Assholes (12 page)

Having now examined numerous assholes, we observe a pattern: assholes are mainly men. Why should that be so? What explains why assholes are so overwhelmingly distributed among only one-half of the human population?

Is it because men have been socialized so differently from women—that is, is it a product of
culture
? Or is it something about men themselves—something about
male nature
—that explains why newborn boys are so much more likely to become assholes than are newborn girls?

The answer, we will suggest, is gender culture rather than maleness. Maleness per se, seen as a mere biological category, is not causally to blame, or at least any influence it has is swamped by deeply entrenched, nearly universal gender culture. This causal thesis implies nothing about morality by itself. It does raise a deep philosophical question about moral responsibility, about who, if anyone, is morally responsible for what. If culture systematically steers newborn babies into becoming assholes simply because their sex is male, how can the grown-up asshole be blamed or condemned for his foul condition? Responsibility might seem to lie squarely upon
society
. It allows gender culture to have this profoundly influential steering role. The foulness of the asshole may therefore seem to reflect not the foulness of the individuals we routinely blame for their asshole ways but rather the foulness of a social condition that produces
assholes in abundance. We usually do single out the individual asshole, blaming
him
. But why should this be fair? Why isn’t the lone asshole just a hapless soul caught up in a grand cultural asshole-production machine?

A measure of sympathy for an asshole might be laudable, but it shouldn’t be taken too far. He still has freedom of will. He usually acts in his assholish ways freely and of his own free will. That is the source of his actions and the proper target for management, criticism, and blame—or so we want to maintain.

Philosophy won’t simply take that for granted. The philosophical skeptic will deny it outright: according to the skeptic, no one, not even an asshole, is the appropriate object of condemnation or blame. Moral responsibility is, at most, a useful fiction. As usual in philosophy, there is no easy refutation of the dug-in skeptic. But even if refutation isn’t in the cards, the skeptic’s salutary role is to force those of us who aren’t skeptical to
say
what we might mean in claiming that people do indeed have “freedom of will.” Why is it, exactly, that assholes are the appropriate object of blame, whereas the insane or the drug addict are not justly held responsible? What, precisely, is the difference?

In one traditional interpretation, the asshole indeed has freedom of will, and so qualifies for blame, in the sense that he has
control
over his actions and the nature of his character. His actions and character are finally up to him, despite the strong cultural currents he swims in. As we will see, however, requiring this special kind of countercultural control makes blaming the asshole more problematic than it needs to be. There is a better, more modest interpretation of what his freedom of will consists of that more easily saddles him with moral responsibility. Roughly, the asshole is rightly to blame simply because of
the outlook reflected in his behavior, simply because he thinks like an asshole in a way that makes his actions his own. That is true whether or not he is “free” in any further way and whether or not he has any further special control over his fate in the cultural asshole-production machine. He can be a product of the machine and blameworthy anyway.

Before we delve further, we should consider the possibility that our supposedly profound philosophical questions are founded upon a huge but simple mistake. It is not quite true, we might say, that assholes are
mainly
men. Rather, assholes are
only
men, and for a simple and completely unmysterious purely
linguistic
reason: the term “asshole” refers only to men
by definition
, in just the way the term “bachelor” refers only to unmarried men. We simply agree, by linguistic convention, to use the term “asshole” in a gendered way, much as we do with “bastard.” We could have equally coordinated speech behavior in a different way. And, it may be suggested, we do indeed have a useful further name for the same kind of person when that person happens to be female: we call her a “bitch.” If this is right, there is no grand mystery about why assholes are men: this reflects nothing more than the way we happen to use words.

Natural as it might seem, this view is wrong. Suppose I consider the proposition that Ann Coulter is an asshole. I don’t feel forced to withhold that term simply because she is not a man. Rather, there is a
substantive debate
to have about whether she qualifies (or rather how she could fail to qualify) as an asshole. That debate cannot be settled by reflecting on how we happen to use words. If I ask instead whether Coulter is a “bachelor,” the question is plainly confused. A bachelor is by definition an
unmarried
man
(of a certain age, etc.), much in the way a spinster is by definition a woman. That holds simply because of how we use words. “Female bachelor” is a contradiction in terms. “Female asshole” is an interesting possibility (and, I would say, a reality in cases like Coulter).

To take a more complicated example, the suggestion that “Tiger Mom” Amy Chua is an asshole isn’t undermined by the mere fact that she is a woman. There’s a case to make that she is an asshole, but it won’t suffice simply to observe her tough parenting methods, which have included calling her daughter Lulu “garbage” in order to motivate her; rejecting a birthday card because “I deserve better than this”; and turning her house into a “war zone” in order to coerce Lulu into learning a difficult piano piece, despite objections from her husband that she was insulting her by calling her “lazy, cowardly, self-indulgent and pathetic.”
¹
One can be a misguidedly tough parent without being an asshole, perhaps by standing ready to reconsider one’s parental prerogatives, including one’s assumptions about what is best for one’s children. What set Chua apart was that she wrote with maternal bravado, certitude, and claim to superiority, all based on the questionable assumption that child achievement is all important, while inviting suspicion that she’s concerned as much with her own status in light of her daughters’ success or failure as with their health and happiness. On the other hand, she is in fact deeply concerned for the welfare of her daughters, sincere and articulate in her views, and open to changing her
mind.
²
She has in fact softened her views and manner, showing that she is not entrenched in the way assholes are. (Coulter, by contrast, shows no sign of easing up.) Chua is ultimately not an asshole, but, again, her gender is quite beside the point.

