I can’t write about empathy all the time. If I try and relate every social pathology to empathy I’m going to sound like a fool, and while I still submit that under the right scrutiny, there can almost always be found some empathy cause and effect in relational dysfunction, be it marriage/intimate partner, or general gender (male/female non intimates) relations, finding it is too tedious to keep my attention, let alone a reader’s.
Women, in more than quorum numbers, deny differences between the genders. A few men go along with that to earn the ladies approval, nothing more. Women distract and dissemble about gender differences, the process painfully obvious.
How does it work to discredit something by discrediting its source? What I mean by that is one of the most common themes among difference deniers is that the differences are learned, not organic…..er, ok, didn’t you just say THE DIFFERENCES!? Think about the FEELINGS evoked by this appeal, not its basis or lack of basis in reason.
Why the denial? What is the motive? What is the end game? It appears that no one wants to be women anymore. Men, pressured for decades now to get in touch with the feminine side, haven’t made as much progress as those pressuring them would like, hence the number of divorces over emotional neglect. (missing the whole idea that if there IS a feminine side to get in touch with, isn’t that a difference?) And women vehemently , angrily deny any propensity to process things through emotions more than men do. The denials obfuscate. They do so by denying BEING more emotional, saying they know lots of men who get more emotional than they do, their husband cries, so forth. It was never the point that a gender IS more emotional, meaning feels emotions more than the other, it was the point that the reasoning one gender does weighs emotion more heavily than the other gender, generally.
Back to empathy for a minute; allow that I use “empathy” as a sort of catch all for the emotional cumulonimbus following most women around holding tornadic unresolved emotions (that in Spanish the word for storm is “tormente” fits this illustration perfectly), The gender deniers tools for obfuscation work best on those who process information emotionally. From thought to thought, critical logical extension is not needed, only that one FEELING flows naturally to the next, usually ramping up the emotional intensity as it goes. I assert that its still an empathy quest at root, but tedious to illustrate. Just imagine Journey singing “Only the Young” when thinking empathy quest, not sure how that helps but its a cool song.
If there are no differences in the process by which genders reason, why there hell do all the books, all the counseling and such even exist? Why is there acrimony and failure to communicate? How can gaps be bridged when the gap’s existence is denied?
Shattering the stranglehold that is the tormente of female reason is a man’s job. About half of us men however have tried to seed the clouds above our own heads so we can enter our own private emotional hell in order to relate better to the opposite gender.
A celebration of logic, clinical and dry, is needed, a renaissance of reason by way of consensus on modality of communication is imperative. We cannot at once pander to women’s insecurity about being female, and maintain that about men that facilitated the very creation of the tangible parts of our civilization.
(after rereading my post and seeing how disjointed it flows, I’m swabbing my inner cheek for a chromosomal test, but posting it anyway)