Thanks Allen for an excellent look at the issue of action/empathy. Loved the ideas of Jesus and his skillful use of questions. Especially loved "Jack and Janice"!!. Thanks too for the mention. Much appreciated
There is a time for action, hard, physical action. Knowing when that is and when to use empathy is an important trait for us all. When your child is running into the path of an oncoming car it is time for action. Empathy comes later. Same is true for today's feminism.
That's a great distinction, Tom. Wish I had thought of it. Some men stew about injustices and wonder what to say, so never say much if anything. But writing is better, writing is action, and action helps others.
Yes, I see what you mean. The funny thing is that in the back of my mind I had the idea that Shackleton's empathy was doing something. But your example of empathy vs. rescue action reframed my view. I see that empathy can be an excuse for doing nothing--since doing nothing can be interpreted as silent approval. Thanks!
Exactly. The example I used before was that of a child in a playground getting beaten with a stick by a bully child. That is no time for compassion, it is time to get off your ass and do something. After you stop the beating there is time for empathy. Both have their place but avoiding necessary action is a real problem and we see it today in spades.
I have a question for you Allen, if you don't mind. What do you think are the major reasons for men's and women's silence about feminism and the damage it is doing. It is an eerie silence and sometimes a a negative word about feminism brings a venomous attack. Why would men not stand up to that? Are they simply afraid of the response? Are they convinced no one would listen? Is it shame? Don't rock the boat syndrome? Any ideas?
I guess the related piece in boxing would be someone who fails to defend? Just drops their gloves?
I have to think more about this, Tom. It's the big question. Men remain silent on men and on women. My main thought in the last couple of hours is that most women are educated in being women from first grade if not earlier. 94% of their teachers are women who prefer girls to boys. Feminism set in in high school, if that late, and become rock-hard in college. College-educated women are those who most favor policing other people's language and who are on board with most woke causes. They are also the teachers of the young. Men are on the sidelines of all this activity, boys raising hell during recess, getting poorer grades, and so on. Benign neglect for the first years of boyhood, but by high school, the boys know they are bad. So it makes sense that they are quiet, stick to sports, circling around the female centers of power, where they will never be admitted unless they swear allegiance to the girls. In short, they don't know how to respond. Nobody has taught them to be boys or men, what to say, how to say it. They are the kids who know a knife from a fork from a spoon and now are looking at a table set for a formal dinner, 3 forks, 3 spoons, even 2 knives. They couldn't sit at that table without an education in eating. They can't sit at the women's table, either, because nobody has told them what to do or say. So they mill around, hoping a woman will notice them and save them by owning them. They don't know how to stand up for themselves. Some of them don't think they are worth standing up for. Your mantra, Men are good, and so are you, opens the door for a conversation if they want to have it. Do they know they need to have it? First line for the guy: Why do you say that, Tom?
Thanks Allen. Great observation. Boys grow up in female environments, families, schools, playgrounds, etc and are taught they are worth less than the girls. I think over 20% are now single mother families. The ones with dads are lacking in a strong masculine since it has been labelled as toxic. This leaves boys not knowing a thing about masculinity. Hard to stand up for something you don't know about.
I am in the midst of writing a post on this topic and am gathering lots of reasons that might play a role in why men are reluctant to speak out for men. Hooefully will have a poll and let readers have their say about this.
A truly wonderful piece here, Allen. I particularly admire your parsing of the Christ story. Though I have very little patience for opinionated folks who are guided by ignorance, I have had some success using the questioning method you describe here. "Why are you so hostile?" "What exactly did I say to upset you to such a degree?" "Do you believe...?"
The main thing that irks me is that folks tend to believe what they want to believe, irregardless of education and information. So I wind up asking myself, why they believe whatever cockamamie crap they believe. And this leaves me feeling exasperated, since there's really nothing they might learn that could change their minds. Why waste my time? But then I'll see someone taking the time to explain critical information, and, by God, it works!
A few months ago, I received an email from someone I thought was a friend. It was a long lecture on the errors of Israel's operations in Gaza. Since I had a lot more knowledge on the subject than he, I wondered what compelled him to lecture me. I wasn't especially polite, but I was respectful and asked if this was a lecture or a conversation. He replied that it was a conversation. So I sent him some resource material and asked him when he'd like to meet to have a conversation. I never heard back from him. As I intuited, it was never a conversation, and he wasn't interested in learning anything. He believed what he believed for his own reasons and that was that.
