Empathy and The Feminine Imperative

What’s all the fuss about the feminine imperative? Really.

There is a veritable glossary of terms that flirt with the concept….team woman, hypergamy,  even the hamster, and they generally are just coined shorthand to use when referring to ubiquitous things we see.

In keeping with my uber theme, I assign many of these phenomena to the quest for empathy. As I raise the specter of empathy having a nefarious side across the sphere I have yet to have anyone challenge the idea. Maybe some find it too stupid to bother addressing, so be it. But just as observing female interactions leads to the coining of terms to reflect what we see, so too does it lead to the conclusion that there is a naked craving for empathy.

Maybe people have trouble seeing something that is perceived as virtuous as a catalyst or driving force for bad behavior. I get that. It took me awhile to accept myself. Once I did I found a new understanding and it inspired this little blog. Early posts like Empathy, what a riot, Empathy and Divorce, Empathagasm, Yes Yes, Yes and Empathia,  were attempts to drill down and explain the idea that empathy is not necessarily a motive for good.

After writing about it for awhile I started to imagine myself baling water with a thimble, and swerved off into other things.

Comes the feminine imperative.

I’m going to state that the quest for an empathy experience is an aspect of it.

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Empathy and The Feminine Imperative

  1. There is a veritable glossary of terms that flirt with the concept….team woman, hypergamy, even the hamster, and they generally are just coined shorthand to use when referring to ubiquitous things we see.

    I responded to you over at Dalrock’s but I think he’s turned on moderation.

    It’s important to me because I don’t want to be like a teacher who claims every active boy who doesn’t want to sit down all day is “ADHD”. Sure, it is a shorthand that describes some repeatable, identifiable behavior. It’s also mostly BS meant to control boys, and ultimately men.

    If we’re going to be serious about confronting and straightening our societal paths, it’s important to be clear in the directions and warnings.

    Finally: There are people a lot dumber than us reading and commenting. We have a responsibility to not jumble the road with nonsense; as best we can, anyway.

  2. Hopefully then you would concur that that jumbling the road idea would also include going over their heads with not just esoterica but also for example the constant references to obscure authors, or even the more well know “Great Works”?

  3. A few months back Bob Wallace was trying to hunt with that dog: “You idiots need to read the classics!” Matt, or someone like him, chimed in with the tradition of the Church gleaning good things from Athens; keeping Jerusalem (scripture and Church tradition) and Athens (science, great works of Western Civ.) together.

    I responded: “To Hell with Athens.” Not because I think they’re wrong on the merits of Athens, but because our age does not understand the merits of Jerusalem–why add the pains of secular thought?

    Our problem isn’t too little Aristotle, it’s too much Lady Gaga.

  4. My comment got eaten by Dalrock’s spam filter. I’m not going to bother Dalrock about it. It was almost exactly the same as I said here.

  5. The links provided want me to log in but I can find with my search engine.

    Do women really possess empathy?

    Who is Dalrock? :p

  6. Our problem isn’t too little Aristotle, it’s too much Lady Gaga.

    Exactly.

    As to the so-called feminine imperative: As a believer I dislike that rabbit trail because it reduces us down to our gonads. It insinuates that because there are women who claim to be Christians behaving badly, that therefore all women are slaves to their sin natures, nearly unable to be anything other than hypergamous, out of control, home breakers or home wreckers.

    I fully recognize that the two of you do not subscribe to that notion if for no other reason than that you are both married to good women. However, I think trying to address these issues with gamers, atheists, agnostics and PUA’s at the table is utterly foolish. They can offer constructive commentary on the issues of equal protection under the law, the anti-family court system, false rape, etc.

    However, when you are dealing with the crisis in Christian marriages, the Christian divorce rate, and heretical teaching on marriage coming from pulpits, their input is is useless at best, but in my opinion it is quite damaging to the search for Truth and constructive solutions.

    The “feminine imperative” is a distraction from the quest for Truth.

