2014-03-26. Note: I recognize that this is a very poorly written article. A point that I have failed to be explicit about is that each of these issues are descriptions of what men perceive though their various phases of mental, physical and emotional maturation. I occasionally remind myself that I would do well to re-write this, but time and energy are costs that have to be measured against the benefit of re-writing. In the meantime, I hope this short note suffices. The task is in my to do–someday box.
This is a reply to Kerina comment, and the length of the comment just got out of hand. Since I put so much work into writing it, I thought I’d post it.
I was trying to object to is the idea, which I have now heard many times coming from some MGTOWS and MRA’s, that women are biologically incapable of empathizing with men’s issues. I think this assumption is, not only totally untrue, but very hurtful to the MRA cause because it prevents MRA’s from trying to convince women of their plight.
I agree with your objection. It is false to claim that all of any one group is deficient in any particular capacity. To make such a statement would be the exposition of bigotry.
I don’t want to excuse the above as being acceptable, but if I may, I’d like to offer some insight as to what might cause an individual to make such erroneous statements.
We live in a society that places a very high emphasis on women’s comfort and well being. We care about their sense of security as much as their actual security. We care about women’s pain–tremendously, and I would argue, often, excessively.
We live in a society that infantilizes women because we are instinctively triggered to love and protect babies. These triggers are signs of neoteny: big eyes, high-pitched voices, demonstrations of vulnerability.
Women, if not consciously, then unconsciously know this and use their own neotenous traits to their advantage. Image: a woman adopts a “baby voice” and says “Ooh! You great big man!”. These trigger in men the desire to protect and provide in some measure, much as a woman responds to a child’s need for protection and provision. Consider how difficult it is for someone to walk away from a lost child crying in pain.
Where men take direct action, women tend to indirect action. Genetic masters of the game of socialization, plausible deniability is the name of the game. Women typically don’t tell, they hint. They don’t approach, they invite–subtly, deniably. “Just because I looked at you doesn’t mean I wanted to talk to you!” Women don’t usually attack physically where they might face danger, they attack socially, or create violence by proxy, that is, using men to do their violence. Women use men to as tools.
They use men as sources of income, as sources of strength, as sources of protection, as sources of violence. The do this by triggering instinctive and socialized responses in men.
“Never hit a girl”, but “Boys are tough”. She is the princess, he is the White Knight in shining armour, to rescue the helpless princess.
Incidentally, a knight is a high-status position that implies power and authority, a horse implies it’s expense, and armour, let alone polished armour could be worth a years worth of a knight’s wage. Let us not forget that a knights job is to inflict and receive violence on the behalf of his betters.
Back to our subject: Women are trained that they are the princess–the social superior. One must never hurt a girl. Not her body, not her feelings. He, however, not only may be, but must be trained to endure hardship if he is to master the physical world. Though her facade of weakness, she becomes his master–and this is as it has ever been.
To paraphrase Warren Farrell: a woman’s strength is the facade of weakness, and a man’s weakness is his facade of strength.
He must become the master of the world, for two basic utilitarian roles are expected of him: provider and protector. If he is neither, he will likely not mate, for he is measured not only for the service that he must render her, but also to her potential children. If he is ever to find a woman’s love and acceptance, he must demonstrate both. When he succeeds, he attracts women, when he fails, women shun him, or, at best remain amicable, but never intimate.
Let us now introduce feminism, in my opinion, is female instinct gone unchecked and rampant. Feminism used these instinct triggers. As uncharitable as it sounds, the strategy that allowed feminism to flourish was women telling men “Please us, or we’ll nag you to the ends of the earth.” Failure to meet their demands, the feminists would claim, would be the equivalent of direct harm.
Among the demands were that men must give women the benefit of access to the power that they’ve created though safe, medically, politically, technologically advanced civilizations. Advanced societies hide the value of hard physical labour, and when one has no experience doing hard physical labour, it is easy to look upon the fruits of it’s results as easily come by. The sacrifice is easy to ignore or dismiss. [Tangent: this, incidentally, applies to both men and women, and explains much of current society’s behaviour. “Kids don’t know the value of hard work”]
The overall message that society expresses is that women are important, men are not. What men do is for women. Men give, women receive.