If women can be assholes, the fact that assholes are mainly men presents a deep explanatory problem. Things presumably could have been otherwise. In a fairer world, assholes might be distributed equally across the male and female human population, giving newborn males and newborn females roughly equal chances of becoming or not becoming assholes. Given that things are as they are, however, we have to ask why the asshole type crops up in the set of human beings born male so much more often than the set of human beings born female. This is a truly marvelous fact of life, which presumably has some explanation. But what?

A natural answer is: pervasive gender roles. To appreciate how powerful this is as a potential explanation, consider the following definition of “bitch,” which shadows our definition of “asshole.” A person counts as a
bitch
, we may say, when, and only when, she systematically takes special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that
leaves her open to the voiced or expressed complaints of other people, but immunized against their motivational influence
.

The only difference between the asshole and the bitch, in this proposal, appears in the italicized phrase “leaves her open to the voiced or expressed complaints of other people, but immunized against their motivational influence.” In other words, the bitch
listens
to the voiced complaints of others, making at least a
show
of recognition. Nevertheless, what is said makes no motivational difference to what she does; once her face-to-face encounter with you is over, it is as though you never talked. She “recognizes” you in one sense: she acts as though she feels it is important to hear you out, to entertain your concerns. But this turns out to be only for show. In her private reasoning and motivation, she is, in the end, insusceptible to anything you might have said. Her sense of entitlement is “entrenched,” in that sense, but not so entrenched that she is unwilling even to entertain voiced complaints. The bitch betrays you behind your back. The asshole fails to recognize you to your face.

One advantage to the asshole is that his ugly conduct takes place out in the open. This makes him easier to avoid. The bitch presents uncertainty, because hidden motives are harder to discern. Some bitches may not be particularly good at feigning concern face-to-face. Other bitches are convincing. You really feel things have been sorted out between you, and that you really are mutually understanding and responsive to each other’s concerns, until you later learn that the discussion made no difference. Perhaps you learn this by happenstance, only after seeing how things play out, perhaps over numerous similar occasions, after repeatedly giving the benefit of the doubt and being let down.

On the other hand, assholes are especially outrageous in a crucial way: they don’t even offer a
show
of respect. A show of respect is, after all, a
form of respect
, however unsatisfactory. We
don’t make a show of respect to a fence post, since it isn’t the kind of thing to which respect is even in principle owed. With people, by contrast, showing respect is all important for good relationships, whether in international diplomacy, life in the workplace, or friendship and intimate relationships.

The bitch fully appreciates all this. In that sense she does recognize persons as moral equals, albeit in a circumstantial way. The asshole is especially outrageous because, whatever his private motives,
he can’t even be polite
. And even when he is polite, or even charming, fundamental respect is not the reason why. Other motives are in play.

Now, if this is correct, we can explain why assholes are mainly men. Moreover, we don’t have to assume anything special about the very nature of biological maleness. We look only to the powerful influence of gendered socialization. Men and women are raised very differently in most cultural settings. That difference in upbringing and social expectations is what does the work. For instance, males are generally taught to be assertive and outspoken, while females are taught to remain silent or pull their punches—and sharply sanctioned when they don’t. In that case, even if males and females are equally disposed at birth to the required entrenched sense of entitlement, that sense might manifest itself and develop into very different behaviors and character traits in adulthood. Entitled women might find it relatively difficult to openly, brazenly shut others out, since such conduct is aggressively sanctioned in the social group. Men might find this relatively easy. In their case, people tend to look the other way (“Boys will be boys,” they might say). They expect assertive behavior from men and boys and are not surprised that a few bad apples go too far with it. Assertive women and girls, by contrast, are considered way out of line.

We do sometimes say that someone is a “born asshole,” suggesting that he came into his condition as early as birth. It could be, in theory, that some people are born with characteristics (e.g., high testosterone levels or a propensity to aggression or to social insensitivity) that predispose them, by nature, to become assholes later in life. Gender culture might simply channel these underlying natural dispositions (which may reflect an evolutionary history that is itself shaped by coevolving gender culture, creating a nature-culture “chicken-and-egg” problem). Still, nurture surely has
some
role in shaping which and how many such people actually flower into the assholes they become, and it is easy to believe that it has at least a
major
role in asshole development. A particularly strong counterasshole culture would presumably suppress inborn tendencies, even if it couldn’t go so far as to turn every born son into a kindly fellow. If good society could have this dampening influence, it would seem that nurture, not nature, is doing the causal work when a society lets assholes run wild.

Gender theory largely concurs. Gender concepts of “male” and “female” are deeply socially constructed, and only
appear
natural.
³
Our various identities—whether “male,” “female,” or “none of the above”—are constructed through the “intersectionality” of political power, class, race, and history.
⁴
While much
of this is culturally specific, gender categories are used almost everywhere to enforce patriarchy.
⁵