Ornoth

It’s a common belief that women by nature have a more developed sense of empathy than men. Whenever a child cries or someone is treated unfairly, we usually expect a woman to respond in a more sympathetic manner than a man.

As the generalization goes, we think that men are cold, stony, and insensitive. A man simply isn’t capable of putting himself in someone else’s place, of understanding and responding to what someone else must be feeling.

The irony of this belief struck me recently, while I was observing some guys participating in a mildly competitive but friendly game of foos. The gentlemen were very engaged and animated, vocally sharing their excitement when someone benefited from good fortune or made an admirable shot, and commiserating over the occasional unlucky bounce. And they certainly were bonding with one another through those shared emotions.

Anyone who has any question about whether men are capable of empathy would have that misperception corrected by watching a man engaged in or observing any competitive pursuit. The reason why men get so visibly wrapped up sporting events is because he knows what it feels like. That might be a different kind of empathy, but it still meets the dictionary definition: the awareness and vicarious experience of another person’s feelings.

Tomorrow there’s a rather big sporting event going on. It might be a good opportunity to watch this masculine version of empathy in action. I’d be curious to hear what you observe.

Ironically, one of our female officemates came by during that foosball game and expressed her complete disinterest, and even joked about how “into it” the guys were, mocking the men for their emotional involvement in a mere game. Does that not mean women lack the ability to connect with others’ feelings, at least in this particular fashion? Perhaps so. And perhaps our preconceived ideas about “empathy” warrant a less gender-biased examination.

I recently read David Kundtz’s “Nothing’s Wrong: A Man’s Guide to Managing His Feelings”.

I guess the first thing to relate is why that book interested me. I grew up in a family where little to no emotion was visibly manifested. I was extremely introverted and intellectual. As an adolescent, I found myself becoming ever more angry, selfish, and hateful.

Then I started dating, which was an immensely transformative experience for me. I was confused by how impulsive my first girlfriend could be, and jealous of her stunningly carefree demeanor. I decided to try to incorporate this lesson into my life, thereby gaining a previously absent appreciation for beauty, nature, kindness, and humor.

Back then, I didn’t think the intellectual and the emotional halves of my personality could coexist, so I created separate, distinct identities for them. “David” was cold, calculating, and intellectual, while “Ornoth” was impulsive, open, and joyous. One or the other would be predominant for six months to a year, while the other popped up at odd moments, and then they’d reverse. In those days, someone close to me could see in my eyes when I switched gears. That took me through college and into marriage.

Despite all that, I guess the trend was for the cold intellectual to gradually reassert itself. My ex-wife’s parting shot to me was to give me a Mr. Spock tee shirt for my birthday, an unabashed reference to my lack of warmth toward her.

In the fifteen years since my divorce, I’ve changed more radically than I ever thought possible, but the basic disconnect with my emotions has persisted. I’ve worked hard to develop compassion and generosity, but no matter how hard I look, I can’t seem to detect what most women tell me is the essence of life: my emotions.

It’s undoubtedly a difficult thing for a woman to understand: that a man really doesn’t have the emotional range or insight into his emotions that is so basic to her. I can’t speak for any other men, but I don’t think I’m alone when I admit that I’ve spent much of my life honestly doubting whether I have any emotions at all, and whether I could ever detect any I had, however hard I try.

Thus, the book.

The first thing the book establishes is that men need a different vocabulary to talk about their emotions. Women’s emotions come from their hearts, but men feel things “in their gut”. By drawing attention to the body’s physical reactions, Kundtz actually echoed themes I’ve heard in my Buddhist studies, which emphasize the physical form and its state changes as the place to look for evidence of emotional activity.

The next logical step is, of course, for a man to become more aware of the changes in his body. That would seem like a potentially productive line of inquiry, although I found the way it was presented a bit unhelpful.

“The very first and vitally important thing you have to do in dealing with any feeling is really something that you must *not* do. Don’t bury it. Don’t run from it and don’t cover it over. Just stay in the moment and feel it. Just feel it. Don’t bury. Don’t run. Don’t cover. […] Got the idea? Just stay put; don’t run. Just feel.”

That kind of rhetoric does nothing to help those of us who have stopped, have looked, and found nothing. “Just take a few deep breaths and feel whatever you’re feeling” is not only an unhelpful tautology, but it’s also thoroughly frustrating for someone who has no idea how to “feel what they’re feeling”.

Kundtz talks about this ability to notice one’s feelings and says “Without this first step, all else is doomed”, but then turns around and says, “It might also be true that at any given moment you may not be feeling anything very strongly”. Well, duh. I can’t say I’ve “felt anything strongly” in years!

The underlying, common assumption is that men are all actively suppressing their feelings, because everyone has feelings, don’t they? As someone who is reasonably mature and has actively tried to sense my own feelings and come up empty, I find that a decidedly hurtful way to dismiss my difficulties. I may indeed have emotions, but don’t accuse me of being dysfunctional simply because my emotions are not as overt as a woman’s. Defining women as normal and men as inherently abnormal is both prejudicial and hurtful.

Beyond that, as Kundtz himself is quick to point out, “Nothing’s Wrong is based on the strong conviction that there is a direct and causal relationship between violent behavior in males and their repressed (buried) feelings.” If that were true, one might well expect me to be a mass murderer, given my longstanding and lack of emotion, which can supposedly only be explained by active repression. But it hasn’t happened yet, so far as I know.