    That’s my unsolicited, long winded opinion.

  7. Well, I sympathize with your view in a lot of ways. Note that I almost always list the male sex drive along side whatever you wish to call it drive based on emotional experiences in women, and I stand by that based on my (per Matt King) pitiful ability to discern any truths minus some reference to which Chinese dynasty was in power at its first discovery.

    My wife is a good women, AND she has these emoto-urges, not mutually exclusive at all.

  8. I understand that, empath. I too have those emote-urges. But they’ve never seduced me away from my husband or sent me out wandering for something or someone better, even when we’ve dealt with illness or job losses. Not to mention the inevitable dust-ups that occurred with the mother of his firstborn child.

    My husband and I were discussing marriage and life in general recently and it occurred to me that I have never (no, not even once ) in 19 years thought I would be happier without him. I have been angry, hurt, sad, and a whole host of other emotions, but I have never considered leaving. That makes me rare, I know, but I hardly believe I am the only woman in the whole entire world with that testimony.

    As for Matt King, you and I are in agreement. Just because I have reservations about the so-called feminine imperative, it doesn’t mean I think he’s right.

  9. While I agree with you Elspeth that you are not apt to find much assistance in repairing the damage done to the Church from the general Game community, that doesn’t mean that they won’t help on the quest to find Truth. I for one find a great deal of sense in the notions of a Male and Female Imperative, although I suspect that I find them to be much less influential as a positive force than others who adhere to the theory. Personally, I think that the FI is much more of a responsive problem or negative force, and will be a source of friction which impairs efforts to heal the Church.

  10. Maybe I am dumb as a box of rocks but I didn’t see the FI as necessarily manifesting in a list of always present specific ways. I never thought that there were not women who cannot tamp down and control some or even most…..never all…..of it, just as I can say that I as a man cannot claim to always control every thought that the male sex drive may foist upon me.

  11. “Maybe I am dumb as a box of rocks but I didn’t see the FI as necessarily manifesting in a list of always present specific ways. I never thought that there were not women who cannot tamp down and control some or even most…..never all…..of it, just as I can say that I as a man cannot claim to always control every thought that the male sex drive may foist upon me. ”

    Agreed. I liken the FI to gravity. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, but has an essentially unlimited range. It is always at work, but most of the time you don’t notice it. However, when you get a preponderance of mass together, it can overwhelm anything, including light. What Western Civilization is facing now is just such a mass. The reason why the FI hasn’t really been perceived before is because that coalescing of power hasn’t happened until now, or perhaps, happened to such a degree until now.

    As for why now? I suspect it has to do with the principles of the Liberal Enlightenment, which are a fusion of Judeo-Christian theology and Greco-Roman ethics. Those principles, and their evolution in Western Europe and North America, have given women a set of tools which they have never been able to get a hold of until now. Without the principles of Liberty, and Equality, feminism would never have become the monster that it is now.

  12. Good metaphor, yes gravity is even weaker than THE “weak force”. The preponderance of mass….could be simply population densities, but also has to do with ideology which , keeping with the metaphor, compresses the mass and makes it have more bang for the buck so to speak, volume wise…..pray it doesn’t reach singularity

    I’m more likely to look for a spiritual angle than the birth of an ideology, though they are linked. The spiritual angle may overlay the historical ideological one in chronology. What is happening is easy to see in prophecy, and in scripture generally. A great deal of cause resides in the simple expression “idle hands”.

    Mass solutions are impossible. Rescuing individuals is not.

  13. If by idle hands you mean the fact that Western Civilization has permitted humans, especially women, to enjoy far more “free time” than they have ever enjoyed before… Well, that makes sense to me.

    As for the spiritual and ideological angles, why do they need to be separate? The idea that the Enemy is behind feminism (or any of the modern -isms, for that matter) doesn’t seem terribly far-fetched to me. I rather like Dalrock’s idea of “the whispers” myself, as I see that as another tool in the Enemy’s arsenal.

