Men are Scum: critiquing the #MeToo movement

By Robert A. Vella

Before getting on to yet another controversial topic, I’d like to preface this post by stating that I marched in support of women’s rights during the late 1960s and early 1970s, advocated for the E.R.A. amendment, spoken out against male-perpetrated sexual crimes against women, and have consistently defended the ladies in my life from domestic and workplace abuse.  I am neither perfect nor an angel of virtue, but I try to do what is right;  and, I do believe reversing millenniums of gender mistreatment is the right thing to do.

That said, I do not believe the current state of the #MeToo movement furthers that aim.  What might have begun as a social media strategy to illuminate the very real problem of sexual abuse, has quickly become an opportunistic platform to vent rage and to exact retribution long after the fact.  And, the predictable backlash has already started (see:  Facebook bans women for posting ‘men are scum’ after harassment scandals).

Most everyone is familiar with the term misogyny which is defined as the “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.”  Far fewer people are familiar with the term which defines the hatred of men, misandry.  Particularly in today’s highly polarized American culture, gender and sexual stereotypes abound where evolving social liberalism frequently clashes with traditional mores, and where secularism is under constant siege from religious fanaticism.  In these us-versus-them dynamics, people can lose touch with their principles and stray into the dangerous waters of hostility.  Furthermore, political motives are always lurking to exploit contentious issues as observed recently by MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski (see also:  Why Democrats decided Franken had to go).

Combatants embroiled in the so-called Battle of the Sexes are not mentally disposed to intellectual understanding.  Grievances are countless, and emotionality is the order of the day.  However, objective awareness is key to more constructive resolutions and to more positive outcomes.  While the nature of male sexuality is openly discussed in public forums, the nature of female sexuality is still rather taboo.  If we remain averse to exploring all the reasons why so many women have such negative experiences with men, then the problem will only continue.

In a large number of mammalian species having intricate social organization (e.g. bison, lions, etc.), mating typically occurs between the general female population and a small exclusive group of males.  There are evolutionary benefits to this reproductive dynamic and that’s why it is so prevalent.  Although human societies are far more complex, this basic instinct remains inherent in our sexual relations.

From:  The Allure of Aggressive Men

It’s a question often asked when a man mistreats a woman: What does she see in him?

A study out of Germany sheds light on why aggressive males can be so appealing. It all begins with the vexing process of mating. According to Parental Investment Theory, reproduction is much more costly for females than it is for males. While women invest nine months in a pregnancy, a man’s initial contribution to parenthood boils down to just a few minutes. Thus, women need to be particularly selective when it comes to choosing a mate. Aside from a man’s resources, his genetic gifts are decisive in the selection process. After all, in our ancestors’ unpredictable environment, a hardy constitution went a long way in fulfilling evolution’s ultimate aims: survival and reproduction.

Research has established that, generally speaking, women must choose between between two types of men: dads and cads. On the one hand, dads are typically more commitment-oriented, warm, faithful, and reliable. Yet they are usually less handsome, charismatic, and dominant than his caddish counterparts. On the other hand, cads are sexier, with their narrow eyes and strong jaws — but they also tend to be flashy and exploitatative of others. Even worse, these masculine men often embody the Dark Triad, a personality constellation that encompasses Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. So, what in the world is appealing about these objectionable individuals? Quite simply, they possess high-quality genes that they will pass down to their future children. In turn, the thinking goes, women will maximize their reproductive success by choosing a macho man as a short-term mate for his genes, and a less masculine man with a warmer personality for a long-term, invested partner.

However, ovulation can make the choice between dads and cads particularly challenging. Research has revealed that during ovulation, women show a weakness for masculine men with high-quality genes. Studies consistently show that fertile women prefer men who display macho facial features and social dominance. In other words, they like bad boys. Building on these findings, Gilda Biebel of the University of Konstanz and her colleagues reasoned that evolution may have also favored men who went to war. Consequently, they wondered if aggression might also be a signal of genetic fitness.

Aggressive behavior comes in two forms. The first is “reactive–impulsive,” which are responses to external threats. The second is “appetitive-aggressive,” which is internally motivated. It is derived from the intrinsic pleasure that is associated with violence, hunting, and combat. In keeping with studies that have found women’s preferences for “bad boys” and socially dominant men for short-term mating, the investigators wondered if appetitive aggressiveness might also be an advertisement of good genes. They also speculated that women may be drawn to truculent men during ovulation, when the interest in short-term mating for good genes is at its peak.

In other words, women tend to gravitate towards the very type of man who is most likely to behave with sexual assertiveness, aggression, and self-indulgence, and who are derided as “scum.”  Such men also tend to be successful in life, occupying positions of institutional power which reinforce their brash and bold behavior.  Additionally, and conversely, the sexual frustration experienced by some men who are not perceived as “cads” or “dads” (i.e. the excluded outcast male) is known to be a contributing factor in violent crimes against women (see:  On Sex and Violence).

The men are scum meme is also terribly divisive besides being a poor generalization of half the world’s population.  It is also morally equivalent to racial, ethnic, and religious condemnations which portray blacks as “lazy,” Jews as “conniving,” and Muslims as “terrorists.”

What is badly needed, in my opinion, is proper and effective sex education for children.  When kids reach adolescence and puberty, they should possess a basic context for interpreting both the feelings they are experiencing and the behavior of others they interact with.  Simply communicating the obvious ramifications of sex (e.g. pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, etc.), although important, is not sufficient in my view.  Furthermore, children need another kind of education that they are mostly not getting these days – how to behave in civil society.  If we, as adults, allow our kids to act like animals, that’s exactly what they’ll grow up to be.

For a differing perspective on this issue by a respected and admired lady blogger, see:  Men and Women and Sex.  The comment section contains some excellent discussion.