The problem isn't gays, it's empathy!

[Mythsaje]

Or, rather, a lack thereof. People with no ability to stand in another person's moccasins for even a second. To know what it means to be ostracized for being different because they've spent their whole lives trying to figure out how to fit in. How to be JUST LIKE THE NEXT GUY/GAL.

All my life I've been one of the odd ones. In grade school I was the bookworm...I never learned the social games, and never had any interest in learning them. How to play along with assholes to be "accepted." That kind of acceptance I didn't need.

All through school I was the weird one in one way or another. I never struck anyone as quite 'right.'

So it's not all that hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone as marginalized as members of our GLBT community here.

Bullies are people who never develop, or are incapable of developing, any level of empathy. The only thought processes they can grasp, the only life experience they can envision, is one EXACTLY like their own. And rather than try to see something that's outside their own experience, they try to force it into something they CAN comprehend.

It's impossible, of course, but that doesn't stop them from doing it.

That's all this gay-bashing is...bullies who can't see past the nose on their own face. People that don't feel comfortable with anything about themselves that isn't quite "normal"... Whatever the fuck "normal" is.

It's the same thing that leads them to harbor hatred against women, blacks, 'liberals,' or any other sub-community they can't understand. Tiny little minds, afraid of everything inside themselves that doesn't quite conform to the 'norm,' and railing against it by railing against everything outside themselves that doesn't quite fit their image of 'normality.'

Our schools don't teach empathy. They don't. They teach conformity, not only overtly, but through the intricate and often covert dance of social expectations. We ALL belong, and we all harbor things that make us different than one another. We should teach the children how to appreciate these things, and how to look beyond the obvious to see the value in individuality.

And, yes, this could create some problems as well. It's an inconvenience to try to see things in all colors of the rainbow rather than in black or white. It's an inconvenience to realize that we're all different, and are given different gifts, as well as burdens to carry.

There can be no 'one size fits all' education. Because it doesn't.

But it needs to start early. We have to figure out how to teach empathy, and self-realization, from an early age. Why being different is not only to be expected, but admirable.

I think this is one of the things we failed to do over the course of the last thirty or so years, and something we need to focus on again.

Without it, only those who are natural empathetic--those people who are liberals-born, or raised that way by liberal parents--will ever understand who and what we are.

[Snaggletooth]

1. As anyone who has ever tried to buy pantyhose knows,

"one size fits all" solutions don't actually "fit" anybody.

Snaggletooth the Crone

[jesus_of_suburbia]

2. Excellent post!

Mythsaje,

I try to surround myself with people like yourself.

[Mythsaje]

5. Thank you...

I've tried to do the same, but I notice that non-comformists don't really group well. <g> We tend to wander off a lot.

[silverweb]

3. Thank you, Saje.

Very well stated, as always.

[FairVotes4all]

4. Man, Is it just me or is the general Democratic population...

...getting more and more Eloquent by the day?

Man, If only the republicans had an ounce of concience....

[Mythsaje]

7. Or empathy...

;)

[niyad]

6. this was a wonderful article. remember the song from "south pacific"?

"they have to be carefully taught"


Cable:
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.


You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

[Mythsaje]

8. It's been years since I've seen that...

I'm afraid I have to admit I don't remember it.

So true.

I remember there was a poster hanging in my grade school office that said something about "if you treat children with _____ you teach them _______. I wish I could remember what it said, exactly.

Not as though most of the teachers lived by it. The Principal did, but he was a heck of a guy. Probably his poster.

[hfojvt]

18. I think the missing word is

contempt.

Speaking of empathy though. How much do you have for them? Whoever "them" is. Is it the 60+% who voted in Missouri and Kansas to change their constitutions? Or is it the much smaller percentage of hate mongers who want to push this wedge issue because they know it will a) bring out their base and b) be supported by large pluralities and c) distract from their other policy failures - war, deficit, and environment? Have you walked a mile in their moccasins or are they some kind of canaille or vermin?

[FantasticFlan]

9. Similar background, and I agree, but...

I think empathy naturally increases over generations, and with it acceptance. My generation is more accepting than my parent's, theirs more accepting than their parent's, theirs more than theirs, and if you look at history, it just goes back like that.

That's why they have to get this thing done now. Most of my generation and beyond either don't care or care in the other direction, if the courts don't do their job first, gay marriage will be a protected right soon after we become a majority voting block.

