Gender proclivities vs. product perception

Consider my theory, again. The proclivities of men and women are wrapped up in, respectively, physical lust and emotional primacy. Each, unchecked, leads to trouble. One layer deeper, however, and the two things diverge in terms of how they are perceived. They are far apart as, well, east is from west in terms of where they are assumed to reside on the good vs evil spectrum.

The relative moral valuation of these things is so disparate that when a woman wanders into male territory and gives in to physical lust outside of marriage, either when single or in an adulterous affair, her emotional weakness, her gender specific Achilles can serve to mitigate, no, to negate the immorality of her sexual dalliances. It acts as a catalyst for other women to vicariously experience the “hurt she must have been feeling” when she rutted with the pool boy. Its not just team woman. That would not do it in and of itself. They would not be buying this crap buy the pound if they didn’t get something they want in conjunction. What they get is some time in the “Awwwwwww” spotlight.

In order of preference, the empathy that is uncut and most potent is the empathy generated by the self at and to the self from others. The first step down is the empathy that one woman can feel when she engages one on one with the close friend who is at that moment the empathy black hole in their sphere. Sometimes no matter how many times they page the dude he just doesn’t respond, and eventually it is assumed he ain’t holdin’.

When that happens she has to go street. Metaphorically driving along slowly, looking into the eyes of those she passes by, looking for that eyelid quiver that says, slow down, I got you. They recognize one another, these empathetics.

angel_beforegaylene_before

The end up drawn to each other, like the expression from college days, “a friend in weed is a friend indeed”, ideally they agglomerate into an ever reliable pool of shared empathy, like regulars at a crack house they take comfort in always knowing that one of them will show up with something they all need.  They troll other relationships, they troll the news, they troll internet forums, always seeking a morsel that can collectively create a wellspring of empathy. They manage to productively clean the crack pipe over and again until finally, if all else fails, someone will come through and manufacture some circumstances in her own life because wow, after after existing on that residue redo for weeks, the euphoria from a powerful pure hit of empathy is something to behold.

Men sometimes give in to lust and have sex with a woman other than their wife or have sex while they are not married.

Three paragraphs about empathy, one sentence about lust. The built in obfuscation makes turning the tide like standing on the beach saying “no tsunami gonna ruin my vacation”.

A woman who is in full on sexual denial in her marriage, but who has managed to generate a semi-permanent state of receiving empathy from others is solid in her place of primacy. Not only does every woman the couple knows want a piece of her empathy action, most every person man or woman they know wouldn’t waste a fired neuron of sympathy for a man in a sexual drought if he stands in relief against a backdrop of his wife, the Cygnus X1 of empathy. Try shining light of truth and watch it bend and disappear. Try speaking truth directly and feel what its like to be crushed into singularity.

In a consumer culture supply reacts to demand. The manner in which supply reacts is not without its own moral contrast. There are products that are specifically designed for men and woman and their proclivities. Have a look at one product designed to alleviate women of consequences for emotional primacy:

Frownies

facial patches FBE open web

Compare that to a product designed to help men alleviate consequences of lust:

trojan-condoms-lubricated-3-pk-light-blueAny difference in the reaction you have when you look at these products?

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Gender proclivities vs. product perception

  1. “Most every person they know wouldn’t waste a fired neuron of sympathy for a man in a sexual drought.”

    Amen to that. I’d go one step further and say that if a man’s even suspected of being in such a drought, it’s more like a wounded guy in the water whose pain attracts sharks.

  2. Empath:
    I was thinking about this some more; and it occurred to me that the ’empathy’ that women express with each other seems to be in inverse of their attitudes towards men. I wonder: do you think female empathy towards each other and their cruelty towards men are related phenomenon: part of the same psychological schema?

  3. Eric,
    Sort of. Its not as if there is a finite amount of empathy so men are robbed because it stays focused on women, nor is it that , by gender, empathy expression is necessarily inversely proportional.
    The reason there is such disparity between genders in women’s empathy is more fundamental than the empathy issue.

