Men’s Rights activists — or a good portion of them, anyway — seem to suffer from what we might call “Male Responsibility Bypass Syndrome.” Whatever terrible things a man (or a group of men) has been shown to have done, MRAs have a remarkable ability to find a woman to blame for it.
Nowhere is this clearer than when it comes to excusing violence. If a man is violent, MRAs tend to argue, it’s because he was provoked by a woman unaware that “equal rights mean equal lefts.” Or it’s the fault of his mother for not raising him right. Or the fault of his female ancestors for “choosing” violent men to “mate” with.
And if a stepfather abuses a child, it’s the fault of the mother for inviting him into the home. Take this generously upvoted comment from DavidByron2 in the Men’s Rights subreddit, who attempts to give a “scientific” — that is, an Evo Psych — excuse for the abuse:
In a later comment, Byron explains that he wasn’t really “blaming” the “females” in question, just saying that “the female is causal. She/it makes the decision to get a new mate or not.”
Oh, yeah, that’s much better.
But it’s that last bit, borrowed from Evo Psych, that’s even more remarkable, based as it is on the notion that male violence isn’t really violence if someone somewhere has come up with a genetic explanation for it.
Really? Animals need to survive in order to propagate their genes and “maximize genetic transfer to the next generation,” and they need to eat to survive. But I’m pretty sure that if I went to the middle-eastern restaurant on the corner, punched a customer in the head, and ran off with their Lamb Kabob entrée the cops wouldn’t be very sympathetic to my evolutionary argument. Biology doesn’t excuse bad behavior.
In the part of Byron’s comment I left out of the screencap, he links to summaries of the research of evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, who’ve written a good deal about what’s come to be called the “Cinderella effect,” that is, the fact that child abuse seems to be many times more prevalent in homes with stepparents than in those without.
While empirically this is true — though often overstated, and more complicated than “evil stepfather” theories would have it, given that studies often include other men, including uncles and grandfathers, in the same category as stepfathers — we still don’t actually know why this is. Are human males really just wired like male lions, who kill cubs fathered by other lions when they link up with new mates? Or is it that, say, men inclined to abuse children target vulnerable single mothers in order to get access to their kids?
Or could it be that child abuse and neglect — which takes many different forms, from emotional abuse to sexual abuse to physical violence — is a complicated and messy subject that can’t be reduced to a single explanation?
I’m guessing the latter, but leave it to the MRAs to jump on an explanation that gives them an excuse to absolve men of responsibility for their actions BECAUSE GENES.
h/t to LieBaron on Reddit.
@tedthefed
I don’t have any studies on hand, but I have read and heard about studies on genetic differences between races, particularly focusing on IQ. The Bell Curve is a notable example. To this day people still argue about whether racial differences in IQ result from racist institutionalizes bias or biological variance among races.
@Ally S
I just did a quick search on Google Scholar looking for those keywords, and you’re right: There aren’t many, but with IQ and intelligence, there ARE articles still talking about race-based, biological differences. It is really striking that it exists at all in studying intelligence, but it really doesn’t seem to exist in something like emotion regulation, which is just another kind of mental ability. It’s all culture, there.
Ew, also, they’re all kind of coy about group-based, biological differences in IQ having anything to do with RACE. That is, when they’re not complaining about getting bullied for their ideas by their colleagues.
maistrechat:
Ah, but you see, DavidByron2 didn’t actually use the word “blame.” He holds the mother completely responsible for whatever horrible thing the stepfather may do, but he never used the word “blame.”
My stepfather is way more of a father to me than my bio dad is. To suggest that stepfathers are genetically programmed to abuse their stepchildren is horrible. To suggest that those stepfathers who do abuse their stepchildren do so because they are genetically programmed to, instead of being evil abusive assholes who are responsible for their own actions, is horrible. Anyway you slice this, it’s just horrible.
@Kim – “At first glance, I read this as “love and cake”. Which would also be nice. :)”
I am now doing an impression of Bill Cosby’s routine, where the kids sing “Dad is great! Gives us the chocolate cake!”
Thank you, Bina, for the cat coolness. The comments are great.
