Thank your examining this in detail. I have never seen any other article or writer who recognizes this female "compassionate" behavior for what it is. Seriously, not a single one.
People have noticed that I react very aggressively in response to instances of this that are done to me on my articles or posts. Maybe 2 in 10 understand why it makes me furious. Maybe 1 in 10 understands why I immediately quash it with hard language. Most people look at me and say "your male anger is the problem."
It's a Kafka trap.
This angers me more than any other kind of social abuse. Female disguised aggression is everywhere, and it gets an almost complete social pass. Objecting to it gets a man or woman punished double.
Women don’t see it because it’s so ingrained in our language patterns or if they do, they’re too afraid to say something. Plenty of men have thanked me for describing this toxic trait that they see very clearly.
Overt aggression in response to this behaviour is totally called for. Many women would do the exact same thing if you mansplained something, and they’d bring the mob.
So many points here that I would respond to but it would be paragraphs so the one that stuck the most is their actions on behalf of a victim they don’t even know or may not exist. The post MIGHT have offended someone. The language to which they object is often not describing anyone actually in the room (like straight women telling you their pronouns are she/her). The language of care is truly pathological. I stopped using the word “empathy” because it’s been evacuated of meaning. I appreciate that you used compassion instead. There’s also the intent/impact thing and I think somehow lefties were correct in their diagnosis but wrong in their prescription of what to do about it, because in their paradigm even if the impact is acknowledged the person is forever morally tainted. I appreciate this series.
The potential of offending anyone they deem vulnerable (the dead, their survivors) is sufficient to justify a response. Can’t have anyone already vulnerable feeling uncomfortable! You said it best - the language of care is truly pathological. Everything I outlined in the article constitutes antisocial behaviour.
It also seems worth noting to me that the women in the example felt justified in ganging up to attack a real individual - the clinician - in defense not of another individual, but of the abstract category of "people who die by suicide."
Remove considerations of complex and messy reality, and feelings can become unlimited, based on a map of reality which is increasingly simplistic, schematic and cartoonish. This produces the mindset of a fanatic possessed by genocidal rage.
For instance, the current conception of human rights is a double oxymoron: it is neither human, as its object is abstract groups, nor rights, as it entails arbitrary demands, not the protection of the individual from such incursions.
Ironically, all these women came out to defend the imaginary feelings of a dead person by policing the language faux pas of a man who could be more vulnerable than they are in that moment: a man recently bereaved of his colleague by suicide who are both in the psychology profession- who humbled himself to speak aloud of his dismay.
This very lack of compassion, public shaming, and relentless hen-pecking about political side issues can contribute to suicidal ideation- esp now that the psychology world is majority female there seems almost a delight in ganging up on the few men that are left. It could have even contributed to the original suicide. 😳😕
Can guarantee with 100% certainty that these winners showing offense to mundane word choices in academic settings are also the ones either actively marching for Hamas and other terror organizations or egging on those who do.
The one who died and the one who lauded the one who died were both men. That would be a factor.
I had intimate dealings with someone who fits the definition of a narcissistic sociopath. She can derail any conversation doing this. Nit-picking words in a conversation when she doesn’t like the direction it is going.
Mainly it was about taking over the conversation so she could become the ‘moderator’. She resisted anyway else being ‘in charge’.
Oh the volumes I have on language policing by women in service of those who are perceived to have been harmed…
A little over a decade ago, I was with a small group of friends and neighbors with a few small children around, toddlers really. One of the neighbors was walking their friendly and beautiful dogs towards us and you could tell the dogs wanted to interact with the kids. Toddlers, being at eye level to dogs, were at first a bit hesitant to touch the dog but I figured a little coaching from me would help the toddler overcome their fear. As I reached for the dog to pet him, my question to the toddler, “Do you want to pet the happy puppy too?”, was met immediately with a loud stern – near venomous – correction, “ It’s a DOG don’t confuse her!”.
