The Psychology of Me Too Bad Guys

Stephen Kershnar

The Psychology of Me Too Bad Guys

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

May 28, 2018

            Following the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, the Me Too movement burst forth. The movement was designed to publicize and reduce sexual violence and sexual harassment. It is associated with a hashtag (#MeToo) that in October 2017exploded onto social media.

            The movement highlighted allegations against over two hundred famous people. The alleged bad guys include many well-known leftists. Alleged rapists include former president Bill Clinton, hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, and movie producer Harvey Weinstein. Others are alleged to have committed violence, sexual battery (for instance, unconsented-to touching), and sexual harassment. This includes politicians (for example, former president George H. W. Bush and former senator Al Franken), actors (Ben Affleck and Dustin Hoffman), members of media (NBC’s Matt Lauer and PBS’s Charlie Rose), and others in the entertainment industry (David Copperfield and NPR’s Garrison Keillor).

My interest here is in only in those who are alleged to have committed multiple acts of rape, violence, or sexual battery, despite having repeatedly proclaimed the need to protect women from such mistreatment. Consider, for example, Clinton, Franken, Lauer, and Schneiderman. Some have even directed or acted in sensitive portrayals of violence against women (for example, Oliver Stone).

These men are very different from those who are merely alleged to have behaved rudely by repeatedly propositioning women, making sexual comments in the workplace, or doing inappropriate things like exposing themselves. Men who are alleged merely to have rude in these ways include, for example, Michael Douglas, Richard Dreyfuss, and NBC’s Tom Brokaw. In what follows, let us ignore those who were merely rude.   

What is interesting is how people who decry such behavior could themselves have done it. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ripped into Harvey Weinstein for doing some of the same things he was alleged to have been doing. 

            Here are the issues regarding this seeming inconsistency. First, were Clinton, Schneiderman, etc. able to control their actions or were they overcome with lust or anger? Second, did they believe their public statements on women and social justice? Third, did they think that their actions contradicted their statements?

            On the first issue, the answer is almost undoubtedly “yes.” George Mason economist Bryan Caplan argues that these guys (for example, Schneiderman) were repeat offenders. If they knew they had a problem, they could have gotten help or taken precautions to avoid being overcome by lust or anger. If they didn’t, they probably weren’t and didn’t see themselves as out of control.

            On the second issue, again, the likely answer is “yes.” These men (for example, Clinton, Lauer, and Schneiderman) have been publicly saying and acting on these social-justice principles for decades. It is likely that their family, friends, and surrounding ruling-class members strongly believe in them. When people consistency say and publicly act on principles and when their family, friends, and peers all accept them, they likely do as well.

            The third issue, then, is whether men who could control their actions and believed that it is wrong and bad to rape, hit, and (without consent) grope women thought they were violating their own principles. One view such men might believe in is that the relevant principles apply to government not individuals. This would explain why some politicians support massive government redistribution of wealth, but do not give much to charity (sometimes until castigated for failing to do so). I doubt this is what these men thought. Such a view is rare. Also, we find no evidence in their statements, actions, education, or that of their family and friends. The position is made even less likely by its intellectual shakiness.

            A second view is that these men didn’t think they were doing the sort of violent behavior toward women that they public condemned. They might not have thought this because they rationalized much of what they did as in-effect consented to or permitted by the rules of the game when everyday women seek the attention of celebrities. This ability to rationalize such violence as not being rape or battery or, at least, not wrong is likely enhanced by their narcissism. Some of it might also have been part of rough sex, although this is not yet clear.

The lack of a conflict between what one says and does is also likely enhanced by the ability to self-deceive oneself about other clearly immoral behavior. For example, my guess is that Bill and Hillary didn’t see themselves as doing anything wrong with regard to the corrupt payoffs that occurred in the cattle-future, Whitewater, Castle Grande, and Clinton Foundation matters. If they didn’t see anything wrong in such corruption, it is a small step to think that Bill Clinton didn’t see violating Juanita Broaddrick and groping Kathleen Willey as a big deal. My guess is that a plurality of these guys rationalize away or deceive themselves in these ways.

             Still others likely suffered from weakness of the will. This occurs when a person judges it would be best to do one thing rather than a second, believes he can do either, and yet intentionally does the second. It is mysterious how this can occur if, as is often assumed, people intend to do what they judge it would be best to do. Still, many of us have had the experience of taking another slice of pizza after we tell ourselves that we’ve had enough. My guess is that a minority of the Me Too attackers fit into this category. They’re probably similar to priests who had consensual sex with teenage boys while believing that this is not what God wanted them to do.

A third category of rapists (for example, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby) are likely so disturbed that their thoughts are barely recognizable to normal folk.

My guess, then, is that the Me Too bad guys could control their actions, believed in leftist principles, and often rationalized what they did. Others likely acted from weakness of the will.