@Sneakys – “I always find it interesting that MRA’s think men are superior, yet will be the first to run to genetics/instinct to explain away bad behavior. Men are just “wired” that way. Their conclusion seems to be “Men are superior but also are victims of their own biological make up.” They’re superior but have not control over their most basic impulses?”
Right, so tell me again why the men should be in charge? I don’t get it.
I’d like to offer late hugs to JJ, Alex & anyone else here needing/wanting them
Some evo psych arguments make me think the proponents watched too much “Flintstones” growing up. Humans, as a species, have spent most of our existence as hunters/gatherers. We haven’t even been eating grains on a routine basis for more than a few thousand years – as evidenced by the fact that not all of us can thrive on a grain-based diet yet. But social structures that *some* cultures have developed much more recently are ascribed to biological imperatives? Huh.
For that matter, I realize that the way I live my life – married to my husband with two adopted children, legally and socially recognized – is actually very new. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just new. New != bad, old != good.
They are superior because Dat Ass oppresses them! Women, however, are underevolved, except the few “genetic celebrities” who own Dat Ass. And they totally use it to oppress men and force them to earn more, have higher social status, etc. ManLogic™!
Not too long ago, I learned that in Regency England (so, 200 years ago), while it was common enough for people to “adopt” a child, taking that child into their home, raising the child, and even providing for the child in their will, they were not able to legally adopt the child, at all. Even though it was common for the child to take on their name, it was just a social courtesy.
So, without a will, specifically benefitting that child, if their parents died, their estate would go to the nearest (usually male) relative, and that child would see not one single penny of inheritance.
Money and unentailed land and property could be willed, but titles could not.
Illegitimate children were pretty much treated the same way. If the mother had property of her own, her illegitimate children could inherit from her (provided she had not somehow covered up the fact that they were her children). However, even if the father acknowledged them, without a specific bequest in his will, they could not inherit from him.
Adopting is an old thing, for as long as people have cared about children and wanted to see them safe and well. LEGAL adoption, however, has apparently varied throughout the ages and cultures of the world.
I’m not sure what that means from an Evo-Psych standpoint, but I thought it was interesting, anyway.
If we’re going to do this off entirely unrelated species, let’s pick one of the local ducks here. The reproduction strategy of the most powerful mated pair is to scare the @!#*()! out of the other pairs and _steal their ducklings_.
Eventually you get a pair with a flotilla of ducklings, about twenty or thirty of them, and that’s the dominant pair. They have their own offspring in there too, but they’ve got everyone else’s as well. The fact is, they’re probably vaguely related to them, and they’re certainly more powerful, and the other ducklings help protect their own. And if you get some growing up who have ten percent of your genes? That’s still ten percent.
Awaiting dominant MRAs with 30+ kids that they obsessively feed and protect.
RE: J.J
I’m less surprised now that the majority (anyone remember the percentage?) of these guys are, what, under the age of 25? It explains the ME ME ME ME entitlement and the inability to accept responsibility for anything.
Hey now! When I was twenty-four, I was married, working, and had a perfectly good grip on responsibility. I joined this site when I was that age! It ain’t that these guys are young, it’s that they’re DOUCHES.
RE: canuck_with_pluck
Good on you going to the doctor. And yes, take your meds. Trust me, I understand, I was suicidally depressed and had been for months and I STILL didn’t want to take my meds. Just go with it. If they work, great, if not, they’ll get changed.
RE: step-parents
I don’t have any step-parents, but my mom and here brother were molested by her step-father. (And those are just the ones I have confirmation about; I’m willing to bet at least two other aunts were molested too.) As for me, my parents really started amping up their bad behavior when they decided I wasn’t their child anymore. It gave them the emotional separation required to really start trying to get rid of me. (I don’t know WHO they thought my parents were. I guess they thought I was raised by imaginary wolves in a subconscious barn or something.)
Holy shit.
Why is it MRAs seem to have the lowest opinion of men possible? I’m having difficulty trying to think of worse “male-bashing” than saying men are inherently violent because evolution.
Wow, LBT, that is messed up! What, did they think you were switched at birth? Did your mother forget bearing you? I don’t get how anyone can even GO there. Jedi hugs if you want them!
Also, I like the thing about the ducks. That is amazing!