Anyways, leaving that particular issue aside for the mo’, let’s turn back to Kundtz’s three-step program to male emotional fitness: notice the feeling, name the feeling, and express the feeling. Assuming I find some way to get past step one—the real problem—there’s still this final step of manifesting the emotion.

The next question is *how*. Okay, I’m feeling happy, and maybe I can even recognize that; now how do I make a conscious choice between the myriad ways of depicting that emotion in my actions? Should I skip and jump? Should I whistle a tune? Should I go buy a drink for a cutie at the pub? How do I choose? And don’t you *dare* tell me something useless like “whatever you feel like doing”, or I’ll rip your throat out. It’s not that easy.

When he starts to talk about expressing one’s feelings, Kundtz cites a 1998 Newsweek article that reads, “when people regularly talk or even write about things that are upsetting to them, their immune systems perk up and they require less medical care”. Kundtz interprets this as “The talking or writing is the third step. It externalizes the feeling.”

That’s actually extremely good news for me, because I do a *lot* of written self-expression, as the length of this entry attests. The very first thing I turned to when my wife left me was email. Ironically, even today my real-world friends criticize me because they see more of what’s inside me by reading my blog than by talking on the phone or hanging out with me. Another funny bit is that Kundtz not only mentions writing, but also specifically calls out cycling, poker games, exercise, and meditation as other avenues for self-expression, and those are all things I do quite a lot of.

Another interesting bit is how thoroughly Kundtz disses isolation. He opens one section with a quote from Men’s Health magazine which reads, “Lack of social connection is ’the largest unexplored issue in men’s health’”. He follows with, “If there is only one change that you make as a result of reading this book, please make it this one. *Please!* Determine somehow, some way, at some time to regularly get together with friends.” I found that kinda interesting, considering I’m really the epitome of the isolated bachelor, and have recently been pondering how to reach out and craft a few new meaningful friendships.

I don’t want to give you the impression that I disliked the book. It was reasonably interesting, and successful at raising all kinds of topics for reflection. I just wish there was a little more depth to his analysis of how to detect one’s own emotions. “Just feel what you feel” isn’t helpful at all, although I’ll start watching my physiological responses to see if they provide any clues.

One last bit, which is something of a tangent. In addition to the Mary McDowell quote I’ve posted about already, Kundtz also cites the following quotation: “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. And that’s my religion.”

I think that’s about the most eloquent statement of the Buddhist law of karma that I’ve ever heard. Satisfaction comes from taking moral actions, and immoral actions produce dissatisfaction. And I’m blown away that the speaker added “And that’s my religion” as a postscript. Can you guess who the quote was attributed to? I’ll give you a hint: he has a wretched hairdo and spends most of his time on $5 bills.

Imagine what might happen if we had a president today of a comparable ethical standard.

One of the things I completely fail to understand is unmarried women who go out wearing fake wedding rings.

To a woman, perhaps the logic is sound. "If I'm wearing a wedding ring, then I'm not going to get hit on. I can avoid dealing with aggressive men, and I'll have a ready excuse for dismissing any men who do approach me."

Although that might appear to make sense, it's really a perfect example of subjective thinking. Let's look at how this really works from a man's perspective. Let's start by saying that there are two types of guys in the world: the inconsiderate and the considerate. I think that's not an uncommon segmentation for women to make.

The inconsiderate guy is really the guy that women are trying to avoid. He might be loud or pushy, but he's definitely both selfish and thoughtless. He doesn't really care who you are, he just wants to have some fun, and is looking for a girl who will accommodate him.

Is this guy even going to look at your wedding ring? In all likelihood, probably not. He'll be just as happy to chat you up and see how far he can get anyways. Maybe he thinks your ring is just decorative. Or more likely he knows that lots of women pull this stunt, and assumes that if you're around, you're available and "looking for it". He really doesn't care that you're wearing a ring; the only thing that's going to stop him is a very forcible "No"... hopefully.

Then there's the considerate guy. He's still out for a good time, but he's learned that women aren't objects, and he doesn't want to come across like a "typical guy". This guy won't barge into your conversation, and he won't assume that your presence indicates your interest in sex. This is the kind of guy that most women would enjoy: he thinks of you, he's not threatening, and he'll go away if you want him to. Unfortunately, you may never get to meet him, because unlike the other guy, he can hear what you are saying to him when you wear that ring.

It's sad that we live in a culture where women are so fearful of men that they treat every unknown man, no matter how considerate, as if they were a convicted rapist/murderer. Having been a victim of that preconception, I think it's as sexist and prejudicial as any other form of hate. But if we take that fear as a given, I think putting on a wedding ring is a pretty ineffective response to it. By doing so, you drive away the guys who would give you a fair share of respect, but do nothing to stop the selfish, thoughtless guys whom you want to avoid. In short, you're guaranteeing that all the guys you meet are going to be jerks.

That, of course, reinforces your fear of men, your impression that they are all jerks, and your sexist prejudices. As you become more and more defensive, the cycle continues to reinforce itself, and harms both yourself and all the great considerate guys out there, without ever hurting or even discouraging the real problem: the inconsiderate guys.

Doesn't seem so terribly wise to me.