4 ms·
> the third factor, Gideon said, was the empathy gap, where we tend to be more receptive to women’s pain than men’s. When women talk about being made to feel un
by spodek 9y ago
> the third factor, Gideon said, was the empathy gap, where we tend to be more receptive to women’s pain than men’s. When women talk about being made to feel uncomfortable at work, or being sexually harassed, we feel empathy and want to punish the wrong-doers. But we don’t have the same reaction for “geeks,” or “techbros”. Because our understanding of neurodiversity is painfully lacking, our culture tends to view men as a homogenous category, seeing all men as inheritors of privilege and all men as possessing the masculine traits that foster toughness and resilience. We have a habit of ignoring those who don’t, and when they do talk about their vulnerability, we are inclined to ignore, or ridicule them for it.
The book The Myth of Male Power https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448 https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/042... explores and describes this factor and many of its ramifications, which are huge and tragic.
- vkou 9y agoThis is one very obvious critique of the patriarchy, that is also advanced by feminism. Traditional, toxic masculinity does not recognize 'non-manly' roles for men, their emotional and intellectual needs, etc. It does not, however, follow, that it does not repress women. "But not all mens!" is true, but is also a bit of a red herring. Most members of both genders suffer it to their detriment.
- malvosenior 9y ago“Non-manly” men suffer just as much, if not more at the hands of women. “Toxic masculinity” is the red herring here.
- mpweiher 9y agoIf the "patriarchy" is perpetrated by both men and women and negatively affects both men and women, maybe "patriarchy" is a bit of a misnomer?
- WalterSear 9y agoNot if you are attempting to co-opt the situation.
- pasquinelli 9y agowhy quibble over the word? you're talking about gender roles, men are supposed to be big and tough and take charge, and womem are supposed to be nurturing and demure and receptive to being taken charge of. it's a model with men in control, patriarchy is a fine word for that. of course if you can't hack your assigned gender role you'll catch shit from those that can. those that can hack their gender role may be men or women; those that can't may be men or women-- this is your observation. but how do you go from that to patriarchy is a misnomer?
- malvosenior 9y agoIt’s not a useful term because it bakes a ton of political ideas into a concept everyone is expected to accept. Mainly that our society is somehow intelligently designed to put men in charge and that it’s not a mix of biology and random happenstance that got us where we are today. It also implies that men actually are in charge. Some men may be but the vast majority are not. If incarceration and university enrollment numbers are examined, it might even look like men as a class are the oppressed not the oppressors.
- pasquinelli 9y ago"Mainly that our society is somehow intelligently designed to put men in charge and that it’s not a mix of biology and random happenstance that got us where we are today." i don't believe anyone thinks this a or that anyone cares if we're here by accident of history or by intention. "It also implies that men actually are in charge. Some men may be but the vast majority are not." of course, and the vast majority of women aren't in charge either, but the topic has been gender roles, not who's in charge. recall that i was questioning the claim that patriarchy is a misnomer because it's bad for men too. the subject at hand is gender roles and gender expectations. "If incarceration and university enrollment numbers are examined, it might even look like men as a class are the oppressed not the oppressors." yes, patriarchy is bad for men. and if you look at the number of people murdered by their spouse it also looks pretty oppressive to women. that's the point, patriarchy is oppressive to everyone.
- 9y ago
- dpc59 9y agoIt is, the term was inherited from angry 2nd and 3rd wavers. Trans inclusionnary feminism tries to frame the discuss1ion more around the concept of gender normativity for this exact reason.
- vkou 9y agoJust because a particular man does not benefit from his role in a patriarchical society does not mean that he doesn't live in one. It's entirely possible to support a social order without deriving any personal benefit from it, or without even being a member of the benefiting class.
- lazyasciiart 9y agoWhy? Nobody has ever thought that a society where only men can be kings must mean that all men are kings.
- gedy 9y agoThis is a good summary of my experiences growing up. My friends and I were all considered nerds and wimpy boys, and experienced quite a bit of daily physical and verbal abuse in school. It was difficult/futile to get anyone in authority or the students to help and empathize. Seeing the reaction and outrage when a boy slapped a girl in the hallway though was very telling where people's biases are.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- noobermin 9y agoThe answer of course is to widen your sphere of empathy to other people. Neuroatypical individuals face some issues in society and thus deserve empathy, as women who face sexual harassment do. Does book you cite mention neurodivergences at all? Reading the review on amazon didn't seem to say it did.
- ysv2 9y agoWidening our spheres of empathy means we can't predicate empathy on finding a label that fits people into an orthodox feminist understanding of privilege. The key takeaway from Farrell's book is that men also suffer. We need to become OK with having compassion for men, full stop. Even the men for whom we cannot apply an additional qualifier like "neuroatypical".