I'm sure there are ways of getting through to folks who are both passionate and ignorant, but I generally lack those qualities and skills. So my hat's off to those with the talent. It takes all kinds. Maybe Shackleton's way works for him. But I'm not that guy. I'm more likely going to simply declare that I think your ideas are uninformed and that you could use some further education. That's generally taken as an insult. And I figure it ain't my problem. They had to hear it from someone... should have been their teachers. I've noticed that folks who grew up being told they weren't so smart, have more humility than those who were told they were geniuses. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which all our kids are above average. No wonder the woke wonders have so much clout, especially when social media gives them a platform.
Reading this comment, I once again remember my teaching experience with, say, something powerful but not easily absorbed, e.g., Virginia Woolf's "Jacob's Room." Tremendous novel, around the time of World War I, about how the war changes a family, but, as often with Woolf, without ever rising to the surface as the subject. I used to teach courses in war and masculinity. Students had fixed ideas about war and women, but no ideas about men or masculinity, except that the latter was probably a bad thing. They were more receptive than the former friend you mention, who ignored the resources you sent. The male students liked the course, a chance to talk about war and what it meant to men as opposed to what it meant to women. Once in a while I felt pretty good about a class meeting, but often--and here, finally, is my point--I came away thinking that I got into the discussion because I got a lot out of it. Some of the best moments came from going to a particular page and having a student read it, and then analyzing what we had heard. I didn't really set out to change the way this one or that one thought; I just wanted to show them (as you did your former friend) what they had missed. As you say, the students had always been told that they were wonderful, that they were indeed perfectionists! They sat in my office and told me they didn't understand why I gave them a C or a B when all their other English teachers had given them A's and said they were wonderful and that they tried too hard. I had to keep from snorting. I usually said that perfectionists lacked humility, that our work was not something that could be made perfect, and then I turned to the plan of the paper's first paragraph. Even at that level, e.g. why is this sentence here?, I was happy with what I learned. They "had to hear it from someone," you say, rightly. But I usually found that they only listened to praise and dismissed criticism as "personal," an attack on them. I write these days to figure out what I think. Back when I was writing books about the Middle Ages, I found that I usually threw away 2 books before I could write the one I wanted to write. But I had to write 3 to get to that one. Like an idiot I saved the drafts I rejected. When I finally retired it took days to haul them out of the attic to recycling. I have always been a long-form guy, no tweets for me.
The classroom is different of course. I'm more patient in that environment because I'm literally being paid to educate. I was even lucky enough to have those students you mentioned who always had better grades tell me they were grateful for having finally learned something.
Thanks Allen for an excellent look at the issue of action/empathy. Loved the ideas of Jesus and his skillful use of questions. Especially loved "Jack and Janice"!!. Thanks too for the mention. Much appreciated
There is a time for action, hard, physical action. Knowing when that is and when to use empathy is an important trait for us all. When your child is running into the path of an oncoming car it is time for action. Empathy comes later. Same is true for today's feminism.
That's a great distinction, Tom. Wish I had thought of it. Some men stew about injustices and wonder what to say, so never say much if anything. But writing is better, writing is action, and action helps others.
I thought you did think of it! In fact laid it out very skillfully!
Yes, I see what you mean. The funny thing is that in the back of my mind I had the idea that Shackleton's empathy was doing something. But your example of empathy vs. rescue action reframed my view. I see that empathy can be an excuse for doing nothing--since doing nothing can be interpreted as silent approval. Thanks!
Exactly. The example I used before was that of a child in a playground getting beaten with a stick by a bully child. That is no time for compassion, it is time to get off your ass and do something. After you stop the beating there is time for empathy. Both have their place but avoiding necessary action is a real problem and we see it today in spades.
I have a question for you Allen, if you don't mind. What do you think are the major reasons for men's and women's silence about feminism and the damage it is doing. It is an eerie silence and sometimes a a negative word about feminism brings a venomous attack. Why would men not stand up to that? Are they simply afraid of the response? Are they convinced no one would listen? Is it shame? Don't rock the boat syndrome? Any ideas?
I guess the related piece in boxing would be someone who fails to defend? Just drops their gloves?
I have to think more about this, Tom. It's the big question. Men remain silent on men and on women. My main thought in the last couple of hours is that most women are educated in being women from first grade if not earlier. 94% of their teachers are women who prefer girls to boys. Feminism set in in high school, if that late, and become rock-hard in college. College-educated women are those who most favor policing other people's language and who are on board with most woke causes. They are also the teachers of the young. Men are on the sidelines of all this activity, boys raising hell during recess, getting poorer grades, and so on. Benign neglect for the first years of boyhood, but by high school, the boys know they are bad. So it makes sense that they are quiet, stick to sports, circling around the female centers of power, where they will never be admitted unless they swear allegiance to the girls. In short, they don't know how to respond. Nobody has taught them to be boys or men, what to say, how to say it. They are the kids who know a knife from a fork from a spoon and now are looking at a table set for a formal dinner, 3 forks, 3 spoons, even 2 knives. They couldn't sit at that table without an education in eating. They can't sit at the women's table, either, because nobody has told them what to do or say. So they mill around, hoping a woman will notice them and save them by owning them. They don't know how to stand up for themselves. Some of them don't think they are worth standing up for. Your mantra, Men are good, and so are you, opens the door for a conversation if they want to have it. Do they know they need to have it? First line for the guy: Why do you say that, Tom?
