There is common agreement that a “frat culture” exists amongst a variety of exclusively male communities. Whether it be depicted on sitcoms like Greek or during political campaigns, it is clear that such a culture is vibrant and encouraged amongst young (and even older) men. Though there may be camaraderie within female groups, there is a certain aggression and anti-women rhetoric that defines this alpha-male standard of intimacy between men.
After the news of Donald Trump’s assaultive habits was publicized, Trump himself rationalized his actions—and thus defended himself—by saying that the conversation during which he revealed this information was simply “locker-room banter.” Since this story broke, the discussion of “casual” assault has gained momentum in all sorts of circles.
Though there seems to be no communal resolution to this issue, or even a consensus as to whether it is an issue at all, this conversation is reflective of a much larger issue: how we raise our children.
Political philosopher Ronald Dworkin writes in his book, Taking Rights Seriously, that law is not legitimized because we fear it or believe it to be divine. Rather, Dworkin writes, American law is internalized and obeyed as a result of the way it reflects the practices of the American family. Dworkin explains that each family has its own, private social norms, and that these norms transform into “associative obligations” when family members enter the larger societal structure. In other words, Dworkin says that our strongest sense of legitimate obligations are built in order of “local priority” or, what we were raised to value.
Framing Trump’s harsh and impulsive actions this way, they gain some sort of logic. This is not to say that his words hold any worth or positive qualities, but they do reflect what Trump believes to be normal.
There’s often a sense of relief when an action or mysterious narrative is given an explanation. However, this explanation only creates more troublesome questions. The man who excused grabbing women’s genitals by calling it “locker-room banter” revealed something about American culture that is much more problematic than one man’s aggression and disrespect for appropriate conduct. He also revealed, with the unintentional assistance of Billy Bush, that this behavior is not unique. He revealed that bragging about sexual assault, and perhaps therefore assault itself, is normative and acceptable. In other words, Trump told the country that “boys will be boys.”
This phrase—“boys will be boys”—is not a new phrase. By emphasizing the causal nature of his speech and actions, Trump echoed this sentiment; he furthered the assumption and even expectation that men of all ages will act inappropriately. In addition, this way of thinking, especially when applied to raising young boys, permits and encourages an immature stagnation in oneself, rather than a development with age.
Though Dworkin is not alive to analyze this expression of American norms, it is reasonable to infer from his overall approach to jurisprudence that he would be disheartened, but not surprised. Working under the assumption that a recount of the votes (which may not even take place) will not change this election’s outcome, half of this country’s citizens are comfortable with Trump as their children’s role model of an adult, a man, and a leader.
Along with numerous other issues that are in flux right now, the issue of American parenting rises to the surface in reaction to Trump’s actions and comments. Though there are some issues that appear to be more pressing than the American style of parenting, such as climate change, states’ rights, and illegal immigration, according to Dworkin’s philosophy, American parenting styles are exactly what shape American laws. If the average American raises his or her child in a home that allows corporal punishment, then that child will see this as normative (at least as a method of discipline). Likewise, if a parent never hugs or kisses his or her child, that child will not only find physical affection unusual, but he or she will most likely find it unpleasant.
If Americans believe it to be acceptable to grab other people’s genitals and to speak freely and proudly of such actions, this understanding will certainly permeate into political standards. It is unclear as of yet if this connection has been made, or if there is an effort to confront it. Regardless, its foundation in the common American home speaks volumes about our country’s values. With this election, the phenomenon that can be called “frat culture,” “alpha male” standards, or “locker-room banter” has been exposed as a key standard in American families. If this is the case, then why would our country expect anything other than a culture in which “boys will be boys?”