    I’m not trying to deeply psychoanalyze here, what I am doing is observing and then offering a plausible explanation. Its not completely unlike political pundits when they say things about the other side. “Conservatives want to starve the poor” “Liberals hate the rich”. These may pr may not be true, may or may not be what the speaker leans literally. They are easy to grasp representations of what COULD explain behavior they perceive or observe. Same thing I’m doing. Its very simplistic.

    The operative fundamental is one we all know well. Picture Lindsay Wagner the bionic woman and her sight “doot, doot, doot, doot, doot” as she explores her field of vision. When seeking potential sources for empathy, either someone who will empathize with them or to whom they can offer empathy, generally no “doot doot doot doot” happens when a man passes their line of sight. So men are excluded even before empathy is in play.

    There is a linkage indeed in the circumstance where cruelty to a man maximizes empathy experience with women. If she must be cruel and/or indifferent to male suffering in order to prolong or magnify empathy experience, she will. But empathy is not limited to gender relations as a source.

  4. Empath:
    That’s an interesting thought. I think it’s a valid point that cruelty to men is often used as leverage to gain empathy ‘status’ among women.

    I’m not sure though whether their lack of empathy for men stems from ignoring men or from misandry. Based on my own experiences, I almost think that women have outright contempt for men’s feelings/interests on any subject. I don’t think it would make any difference to most women if their SO sacrificed his life to save hers; she’d likely be on Match.com looking for another guy before her ex was even buried!

  5. Picture Lindsay Wagner the bionic woman and her sight “doot, doot, doot, doot, doot” as she explores her field of vision. When seeking potential sources for empathy, either someone who will empathize with them or to whom they can offer empathy, generally no “doot doot doot doot” happens when a man passes their line of sight. So men are excluded even before empathy is in play.

    Men automatically excluded? Not sure I agree with that 100%, Empath. I can agree that it is clear in a great majority of cases, since women have a tendency to exalt the experience of being a woman as a touch point to build camaraderie; child bearing, wifehood, even female cycles, LOL. Women enjoy commiseration over uniquely female stuff.

    But I don’t know that I can go as far as you have here and agree with a blanket statement that men are excluded from a woman’s empathy from the outset.

  6. Elspeth, I suppose I can debate whether NAMAEFE (not all men are excluded from empathy) applies. I suppose it does. I will say that the empathy is a fuction of the circumstances that would make one feel it.
    Clearly, unless its a brother, very close friend (even this is iffy), son, father, or new husband who was frivorced from first wife, women generally do not see men who are wronged in relationship at all.
    The doot doot doot thing is looking for women, and ok….SOME men for a select set of circumstances.

  7. @Elspeth, it may help you blanket agree if you restrict the empathy to a sexual empathy.

    re: most every person man or woman they know wouldn’t waste a fired neuron of sympathy for a man in a sexual drought

    This is true for two reasons
    1) Men are expected to be self, uh, starters, in a way that we *know* women are not expected. Despite the many jokes about male incompetence, most women require a desirous man in order for her to be able to be able to gain sufficient sexual relief. This is the main reason that a man’s impotence has always been grounds for divorce, and commonly granted throughout history, but generally a woman’s frigidity was not grounds and very few if any historical examples exist of a divorce being granted on those grounds despite/because of (don’t you love things that are simulataneously despite abd because?) the overwhelming majority of women being too often too frigid for a man’s preference.

    2) Because of the alpha/beta dichotomy. If an alpha is in a sexual drought then it’s of his own choosing, so why be sympathetic. If a beta is in a sexual drought, that’s his natural condition so why be sympathetic.

  8. Elspeth:
    I had to do a double-take on that one. Men are not only excluded from female empathy, women mostly treat us like we don’t have any feelings at all.