Thanks Allen. Great observation. Boys grow up in female environments, families, schools, playgrounds, etc and are taught they are worth less than the girls. I think over 20% are now single mother families. The ones with dads are lacking in a strong masculine since it has been labelled as toxic. This leaves boys not knowing a thing about masculinity. Hard to stand up for something you don't know about.
I am in the midst of writing a post on this topic and am gathering lots of reasons that might play a role in why men are reluctant to speak out for men. Hooefully will have a poll and let readers have their say about this.
A truly wonderful piece here, Allen. I particularly admire your parsing of the Christ story. Though I have very little patience for opinionated folks who are guided by ignorance, I have had some success using the questioning method you describe here. "Why are you so hostile?" "What exactly did I say to upset you to such a degree?" "Do you believe...?"
The main thing that irks me is that folks tend to believe what they want to believe, irregardless of education and information. So I wind up asking myself, why they believe whatever cockamamie crap they believe. And this leaves me feeling exasperated, since there's really nothing they might learn that could change their minds. Why waste my time? But then I'll see someone taking the time to explain critical information, and, by God, it works!
A few months ago, I received an email from someone I thought was a friend. It was a long lecture on the errors of Israel's operations in Gaza. Since I had a lot more knowledge on the subject than he, I wondered what compelled him to lecture me. I wasn't especially polite, but I was respectful and asked if this was a lecture or a conversation. He replied that it was a conversation. So I sent him some resource material and asked him when he'd like to meet to have a conversation. I never heard back from him. As I intuited, it was never a conversation, and he wasn't interested in learning anything. He believed what he believed for his own reasons and that was that.
I'm sure there are ways of getting through to folks who are both passionate and ignorant, but I generally lack those qualities and skills. So my hat's off to those with the talent. It takes all kinds. Maybe Shackleton's way works for him. But I'm not that guy. I'm more likely going to simply declare that I think your ideas are uninformed and that you could use some further education. That's generally taken as an insult. And I figure it ain't my problem. They had to hear it from someone... should have been their teachers. I've noticed that folks who grew up being told they weren't so smart, have more humility than those who were told they were geniuses. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which all our kids are above average. No wonder the woke wonders have so much clout, especially when social media gives them a platform.
Reading this comment, I once again remember my teaching experience with, say, something powerful but not easily absorbed, e.g., Virginia Woolf's "Jacob's Room." Tremendous novel, around the time of World War I, about how the war changes a family, but, as often with Woolf, without ever rising to the surface as the subject. I used to teach courses in war and masculinity. Students had fixed ideas about war and women, but no ideas about men or masculinity, except that the latter was probably a bad thing. They were more receptive than the former friend you mention, who ignored the resources you sent. The male students liked the course, a chance to talk about war and what it meant to men as opposed to what it meant to women. Once in a while I felt pretty good about a class meeting, but often--and here, finally, is my point--I came away thinking that I got into the discussion because I got a lot out of it. Some of the best moments came from going to a particular page and having a student read it, and then analyzing what we had heard. I didn't really set out to change the way this one or that one thought; I just wanted to show them (as you did your former friend) what they had missed. As you say, the students had always been told that they were wonderful, that they were indeed perfectionists! They sat in my office and told me they didn't understand why I gave them a C or a B when all their other English teachers had given them A's and said they were wonderful and that they tried too hard. I had to keep from snorting. I usually said that perfectionists lacked humility, that our work was not something that could be made perfect, and then I turned to the plan of the paper's first paragraph. Even at that level, e.g. why is this sentence here?, I was happy with what I learned. They "had to hear it from someone," you say, rightly. But I usually found that they only listened to praise and dismissed criticism as "personal," an attack on them. I write these days to figure out what I think. Back when I was writing books about the Middle Ages, I found that I usually threw away 2 books before I could write the one I wanted to write. But I had to write 3 to get to that one. Like an idiot I saved the drafts I rejected. When I finally retired it took days to haul them out of the attic to recycling. I have always been a long-form guy, no tweets for me.
The classroom is different of course. I'm more patient in that environment because I'm literally being paid to educate. I was even lucky enough to have those students you mentioned who always had better grades tell me they were grateful for having finally learned something.