneliness can lead some young people astray when they lack sufficient support,' the Flemish minister for media, Cieltje Van Achter, told the regional parliament.
'It also highlights how adults and teachers are increasingly losing touch with the world of young people. It is important that we support both teachers and young people so that these topics can be discussed.'
In the Netherlands, the series is being used in secondary schools after a proposal from the GreenLeft-Labour MP Barbara Kathmann, with materials om social media influencers and peer pressure developed in conjunction with Netflix by a media studies institute.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
Kathmann said: 'By showing the series in classes, we can create a safe setting in which to discuss it and the issues it raises, so making teenagers more resilient and preventing them from being sucked into the 'manospere' and its pernicious consequences.'
Eppo van Nispen tot Sevenaer, the director of the media studies institute Beeld en Geluid (Image and Sound), said Adolescence was 'the perfect vehicle' to engage young people about 'a world that is completely separate from that of teachers and parents'.
Jack Thorne, the series' co-writer, said after its launch it had been made 'to provoke a conversation', adding: 'We wanted to pose the question: how do we help stop this growing crisis. So to have the opportunity to take it into schools is beyond our expectations.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
23 minutes ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: ‘The numbers don't add up' in Rachel Reeves' spending review
Mr Lyons wasn't convinced by the numbers, ' Early in her speech the Chancellor said, is the plan credible, and the answer unfortunately is, no.' 'T he starting position is debt is very high, and I think we're in the early stages of Britain going into a debt crisis. If you're looking for good news, it might be that we're not the only country facing this problem; but today the Chancellor gave a speech that I think lacked a lot of the detail.' Allison is not convinced by the claims the economy is stabilising, ' We know it is not true, and we are already starting to see the impact on employment and on businesses. We know payrolls have fallen, that employment's fallen by over 250,000 since Rachel Reeves' budget. This is not an economy where you should be taking the gambles that she's taking. Where is the growth going to come from?'
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reeves urged to rule out pensions tax raid amid mounting concern over how she will pay for her lavish spending
Rachel Reeves was last night urged to rule out a tax raid on pensions. The Chancellor is expected to launch a round of tax rises in a Budget this autumn to help fill a black hole in finances as she pours money into the public sector. That would follow a £40billion tax hike in the last Budget in October. 'More tax increases are inevitable, not just in the autumn but for years to come,' said Robert Colvile, director of the Centre for Policy Studies. It is feared this could involve a raid on retirement pots, including cutting the tax-free lump sum or reliefs on the contributions of higher earners. Savers can withdraw up to 25 per cent of their pots tax-free at 55 – up to a maximum of £268,275. Pensions grab: The Chancellor is widely expected to launch a fresh round of tax rises in a Budget this autumn as she pours money into the public sector Workers also can save up to £60,000 a year tax-free, equating to relief of 20 per cent for basic-rate taxpayers and 40 per cent or 45 per cent for those in the higher and additional income tax brackets. And experts warned of reductions in the annual allowance or the return of the lifetime allowance while salary sacrifice could also be abolished. Rumours of an attack on the lump sum proved particularly damaging ahead of Labour's Budget last autumn as savers withdrew cash from their pension pots. Investment firm AJ Bell is now calling on the Chancellor to rule out any raid on retirement savings by bringing in a pensions tax lock to provide certainty. 'This was the Chancellor's last foray into the limelight before the Budget and attention will now turn to what tax rises might be in the post,' said Laith Khalaf, head of investment analysis at AJ Bell. 'Amid growing fiscal pressure, there's a real risk that pensions tax reform speculation, especially around tax-free cash and tax relief, will return to the headlines. 'Rather than let uncertainty rattle savers, the Chancellor should introduce a pensions tax lock, ruling out changes to tax-free cash or pension tax relief for the rest of this Parliament. 'A commitment would offer investors the confidence to plan for the long term and give momentum to the retail investing revolution Rachel Reeves wants.' Tomm Adams, a partner at Blick Rothenberg, said: 'Reeves has been suspiciously quiet on the pensions front. But with an expensive funding plan, I'm not alone in asking: 'Where's the money coming from?' 'Basic arithmetic suggests that autumn tax rises look inevitable. Unfortunately, pensions tax relief is the perfect target.'
