Empathy and Feminism
The way I see feminism is this: The feminine qualities are valuable and ennobling. It is not that women must compete with men as men, but rather that the natural feminine perspective should be given a place of honor rather than being denigrated as inferior. In other words, society itself should be restructured according to feminine values, which are, in the final analysis, the truly civilizing values.
A good example of the bias against the feminine is being illustrated in the troglodyte conservative take on Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee to the US Supreme Court, which has centered on the idea of "empathy" as a negative. In the hearings, Sotomayor played the game by saying that a judge decides on the basis of "facts" on the one hand, and the "law" on the other.
But what is missing here is that the "facts" include an entire empathic dimension. Do the facts of a particular case not include the entire psychological situation of all the players? And does Justice, i.e., Fairness, itself not include an empathetic understanding of the individuals involved, in particular those who are victims?
Empathy was being used as a code word to delegitimize Sotomayor as a woman. But in fact, it is exactly the empathetic qualities of womanhood that are needed to soften the society that often legitimizes the most obscene aspects of masculinity--competition and war.
A good example of the bias against the feminine is being illustrated in the troglodyte conservative take on Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee to the US Supreme Court, which has centered on the idea of "empathy" as a negative. In the hearings, Sotomayor played the game by saying that a judge decides on the basis of "facts" on the one hand, and the "law" on the other.
But what is missing here is that the "facts" include an entire empathic dimension. Do the facts of a particular case not include the entire psychological situation of all the players? And does Justice, i.e., Fairness, itself not include an empathetic understanding of the individuals involved, in particular those who are victims?
Empathy was being used as a code word to delegitimize Sotomayor as a woman. But in fact, it is exactly the empathetic qualities of womanhood that are needed to soften the society that often legitimizes the most obscene aspects of masculinity--competition and war.
Comments
Rick Salutin in the Globe and Mail wrote about this today and said it rather well, I thought. People who go through tough experiences and fight their way up, who have gone through discrimination, poverty, etc., would have a better understanding of these things, which people born to privilege likely don't.
I think the word "Latina" was totally misunderstood. Do you really think she meant that Latinos are superior racially? Come on.
She used the words "I would hope" and "wise" to indicate that she was NOT speaking about any divine right for the Latino people. Wise means someone whose mind and heart have been broadened by the experience of discrimination and poverty, etc., and has risen above it. "I would hope" is a recognition that it doesn't always happen.
The thing is that white guys in general are so comfortable with their "divine right" that they are incapable of either recognizing it or understanding what it is like to be in that kind of situation.
They are very empathetic where other rich white guys are concerned--bank bailouts, executive compensation, the military industrial complex, sexual peccadiloes, etc., are all pretty much OK in the country club set, but for everyone else it is "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
If you accuse her of self-promotion, well why shouldn't she? Doesn't everyone? Whatever, the charge of racism is a complete red herring. Her statement seems to me to be far fuller of self-awareness and humility than those who criticize her--racists like Pat Buchanan, who like most racists, have NO self-awareness or empathy where the so-called "other" is concerned.
Another thing that came out in all this was the accusation of affirmative action. The following article helped me recognize the worth of a person like Sotomayor. Princeton and Affirmative Action.
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
full text at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Some people in woman body are just plain mean and nasty. Not every XX [versus XY] embodied person is so nice.
In fact, jobs that have mostly women working there often have higher degree of "workplace bullying" than other job situations.
And recent www.livescience.com article said that workplace bullying has more deleterious effect on people than even sexual harassment.
Workplace bullying is very big problem in UK, Canada, Oz, US esp in teaching professions. The female supervisor and her cronies gang up on other women and do various vicious backstabbing techniques.
Anyways perhaps you are idealizing women because you have never around them 24/7...and/or have never been around a whole bunch of really competitive backstabbing female embodied karmi persons.
Like all embodied souls, my guess is of all the living beings, some women are sattvic, rajasic, tamasic, and a few are way out there.
And probably way more of the tamasic and rajasic than the sattvic ["Out of many millions, few aspire for transcendence; out of many millions of seekers, hardly one knows Me in Truth"].
Jaya Sri Radhe!
I believe that there have been studies, etc., bearing this out, showing that in countries where there are a high percentage of women in the government, the governing ethos tends to change to reflect women's concerns, which tend to take into account the social good rather than individual competition, for example.
Part of the problem that you express may be the result of an environment structured to reflect male values. Women should not have to act like men in order to be successful. This is why reserving places, such as seats in government, is a good idea.
I am NOT saying that people of non-white background or women are superior to white men. Objectively, the reverse may even be true. I am saying that the perspective of women should necessarily play a part in decision making.
A husband who takes no account of his wife's desires and interests when making a major decision will live a hellish life. So why should society be run by men without direct input from women?
One of the big interests I have is the intersection of the ideal (such as found in myth) and the real (where everything is mixed). The biggest mistakes are made when we mistakenly apply the mythical to the real in the way that you describe--i.e., expecting men or women to live up to the heroic archetypes that lie firmly fixed in our unconscious.
These archetypes are about an unattainable ideal and a sort of general direction on the external side, but mostly about enriching the inner life on the other.