[Mythsaje]

10. I'm not sure if that happens in a general way...

Empathy, I mean. I don't think we're more empathetic as a culture than we used to be. The exposure has been good for us, but I think that has more to do with the acceptance than anything. When I was in high school people were still VERY homophobic. There wasn't any real visibility in the media and a lot of people were shocked when someone like Judas Priest's Rob Halford came out of the closet.

I had to laugh, since I knew pretty early. The leather and studs were a little over-the-top, even for heavy metal. He came across as more gay TO ME than Prince ever did. Of course, we know now that Prince was anything but gay.

Freddie Mercury didn't surprise me either.

I think being a writer allowed me to put myself in situations, personally, that many of my generation would never have considered. I hung out with freaks because I LIKED freaks. But in many ways I was the freakiest person in my circle of friends. In some ways, I suppose, I wasn't, but I wasn't freaky in a way I felt shamed by. That wasn't quite true of everyone I knew... (One guy's currently in military lockup for child porn on his computer).

I've always been more disgusted by "alpha" males than gays. The 'bad boys' who seemed to get all the girls and then treated them like shit.

Then again, I'm the sensitive writer type, so I guess that figures. :D

On edit: Welcome to DU, btw!

[FantasticFlan]

12. All I can really say is yeah, it does...

I graduated a Kansas high school in 2000. There were a small number of openly gay students and no voiced homophobia. When a friend of mine "came out" and got into some trouble with his parents over it, the whole class rallied to support him.

I can't really sit hear and type out evidence of the general manner of progress I claimed, just to say that's what I see when I look back through history. Our lack of empathy peaked with the horribly misnamed idea of social Darwinism, and we've been coming down from that ever since. We've gone well past the level of empathy that existed before that and show no signs of stopping.

I share you're feelings on "alpha" males v. gays, oddly though I'm the insensitive writer type.

And how many posts do I need before people stop welcoming me? I'm not used to this much politeness on the internet.

[Mythsaje]

13. Probably about between sixty and eighty...

We're a pretty welcoming bunch. It's always nice to see new faces, so to speak.

[area51]

14. Welcome to DU, FantasticFlan. (n/t)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

15. zZactly!

Sociopaths

[Withywindle]

16. Beautifully put!

I think there are three kinds of people who lack empathy.

There are the true sociopaths who just aren't capable of it. Deep inside (as deep as they get, which isn't very) they don't believe other people are real.

Then there are those who are capable of it but are so weak and scared inside they have to fight it off and spit on it. Think of the man who's disgusted and infuriated by the very idea he might have a "feminine side," think about the white person who's horrified to think of being "other" and discriminated against like a black person, etc....These are the ones who get violently angry at being expected to identify with someone else. These are the ones who always blame the victim, because they're too terrified to admit that being homeless, being raped, being in fear of your life in an occupied country, etc., could happen to THEM.

Then there are those who have just led extremely sheltered lives and are self-absorbed and ignorant of other people's realities. There's hope for them with education and growth, provided they don't turn out to be one of the other types.

[eridani]

17. Might this be possibly biological in part?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x9625

And if so, what do we do about it?

[rucky]

19. Well, if we are as empathetic as we say we are...

I suppose we try our best to assure them that we're not out to get them.

I agree with the continuums, but would like to add another one:

an adaptability-Control (mutability/rigidity??) continuum

at one extreme, man is constantly at odds with their environment, and attempt to control it: change their surroundings to make them feel comfortable. the other end changes themselves to fit their environment.

This is why they really really DO feel threatened by gay marriage, brown people, liberals - or anything else foreign to them that they can't control. it doesn't even occur to them to adapt - because to do so would make them vulnerable. Their solution is more dramatic attempts to control. This is what religious zealots, big corporations, and bigots do - try to control or destory - rather than adapt to their ever-changing reality.

Just off the top of my head: Another option is to divert their energy to more benign causes. They don't seem to have a beef with modern technology providing the fixes for our problems - that's why they support an obscene defense budget. If we can offer nonviolent technological ways to replicate our environments (smart homes) that should make them feel safe most of the time - seeing as they'll be spending most of their time in a controlled environment. It won't make them any less fearful of outsiders, though.

[eridani]

27. Good addition

If I ever get around to rewriting, I'll add that one.

[Mythsaje]

21. That's an interesting topic...

Too bad the thread's so old.