  14. Pingback: Where does chivalry fit with the feminine imperative? | Feminism is Empathological

  15. @Elspeth

    I fully recognize that the two of you do not subscribe to that notion if for no other reason than that you are both married to good women.

    I think Empath does subscribe to it, but I don’t; at least not as has been outlined.

    As for my reasons why: No ma’am. I don’t have a good woman–I have a woman who makes good choices…namely: me. I don’t subscribe to the idea of the FI because I think it’s much more about the nature of sin, than the nature of men or women. It’s a fully bicameral problem.

  16. Youve made valid points here. Its hard to have a discussion about something when people cant even agree on what it means.

  17. The descriptions I have given are one part hat tip to the FI as Rollo describes, and one part reference to what you are saying here Cane. I ascribe a different manifestation of the sin nature, and the one that manifests in women , the part that fits the FI, Im OK with calling it that.
    I frankly didnt pay much attention to the debate once it was Matt King, 7man, CL, and some others because they are parsing each letter, let alone syllable, and its boring. I confess, I am playing very loose with a concept and allowing it to be called the FI…..without endorsing all that BS. I have no idea how it was ultimately outlined at Dalrock most recently, nor will I bother to read it.

    I started by naming my pet thing empathology, and I can stay with that.

  18. I’m unplugged on Sundays now, so I am woefully behind on this discussion, but here is my problem in a nutshell with the idea of the FI:

    Imperative (from dictionary.com): absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable

    And most of the commentary offered in the manosphere presents FI exaclty this way; as if women are mindless gonad driven robots. Well, they say that when they don’t say we’re scheming and conniving, LOL.

  19. Good morning

    I’m carving out my own thoughts on this.
    That it is imperative does not necessarily suggest it is not under some degree of control. The way I frame this, and drawing empathy into it which is my zero in on emotion as a drive, I repeat it is something akin to the male sexual IMPERATIVE. The man can, and has the requisite drive, to cut a swath across the whole nursing staff (well, the females anyway) of Big City General, or to use porn with abandon of any number of things. Many do do something that they are compelled to do.
    When porn use is preached in church, if men were not able to accept that we have this drive, it would be offensive. (they have made it offensive but that’s another story) Men could try and say “I have zero urge to do any sexual sin”….they lie.
    I see the FI similarly.

  20. One other thought. TFH wrote about the FI as also some external thing and has a post at Dalrock about the imperative of shoving resources onto the females in a population. How words cannot be taken personally because his is some external force that women benefit from.
    When you link his words with what Ive said you can conjure some comprehensive thing that is still not suggestive of anything that an individual woman necessarily is leaning into, even though she may well be beneficiary to it.
    Bear in mind I am working along here, not yet defending any particular persons exposition on it. In fact much of the writing on it is still vague, even if wrapped in lots of verbiage. I will avoid definitional momentum transfer if possible.

  21. “Imperative (from dictionary.com): absolutely necessary or required; unavoidable

    And most of the commentary offered in the manosphere presents FI exaclty this way; as if women are mindless gonad driven robots. Well, they say that when they don’t say we’re scheming and conniving, LOL.”

    My own take on the “Imperative”, if it exists (I think it does but am not 100% certain), is that it is subconscious. Its something that motivates women when they aren’t thinking about it. That is not to say that they can’t think about it, but must of the time it is exerting its slight pull without being noticed. For me, the word unavoidable captures its nature better than it being required or necessary. It is just something of female nature. Intrinsic. Not evil, nor good, just there. However, when something like Feminism comes along, it becomes another weapon on the arsenal.

  22. Agreed, and I cannot figure out why some posters are making too much work out of work, making distracting arguments about forensic skills, qua blah, on and on.
    The circle of potential influence grows smaller and smaller when the players rush into locker rooms with rulers.

  23. I think know why, and it’s not mistake that it’s the Christians objecting. They (well I do, anyway) view it as an over dependence on evo-psych and biological determinism at the expense of Scriptural truth.