It was a completely unexpected and unnecessary, and I was immediately irked something fierce but the puppy was too happy of a distraction so continued petting the dog. I will never forget that seemingly inconsequential moment though. Was an instant of overt language control and small public shaming that is branded in my mind.
No one cares what term you use to refer to someone killing themself. The person who came up with the idea of replacing 'committed suicide' with 'died by suicide' was a self-important twat. They mean the same thing and people take them exactly the same way. All this changing of terms to supposedly protect people from harm is covert aggression and should be rejected.
Interestingly, the mother of the deceased commented on the Linkedin thread. She seemed grateful to the women who were correcting the post's author. Survivors don't like their deceased loved one to be seen/described as a criminal or in a shameful way. I get that and I also think that most people don't intend to shame the deceased when they say 'committed suicide'.
Oh my, those screenshots! It’s so performative and ugly vs a private, kind, ‘I appreciated your piece and I’m sorry about your colleague. Just a thought about phrasing … ’ message.
I mean.
In this scenario I could post and say ‘as one of those survivors you are concerned about, this is not the way to do things’ BUT then I am just adding to the problem by appealing to another form of toxic compassion! It’s so pernicious and hard to challenge when it happens.
Appreciate this, thank you so much … lots of really thoughtful and practical stuff (and humbled for the inclusion of my own brain dump of course).
A lot of this makes sense. Would you go as far to say it is the female equivalent of male trolls? Just attention seeking behavior but instead of the lonely male troll who is seeking to fill his own insecurities by centering attention on himself, the female version is oriented towards satisfying their insecurities through centering the conversation on around a performative group.
Just as male trolls make the Internet an unwelcoming place, female online activists do the same. Mess up one word and the pile on happens. I get caught in the gender/sex mix up sometines when I write too quickly. It doesn't mean I am transphobic. Language is hard and complicated. Humans - male and female - all make mistakes, have bad days, have hormones, use mind altering medications as well many other factors that influence our words and behaviors. It's unfortunate that our brains are wired to judge and condemn others/strangers as quickly as possible then move on. Worked well in the savannah not so much online.
I have experienced female trolls and it’s not quite the same. They’re just time suckers. I see this as a female mob performing compassion while suffocating the male target with ‘care’.
The males who added to the pile on in the chat. There were a few, including a Rabbi and it surprised and annoyed me. Rabbis should know better than to get involved in public humiliation because it's a sin. Men who simp for these type of women might just be the equivalent.
Apologies. I have one more question. Is it better to say masculine and feminine traits? Like trolling is a masculine trait which is why it's mostly men but that doesn't mean women don't. Same with toxic compassion is a feminine behavior but makes can do it as well just not the majority? Is that a better way to think about it? I might be out of my depth here 😂
"Stone, when have you been so certain that you were helping that you never stopped to ask about the effect you were having on the person in front of you?"
Hi, Nathalie! If you referred to me, I think I behaved exactly like that several times more than I could remember. As you said in this excellent post, anger gives us a feeling of urgency. And if we don't control that, we can say and do very evil things in the name of good intentions. It is the same tribal behaviour we condemn in some tribes but not in others we participate in.
And sometimes we end up looking ridiculous because of that behaviour, particularly in the eyes of people who are more virtuous than us, and rightfully so. The ridiculousness of the behaviour is worse when the person we attacked corrected us with right arguments and kindness. So even if we value status over other things in given contexts, what you wrote in this post applies as well: it's better to think before we talk and act.
I appreciate this reflection and thanks Stone for responding to the personalised prompt (I’m experimenting and I think it’s freaking some people out). It’s so important to have awareness of how our actions can be perceived by others and how ridiculous we can come across, especially when they respond with grace. Cringeworthy moments are effective at pushing us to change.
(I wrote a response before this but it seems it wasn't sent, so I respond again). Indeed, shame can be a good tool sometimes.