Imagine now that as a male infant, a child, a prepubescent, an adolescent, a young adult, an adult, you observe that women though all of their deeds, gestures and words invariably reflect the above attitude. Imagine that a male who is growing throughout his formative years sees and hears nothing else–constantly as presupposition and subtext in every single interaction.
This is how the world is, he accepts, unquestioningly.
As he grows in age, and social experience, a man may notice that females use a strategy of doling out attention, approval, acceptance, sex and love–or the opposite, ostracism, disapproval, shaming, sexual or amorous rejection based on how well she is treated; based on how well she is protected, or provided for. Men, who are desirous of having partners, then learn that if two men want the same women, they must compete with each other to show a woman that he can do more for her than the next guy.
Women learn early on to play the game of extracting the greatest amount of value from a man as is possible. His lesson: if he wants to share his life with a woman that he has to do two things: 1. pay the price of sacrificing himself and his value to women for their approval, and 2. be seen by women to apply this rule to men, so that both sexes are now playing the same game. Her lesson: she is wanted, loved, desired and must fight off a flood of men, so can continually raise the bar of her expectations, based on her desirability.
Men are humans. Humans are social creatures. The desire for sexual expression and feelings, approval, belonging, respect, simple human social enjoyment is part of the psychological needs of all humans. I refer you to Maslow.
Johnny who has learned these lessons early on recognizes that he is valued for what he can do for another (rather than for who he is), and that the meeting of his basic needs are a prize that is doled out at the whim of women, that it must be earned, yet he sees that women have none of these issues. Women are given love, acceptance, sex, approval and respect for no reason other than they are female.
Johnny becomes John, works away his youth, creates a career, finally manages to buy a car, a house and eventually has children. Jane, for whatever reason, in the land of no-fault divorce, takes it all away from him–with the support of the court, enforced by large men, trained to dominate via the violence of numbers, clubs, tazers, guns and a system that will take money out of his paycheck without his consent.
Not only does John spend his life catering to women to get some of his basic social human needs met, that is, he is the provider of mostly everything, but later, all that he has built for himself is taken from him. He is forced to involuntarily provide to someone who no longer meets his needs and who simultaneously prevents him from meeting his own needs. This is done by forcing him to put her needs above his own via state-proxy violence.
A man notices from the time he is young is that he must always be the giver (first dates, courting gifts, wedding rings, the home of her choice, etc), and that she will always be the recipient. When she is expected to offer something in return (rarely money, or practical goods that must be worked for), when she is expected to offer something as simple as human respect, there is no social obligation on her part to do so, and if she wishes to dismiss that obligation, what she can do is turn to the sisterhood, supported by Feminist lobbied laws and rules and attitudes for justification and validation that he is no longer useful, acceptable or worthy of respect.
After having been ground up and shredded to blood and bone by the courts, having lost his home, a large part of his money and his children, after having had to pay for her lawyer to get screwed over by an unjust court system, he is then faced with endless media that accuses him (more precisely men in general) of being violent, insensitive, uncaring, Schrodinger’s Rapist, a pedophile in waiting. He observes that women are constantly speaking of him as a potential monster out to club the baby girls, that he is violent, that he is dehumanized to the point of being little more than a machine to create money for women and state, what is he left with?
He must work for and pay a woman even when she changes from someone who met his basic human needs to being someone to someone who creates a deficit for him in terms of money, family relationships, love, affection, etc.
He must give the woman what she asks for because it is enforced by the state. Should he fail to do so, he is legally sanctioned and can be taken to the modern day equivalent of debtor’s prison.
Throughout, we find that he is reviled socially, culturally and politically.
John sees this happening to most of the men that he knows in life. There are exceptions to everything, of course, but let us remember cognitive bias: “Oh! She took you for everything that you had? Me too! Same happened to Joe and Fred and Bob and Steve. Poor sap! Ha ha ha!”
This is an extremely common life history for men.
Do you see how a man might come to the conclusion that women cannot empathize with men? She is raised from birth to have more social value than men, to expect that her role is a recipient of the value of his work, having cultural and political support to choose whether she engages the workplace or not, and if she does, having no duty of reciprocating to the man all while having elevated expectations of him.