  9. jf12:
    on point 1: there is a lot of projection that goes on; except that I think you understate the case. MOST women are sexually frigid—in fact, latently homosexual. From a sexual standpoint, men are nothing to them.

    on point 2: you’re giving women too much credit. There is no such dichotomy with them. It’s more like ‘all men are pigs anyway, so why should I care?’

  10. Clearly, unless its a brother, very close friend (even this is iffy), son, father, or new husband who was frivorced from first wife, women generally do not see men who are wronged in relationship at all.

    I see men who are wronged in relationship all the time, and sometimes I don’t know the men that well at all. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and I am not sure why this is controversial. I’m not playing the snowflake card here either. Bear with me. I’m saying that there is no possible way for a woman to see another woman berate her husband or cheat on him or run up thousands of dollars of debt bankrupting him and not know objectively that this is wrong.

    The problem isn’t that women cannot see. It’s that they choose not to see as cover for their own weaknesses. It’s precisely why I’ve begun pressing the point among those women who I know are sincere in their desire to be good Christian wives. So that they can stop thinking about what they are capable of (because sin is something we all have to fight against) and start thinking about what is right.

    Men are not only excluded from female empathy, women mostly treat us like we don’t have any feelings at all.

    I agree in part Eric. I said as much on my blog Sunday:

    “why is it acceptable for husbands to be held accountable for how their words and actions make us feel, but wives are not held accountable for how our words, actions, or lack thereof , make our husbands feel? If he can be guilty of emotional abuse, can’t his wife be guilty of it as well? And by the way, what does that even mean? When have you ever heard a man identify with being emotional abused even when his wife is cold and/or shuts herself off from him sexually?”

    But I do not agree in total. We just have to be taught to think differently from the programming we have been infused with almost from the cradle. It can be done.

  11. Elspeth

    Its not about whether they see that situation and know its wrong or not. Its about how they react to that knowledge when rubber meets road. Here’s how it goes.

    If a man from these parts sees that scenario we immediately have strong feelings about the man who is the victim. Empathy. We would express our opinion boldly to any mixed group discussing it.

    Women would, if in discussion, seek any morsel to cling to that mitigated the woman’s full on choice to do evil. If they cant find one they make it up. “Maybe he did such and so”…”we cant know the whole story”…those are things men now think when they see women done wrong likewise because experience has skewed , maybe tainted our perception a little as well in that we simply know that while it does happen, men are not out killing off families wantonly.

    Women would find some mitigating thing that would afford them at least sympathy to the woman doing that. Look at the words of I think it was Ann at Dalrock as she describes her superficial take on gender relations. That is the typical woman. I amend my previous words from above in this comment and say that like Ann, women will simply choose not to see reality. That scenario you described would challenge everything An n holds dear as her world view, just as it would any churchian woman in suburbia, therefore they would suddenly master the male skill of compartmentalization and wall it off.

    Maybe its best to focus on the general saying that women don’t have empathy for men, rather than looking for a hypothetical specific woman and her feelings about a specific hypothetical man. When you factor the mental gymnastics that are to avoid seeing things that challenge their comfy world view, it supports what I am saying. NAWALT is almost always true, and almost never a useful notion.

  12. NAWALT is almost always true, and almost never a useful notion.

    I know, but that is not what I mean. Why does everyone think that’s what I mean?

    *sigh* I actually sighed. LOL.

    Maybe that is what I mean, but it’s not what I mean to convey. Not really.

  13. Elspeth:
    “We have to be taught to think differently from the programming we have been infused with almost from the cradle. It can be done.”

    I agree it can be done: but how many women are willing to do this? There’s where the problem lies. Why should a woman work for the benefit of a relationship with a particular man, when she can more easily dump him and take up with somebody else?

    I read your blog article on the subject: I don’t think most women would follow that kind of advice. Why should they NOT focus on their own problems? There are plenty of men out there who will enable them, if one guy doesn’t they can simply move on.

    IOW, they have no incentive to care about men.

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