I found your personalised prompt almost by chance. I appreciate that you chose me in this occasion. It felt like "Oh! Nathalie mentioned me!". It was good.
Great article, about the irony when people claim (rightly so) empathy is important perhaps to virtue signal, while themselves seemingly failing to show empathy.
I think a lot of people like to use the word to describe themselves or the attribute they value without having a clue about what it should look like in practice.
So much of this seems to be a "grown-up" (I use that term loosely) version of high-school cliques, with their gamesmanship, cuts, and exclusionary behavior, enforced by overwhelming peer pressure.
Not to say that men don't have their toxic group dynamics (boy, we do!).
East Carolina University changed their mascot from a (male) pirate to a skull and crossbones to make it gender-neutral. Keep in mind that that's also what you see on a bottle of poison, and it's not gender-specific, either.
If there's a litmus test to be had (maybe more of a rule of thumb!), ask yourself: Are you raising these issues with someone in a spirit of love (especially love for the person you're confronting!), or are you making a self-interested power play or committing an act of self-aggrandizement?
Good reflection questions. Unfortunately, women who are attached to their compassionate identity won't be able to reflect honestly. No one wants to believe they would do anything for self-aggrandisment so the natural default is 'Of course I'm showing love because I'm a good person!'
Women are conditioned for this and reinforce it in each other. It’s all passive aggressive. We need to own our anger and aggression and express it honestly. Toxic compassion is dishonest. Another great post, Nathalie!
Thank your examining this in detail. I have never seen any other article or writer who recognizes this female "compassionate" behavior for what it is. Seriously, not a single one.
People have noticed that I react very aggressively in response to instances of this that are done to me on my articles or posts. Maybe 2 in 10 understand why it makes me furious. Maybe 1 in 10 understands why I immediately quash it with hard language. Most people look at me and say "your male anger is the problem."
It's a Kafka trap.
This angers me more than any other kind of social abuse. Female disguised aggression is everywhere, and it gets an almost complete social pass. Objecting to it gets a man or woman punished double.
Women don’t see it because it’s so ingrained in our language patterns or if they do, they’re too afraid to say something. Plenty of men have thanked me for describing this toxic trait that they see very clearly.
Overt aggression in response to this behaviour is totally called for. Many women would do the exact same thing if you mansplained something, and they’d bring the mob.
So many points here that I would respond to but it would be paragraphs so the one that stuck the most is their actions on behalf of a victim they don’t even know or may not exist. The post MIGHT have offended someone. The language to which they object is often not describing anyone actually in the room (like straight women telling you their pronouns are she/her). The language of care is truly pathological. I stopped using the word “empathy” because it’s been evacuated of meaning. I appreciate that you used compassion instead. There’s also the intent/impact thing and I think somehow lefties were correct in their diagnosis but wrong in their prescription of what to do about it, because in their paradigm even if the impact is acknowledged the person is forever morally tainted. I appreciate this series.
The potential of offending anyone they deem vulnerable (the dead, their survivors) is sufficient to justify a response. Can’t have anyone already vulnerable feeling uncomfortable! You said it best - the language of care is truly pathological. Everything I outlined in the article constitutes antisocial behaviour.
Another insanity: seeing dead people as "vulnerable."
That's truly next level neurotic.
Imagined oppression!
It also seems worth noting to me that the women in the example felt justified in ganging up to attack a real individual - the clinician - in defense not of another individual, but of the abstract category of "people who die by suicide."
Exactly. They felt justified. Feelings over facts.
Remove considerations of complex and messy reality, and feelings can become unlimited, based on a map of reality which is increasingly simplistic, schematic and cartoonish. This produces the mindset of a fanatic possessed by genocidal rage.
For instance, the current conception of human rights is a double oxymoron: it is neither human, as its object is abstract groups, nor rights, as it entails arbitrary demands, not the protection of the individual from such incursions.