I'm not sure I grasp any link between social conventions and empathy, however. I tend to be very empathetic--though there are times I can turn it off just because it's too painful to allow to run in certain situations--but there are certain social conventions I don't grasp at all. My wife, on the other hand, tends not to be particularly empathic, yet she understands these conventions.

I can't provide you with examples simply because I'm generally mystified by some of them myself. There will be moments where I'd be expected to act a certain way and I don't and my wife will tell me how I was supposed to respond. Often times, I just don't get it at all.

Then again, I don't need social conventions to be considerate of others, though sometimes my lack of understanding of these social norms tends to leave folks a bit...puzzled. I'm not a big fan of artificiality, and some of these things strike me as horribly artificial, behaviorial masks we wear because we lack something real with which to respond.

I guess the best example I can think of is the classic "I'm sorry," when someone tells you that someone close to them has died. There have been times I've used it, but I never feel comfortable with it.

[eridani]

28. Social skills and empathy are on two different tracks, IMO

One track involves the ability to "read" other people, and the other the ability to identify with them. I'm not Asperger's, but I'm geeky enough to have a lot of trouble telling when people are putting me on. That doesn't stop me from having a comparatively high level of empathy.

[Mythsaje]

29. I actually "read" people pretty well...

I just don't necessarily 'get' some kinds of social behavior. Never have.

[bloom]

23. That is interesting - I had missed that post. Conformity.

Conformity comes to mind.

As was mentioned in this OP.

I think you can have 2 people - one on the left/one on the right - they may both lean toward depression, toward not reading social signals, toward dealing with people in what seems to be the most logical ways that you can. They may both have Asperger's (or not).

Where the difference comes in - is one chose non-conformity (the one on the left) and the one on the right chose conformity.

The non-conformist doesn't expect herself/himself to be like everyone else and allows others the same deal. This seems like a very logical thing. It's possible as part of the mix that morality is more important (such as to an Asperger's person) than to others and the non-conformist may expect everyone to be try to behave morally - but with looser parameters than the conformist. It may be a simple matter of not doing harm to others - the golden rule, etc. And that has it's logic as basic social harmony.

The conformist (esp. an Asperger's type conformist) - the one on the right - may become obsessive about it. It may be working for him/her to completely follow some exact script (why fundamentalism appeals to them - scripts about everything) and so they assume that what works for them should work for everyone and that their way - like heterosexual marriage - should be codified into law. So nobody can deviate from the script. So everyone has the exact same morality - and those who don't - don't get the benefits of society.


In this - it isn't about "empathy" - it's more about basic morality - and how it is defined. Do no harm & the golden rule - OR - Do it This way, the Strict Father way. The right-winger might THINK that they believe in the golden rule - but that is because they expect everyone to conform to THEIR way - not any other way.

It's the same thing in the abortion debate. Anti-abortion people expecting people to conform to their way - not allowing that there could ever be extenuating circumstances and not allowing that not everyone thinks the same. It's not using the golden rule to say that others must make the SAME decisions that you make - that's the conformity rule.

For the broader question of what is best for society (if that is the basis of one's morality) - it makes MUCH MORE SENSE to have gay marriage than not to - more people in secure relationships - and with the rights afforded to those relationships. Same with abortion - it makes more sense for women to have children that they are ready to have. From the perspective of the whole (and the individual - either way).

The right-wingers arguments fall apart so easily - when they say that abortion harms how people view life - when they turn around and support the death penalty, war, torture, poverty, etc. Same with gay marriage - their argument supports instability and promiscuity - things that they are ostensibly against.

I think it's simple conformity. That's why patriotism and nationalism work so well for them. It's all about conformity. So is the military for that matter. (Non-conformists might pretend to love it - because they are bullied - but the military - esp. under the leaders we have now - is the opposite to morality - and since this military is not defending us - it cannot reasonably be defended).

[terip64]

20. I have always believed that empathy is the highest level of thinking.

[sinkingfeeling]

22. Teaching empathy used to be called parenting. But with these

bullies concentrating in their little niches, they are isolated from experiences outside their 'sameness'.

The classic examples of those without an ounce of empathy are Bush and Cheney.

[Jawja]

24. And they use "god" through the backing

of religion to excuse their shortcomings and validate their bullying.

[applegrove]

25. That is what the Bush WH has tried so hard to teach.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

26. WALK A MILE OR TWO IN THESE MOCCISINS

KICK IT WITH "EMPATHY if you have any" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1374892