These are choices that are not available to a man. He makes, he gives, she takes. If she makes, she keeps. For him to even consider asking is beyond outlandish; it is the field nigger having the temerity to ask to sit at the master’s table.
Generally, that’s just how reality works.
Can you see where their pain and hopelessness and a sense of helplessness, a particular affront to men’s dignity, as he is taught that his worth a person is based upon his ability to move the world, might cause him to generalize and claim that “women are biologically incapable of empathizing with men’s issues”?
It has taken me until middle-age until I could articulate this. When one doesn’t know what the cause of his conditions are; when a man doesn’t have a wide-ranging view of how the world functions, can you see how some might arrive to this conclusion, to use that claim as their best explanation as to why his experiences are so common-place, on a person-to-person level, globally?
Imagine your life a constant series of unexpected shocking betrayals, a series of randomly occurring, high-powered, solid-to-the-spine gut-punches. Do what you’re told, someone stabs you, don’t do what you’re told, someone clubs you. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for it. Imagine being accused of domestic violence when you were the one who was attacked, yet arrested. Imagine an ex-parte restraining order where suddenly you are exiled from your home. Having lost your friends over time, (men spending time with friends is typically frowned upon by women–remember the indirect persuasion) you have no network to fall back upon.
The woman that you loved is now your avowed enemy, and using the power of the state, she is tearing your life to shreds.
Imagine the raw, vivid emotion of having your children taken from you. Or being sent to jail due to a false rape accusation.
Can you sense the fear, the anger, the bewilderment, the sense of having no control or say? Imagine what it’s like to speak up on these matters, having these emotions only to have people scoff at you, mock you, ignore you, and tell you to shut up or else. To have moralistic fingers wagged at you and being accused of being a stupid, self-centred abuser?
Imagine that this was your life, Kerina. Does this help you understand why some men may think that women simply view men as little more than utilities?
Some of the above is admittedly florid. There are two sides to every coin. This is the side that most people don’t bother asking about. The intent is to put you in a man’s place.
Men have feelings, men respond to stress and men can be crushed by it. This is a story that nobody really wants to talk about, and certainly not hear. When in a double bind, where action or speech yields no results, can you understand where some may feel bitter and make sweeping claims?
You had said:
I think this assumption is […] totally untrue
The sad reality is that what I’ve described above not an assumption, but fact, verifiable by court documents, a legion of law firms and countless male suicides. We have literally had men self-immolate on courthouse steps to express their despair at the whole situation.
Not only is the above frequently true, but it is common.
I agree with you in that it is not the only story.
I have, in fact, read more than one such story from the feminine perspective and from the feminist perspective. The princess has no power, only the knight does. He has the freedom to act overtly, and she is relegated to appealing to his agency. If she dare act, she is shamed, etc. Both sides have a bit of truth and a bit of falsehood in them, intentional or not. What they both share is pain.
Is it true that no woman can empathize with men’s pain or issues? Of course not. The world is not homogeneous. Despite it all, there are good people of all kinds everywhere.
You have a slight disadvantage: you’re a decent person. You’ve had a life where people were mostly good to you, and you’ve had good role models and examples of how successful relationships can work. Good people often have difficulty imagining the terrible, selfish and hurtful things that people will do to each other. You may have the equivalent of social herd immunity to such things. I don’t share the same disadvantage.
Also recognize human psychological traits at play: we notice pain more than we do pleasure, because biologically, pain is a survival signal. It takes precedence over pleasure in the attention circuits. We have tiny little cobbled-together monkey brains. We like simple, effortless bits rather than more complex notions, which require more processing energy. Homoeostasis is at play. We follow the path of least resistance in almost all cases. That is human nature. This applies to both men and women.
I could solve the whole problem in a few words: make character-building for men an women THE dominant value for all societies. Make empathy as important as self-fulfillment. Make long-term vision over short-term results the dominant human mode. All that is required is the mass production of Djini Lamps.
To summarize what is one hell of a long response, is that I agree that some people make bigoted and erroneous claims about women, but understand that, even if false, that this mindset stems from lived experiences rather than having been invented from whole cloth.
Anger, resentment and frustration are all derived from some form of pain. Take away the pain, and watch how a relaxed, confident, happy person behaves differently.