Ironically, all these women came out to defend the imaginary feelings of a dead person by policing the language faux pas of a man who could be more vulnerable than they are in that moment: a man recently bereaved of his colleague by suicide who are both in the psychology profession- who humbled himself to speak aloud of his dismay.
This very lack of compassion, public shaming, and relentless hen-pecking about political side issues can contribute to suicidal ideation- esp now that the psychology world is majority female there seems almost a delight in ganging up on the few men that are left. It could have even contributed to the original suicide. 😳😕
It didn’t matter what his social position was. He was a man who broke a rule. Hell hath no fury like a women witnessing a norm violation.
🎯💯 it’s also just the chance to signal to the others their moral superiority. It’s so gross.
Can guarantee with 100% certainty that these winners showing offense to mundane word choices in academic settings are also the ones either actively marching for Hamas and other terror organizations or egging on those who do.
I would agree with that too.
The one who died and the one who lauded the one who died were both men. That would be a factor.
I had intimate dealings with someone who fits the definition of a narcissistic sociopath. She can derail any conversation doing this. Nit-picking words in a conversation when she doesn’t like the direction it is going.
Mainly it was about taking over the conversation so she could become the ‘moderator’. She resisted anyway else being ‘in charge’.
I would agree. Women would behave differently if the author and the subject of the article were female. This behaviour is antisocial.
I’m glad your intimate dealing with a Cluster B woman is in the past!
I wrote it past tense. I wish it were fully true.
Oh the volumes I have on language policing by women in service of those who are perceived to have been harmed…
A little over a decade ago, I was with a small group of friends and neighbors with a few small children around, toddlers really. One of the neighbors was walking their friendly and beautiful dogs towards us and you could tell the dogs wanted to interact with the kids. Toddlers, being at eye level to dogs, were at first a bit hesitant to touch the dog but I figured a little coaching from me would help the toddler overcome their fear. As I reached for the dog to pet him, my question to the toddler, “Do you want to pet the happy puppy too?”, was met immediately with a loud stern – near venomous – correction, “ It’s a DOG don’t confuse her!”.
It was a completely unexpected and unnecessary, and I was immediately irked something fierce but the puppy was too happy of a distraction so continued petting the dog. I will never forget that seemingly inconsequential moment though. Was an instant of overt language control and small public shaming that is branded in my mind.
No one cares what term you use to refer to someone killing themself. The person who came up with the idea of replacing 'committed suicide' with 'died by suicide' was a self-important twat. They mean the same thing and people take them exactly the same way. All this changing of terms to supposedly protect people from harm is covert aggression and should be rejected.
Interestingly, the mother of the deceased commented on the Linkedin thread. She seemed grateful to the women who were correcting the post's author. Survivors don't like their deceased loved one to be seen/described as a criminal or in a shameful way. I get that and I also think that most people don't intend to shame the deceased when they say 'committed suicide'.
Oh my, those screenshots! It’s so performative and ugly vs a private, kind, ‘I appreciated your piece and I’m sorry about your colleague. Just a thought about phrasing … ’ message.
I mean.
In this scenario I could post and say ‘as one of those survivors you are concerned about, this is not the way to do things’ BUT then I am just adding to the problem by appealing to another form of toxic compassion! It’s so pernicious and hard to challenge when it happens.
Appreciate this, thank you so much … lots of really thoughtful and practical stuff (and humbled for the inclusion of my own brain dump of course).
A lot of this makes sense. Would you go as far to say it is the female equivalent of male trolls? Just attention seeking behavior but instead of the lonely male troll who is seeking to fill his own insecurities by centering attention on himself, the female version is oriented towards satisfying their insecurities through centering the conversation on around a performative group.
Just as male trolls make the Internet an unwelcoming place, female online activists do the same. Mess up one word and the pile on happens. I get caught in the gender/sex mix up sometines when I write too quickly. It doesn't mean I am transphobic. Language is hard and complicated. Humans - male and female - all make mistakes, have bad days, have hormones, use mind altering medications as well many other factors that influence our words and behaviors. It's unfortunate that our brains are wired to judge and condemn others/strangers as quickly as possible then move on. Worked well in the savannah not so much online.