  24. I think Elspeth has a point that the most vocal opponents of the concept (and not a definition), do tend to be more religious. But not all. Perhaps I am comfortable with it because I don’t see science and the Bible at odds most of the time. Especially on this topic, where biological and evolution combine to point out basic truths which one can find in Genesis, and indeed, throughout the Bible.

  25. I find the whole FI discussion tiresome. Not because it does or doesn’t exist, but because the conversation seems to collapse into a pissing contest (pardon the expression) about reading the so-called great works of western civ, rules about rhetoric and debate, sophistry, name calling and whatever else you can come up with. It makes the whole conversation worthless and tiresome and very little is illumined. For my part I’m coming down on the ‘I don’t think the FI exists’ side of things because I think it is too broad a term and attempts to capture too much. But I do think the proponents of it are trying to capture something real that does exist.

  26. I hear you. I hate that I seem doubleminded about the FI, I do not like to feel that way.
    The other quibbling that you describe is maddening. The sphere seems to have more of that than most corners of the internet.

  27. Yes donalgraeme, you get what I am saying. On the Internet, as in real life, there are people who are more devout and who frame their thoughts in light of Scriptures and faith more than others. This is what I was referring to.

    People like me, Cane, Zippy, or Gabriella, who tend to think “faith first” find little of use in the pursuit of the so-called feminine imperative. Cane even flouts it to the point of suggesting that it may be flourishing due to a masculine impairment, LOL.

    I fully recognize that there are Christians offering commentary in favor of the FI, and I appreciate the fact that you Empath, are balanced and measured in your approach to it. But on the Internet, as in real life, your ability to be balanced and measured on something that is not objectively true is a rare virtue.

  28. Elspeth hit the sweet spot. The FI is of course not objectively proven. I only see a few men however clinging to it (Rollo-ites) as if it is an objective clinical term. The rest, I count myself among, are using the term as fodder for our typical discussions. Thats why Im so shocked at the reactions to it generally, rather than specifically to Rollo et al.
    Trite: Its just a conversation!
    I am not invested whatsoever in inventing actual verifiable now clinical terminology. I don’t deign to be qualified, yet some, (Zippy, 7man, Matt King, others) are playing the game of tearing down the mere conversations of others, which they seem to be wont to do. I see the fact that some of them are Christians as a side bar, they are not coming at this for any reason but its low fruit to use for self edification….sorry…..but its true, and that’s kind of their MO. When some of them are not doing that, I enjoy reading along. But behaviorally, though for example Zippy may practice a form of gentlemanly decorum, it seems faux when he grinds into needless debates like this one. Truly, there is not anything to really see there on the FI dust up. The dust is more interesting to those (sadly I include myself) in the midst of it than any real consideration of the topic. Forest and trees and such.

  29. “Because of you listened to the voice of your wife the ground is cursed.”

    Evolve that, and tell me where God thinks the feminine imperative lies.

    @Empath

    I am working on a post-as-response to your question on calls to man-up vs. calls to woman-down. I know what I want to say, but not quite how I want to say it. It will take me a bit. I’m trying something new…

  30. If I am understanding your question Cane, then it would come from this:

    “yet your desire shall be for your husband.”

    Desire translated best here means to desire power over. The woman will forever seek power over the man. This will be natural to her, because it was God’s command. So women are, because of the Curse of Eve, condemned to forever seek and thirst for power. It is inherent to their nature. Unavoidable. Imperative.

    And of course, because it is now part of their nature, all women will have it. And to her this shall seem perfectly natural, as if it was meant to be.

  31. I do not think that is what Cane was getting at, though i agree with the understanding that to desire the husband is some kind of obsessive thing that is not meant to be a virtue being given her. Like so much in modern Protestant exegesis this flies under the radar, however I have actually heard this one mentioned in church. Mostly this scripture is avoided.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s