Even if it were a manner of evolution, their inability to hold men above basic biology and look at the moral ramifications of such inherent violence; and try to figure out solutions and ways to help men to overcome this innate problem is already disturbing. Their point seems to be, “this is how men are, suck it up” and the world should suffer the fires of their manly rage.
I do imagine this is a source of pride for them. Where I grew up, violent men were common, and how many guys you put in hospital was seen as a source of pride. How ‘hard’ you were determined your status as a dominant male. I’ve often been made uncomfortable by the male attraction to domination that I saw, and sometimes suffered, as a youngling. I was heavily bullied for being more sensitive/quiet and not fitting the “hard man” criteria.
“Equal rights, equal lefts” – the cry of a man who can’t control his temper. Ever.
David Byron, huh? There’s a blast from the past, if it’s the same anti-feminist troll who’s been active for years as the guy on Reddit. Sounds very similar.
@ freemage
I total agree with you. it’s more of a personal thing with me. The term pseudoscience wrongly applied, at least when I have heard it used,
“Lord love a duck” just took on a whole ‘nother meaning there…
And yeah. For all the squawking about “fathers’ rights”, I see nothing but a bunch of hateful abusers who only want custody of their kids so they can keep a punching bag and/or sex toy around, to use and abuse at their convenience. Or who plan on neglecting the kids except insofar as they can use them against “that bitch” who dared to leave Dear Precious Snowflake Hubby. One thing I don’t see is these guys actually finding love and happiness, and making their house the one on the block where all the neighborhood kids can safely go if there’s trouble at home. Now THAT would be adaptive behavior!
“I always find it interesting that MRA’s think men are superior, yet will be the first to run to genetics/instinct to explain away bad behavior. Men are just “wired” that way. Their conclusion seems to be “Men are superior but also are victims of their own biological make up.” They’re superior but have not control over their most basic impulses?”
For some reason, that kind of pseudo-determinist rationalisations remind me of Monsoon from Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. There’s a part where he makes this big speech about how human nature is tainted by “memes” of hatred, paranoia, sadism, etc. Basically; we don’t have free will because circumstances beyond our control (where we are born, our parents, our native culture, etc.) dictates to our nascent worldview what we hate, want, know and so on.
Of course, it’s somewhat implied that the game is parodying moments in fiction where the bad guy stops the action to lecture the hero on the themes of the text.
The duck fact reminded me of “Make Way for Ducklings”. The more you know. . .
LBT, regarding meds for depression. Our older son has been diagnosed with depression, and was strongly resistant to taking the fluoxetine.prescribed. I’ve been on paroxetine for over five years, and wouldn’t want to go back to where I was before. Having a hard time understanding how he feels about it; hearing it from you makes it a little easier. Thanks for that.
Regarding violence – my father was a very nonviolent man. I learned that from him. The idea of striking someone in anger confuses and revolts me. It has definitely affected my parenting style. When our younger son’s therapist urged me to be more assertive with him, I said that I was concerned that it might be harmful to him. She assured me that, based on the eight years she’s been seeing him (and me) it was highly unlikely that I’d overdo it.
Men likely do have some instincts to get rid of the children of their new wives as they make simple biological sense. This doesn’t mean, of course, that men who kill stepchildren aren’t responsible for it and no sensible minded person would claim it does. Men also have instincts to rape and murder but most exercise their free will and choose not to act on them.
So, you’re saying that all men really want to murder and are just barely restraining themselves?
That’s a really scary view and I don’t think it’s true. I can’t speak for men because I’m not a man, but I’ve certainly known men who do not appear to have the slightest violent inclinations.
If you are experiencing the desire to rape and murder on a frequent basis, you should seek help. That isn’t normal.
There is often a misunderstanding that proposing a biological explanation for an undesirable human behaviour is somehow attempting to excuse or justify it. There are many undesirable behaviours people engage in such as violence, murder and rape and there must be biological reasons these behaviours evolved. Identifying those reasons does not amount to absolving the perpetrators of responsibility.
The problem is it’s the ones with poor to no impulse control that are the most virile and reproduce the most, since among other things, chicks just dig bad boys, you know.
Riiiiight, RandomPest. Did that nugget hurt when you yanked it out of your ass?