I have experienced female trolls and it’s not quite the same. They’re just time suckers. I see this as a female mob performing compassion while suffocating the male target with ‘care’.
Gotcha. So what is the male equivalent of toxic compassion if not trolling?
The males who added to the pile on in the chat. There were a few, including a Rabbi and it surprised and annoyed me. Rabbis should know better than to get involved in public humiliation because it's a sin. Men who simp for these type of women might just be the equivalent.
Understood. Thank you for clarifying Dr. Martinek. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Pleasure! Here is a fine example of male trolls that I've seen women do too: https://www.hackingnarcissism.com/p/trolls
Apologies. I have one more question. Is it better to say masculine and feminine traits? Like trolling is a masculine trait which is why it's mostly men but that doesn't mean women don't. Same with toxic compassion is a feminine behavior but makes can do it as well just not the majority? Is that a better way to think about it? I might be out of my depth here 😂
"Stone, when have you been so certain that you were helping that you never stopped to ask about the effect you were having on the person in front of you?"
Hi, Nathalie! If you referred to me, I think I behaved exactly like that several times more than I could remember. As you said in this excellent post, anger gives us a feeling of urgency. And if we don't control that, we can say and do very evil things in the name of good intentions. It is the same tribal behaviour we condemn in some tribes but not in others we participate in.
And sometimes we end up looking ridiculous because of that behaviour, particularly in the eyes of people who are more virtuous than us, and rightfully so. The ridiculousness of the behaviour is worse when the person we attacked corrected us with right arguments and kindness. So even if we value status over other things in given contexts, what you wrote in this post applies as well: it's better to think before we talk and act.
I appreciate this reflection and thanks Stone for responding to the personalised prompt (I’m experimenting and I think it’s freaking some people out). It’s so important to have awareness of how our actions can be perceived by others and how ridiculous we can come across, especially when they respond with grace. Cringeworthy moments are effective at pushing us to change.
(I wrote a response before this but it seems it wasn't sent, so I respond again). Indeed, shame can be a good tool sometimes.
I found your personalised prompt almost by chance. I appreciate that you chose me in this occasion. It felt like "Oh! Nathalie mentioned me!". It was good.
That is awesome little feature you built, kind of like a mirrored Easter egg.
Great article, about the irony when people claim (rightly so) empathy is important perhaps to virtue signal, while themselves seemingly failing to show empathy.
I think a lot of people like to use the word to describe themselves or the attribute they value without having a clue about what it should look like in practice.
So much of this seems to be a "grown-up" (I use that term loosely) version of high-school cliques, with their gamesmanship, cuts, and exclusionary behavior, enforced by overwhelming peer pressure.
Not to say that men don't have their toxic group dynamics (boy, we do!).
East Carolina University changed their mascot from a (male) pirate to a skull and crossbones to make it gender-neutral. Keep in mind that that's also what you see on a bottle of poison, and it's not gender-specific, either.
Some mean girls never mature out of it.
If there's a litmus test to be had (maybe more of a rule of thumb!), ask yourself: Are you raising these issues with someone in a spirit of love (especially love for the person you're confronting!), or are you making a self-interested power play or committing an act of self-aggrandizement?
Cui bono? The "oppressed" group, or yourself?
Good reflection questions. Unfortunately, women who are attached to their compassionate identity won't be able to reflect honestly. No one wants to believe they would do anything for self-aggrandisment so the natural default is 'Of course I'm showing love because I'm a good person!'
Wait what did I do? Lol
Women are conditioned for this and reinforce it in each other. It’s all passive aggressive. We need to own our anger and aggression and express it honestly. Toxic compassion is dishonest. Another great post, Nathalie!
Thank you Kelly! We women have some work to do!
Bless you for writing this.
Pleasure! Thank you for reading it.