Maggie's Farm

Before rejecting what Meryl had to say, I'll point out what I agreed with.  I do agree Trump needs to show more decorum, and engage better behavior, if he wants to be a good president.  He is thin-skinned and often disrespectful.  It's unbecoming.  I also agree the press does need to pay attention to what is happening and remain vigilant, and maintain its proper role as the Fourth Estate - a role it has given up in the last 20-odd years, unless a Republican is in office.  I agree the press and foreigners play an important role in society.  I agree we need to be civil toward each other, and not act like bullies.  If these simple statements were made, I'd have said "Nice speech."

But she said so much more.  The issue isn't just that she said more, but also where she said it from, and how she positioned herself in saying it.  I was left to think "Just who the hell does this person think they are?  They can't really be serious. How can she represent so many positions?"  Turns out she can't, but believes she can.

The forum was wrong.  Most Americans watch to be entertained, not preached at.  Meryl struck out with a good portion of her audience before she started.  Empathy is critical when choosing what to say to a group.  Presumably, I lack empathy (I am told I do) and my ability to say the right thing at the right time is often impaired.  But actors rely on empathy.  It's essential to successful performance.  So how did an actor with so much empathy misread her larger audience so badly?  How can I, with little or no ability to understand empathy, realize she was picking the wrong forum?  It's a minor point, perhaps.  She has the right to say what she wants whenever she wants, and certainly her Hollywood friends will support her 100% even if they know she was terribly wrong.  I will always defend her rights, and her friends will defend her regardless.  Still, it boggles their mind that anyone would be angry with what she said.  It boggles my mind their minds are boggled.

Streep then positioned herself (or the acting community), reporters, and foreigners as 'outsiders' - really, as outcasts.  Somehow they were being ignored, shunted aside, and otherwise vilified.  They were all suddenly 'dissidents'.  Yet here she was, with millions of primetime viewers, on a worldwide stage, making a point about how these voices weren't being heard or listened to.  Curious in the extreme.  I understand someone (is this empathy?) feeling left out if their choice in an election wasn't chosen.  But that hardly means you're an outsider.  There's always a loser in an election - often more than one.  Not all are outsiders or outcasts, in fact almost none are.  She claimed herself to be the spokesperson for those whose voices were not being heard.  Meanwhile, until Election Day, she was relatively certain her voice was going to be heard loud and clear.  What changed?  Nothing.  She is no outsider, she just wants to be.

Finally, she lashed out at Trump supporters, insinuating that some of his behaviors 'permissioned' them to behave poorly.  But I saw plenty of bad behavior on the part of Hillary supporters after the election.  Were they 'permissioned'?  Is this even a thing?  If we need to discuss 'permissioning', isn't Hollywood far more guilty of 'permissioning' bad behavior than a single outrageous political candidate?  Don't more people go to see bad behavior exhibited, and at times glorified, in Hollywood films?  How did his behavior or speech cause anyone to behave any differently than they usually do?

In other words, Meryl's lack of empathy was astounding.  Her inability to understand why others did not vote as she did leads her to make odd accusations and create false memes to help herself cope.  In her speech she exhibited everything that is wrong with Democrats right now.  A complete misunderstanding of what empathy is, and what it's meant to be used for.  For them, empathy is only understanding how they feel - they really don't give a damn how you feel.  Which is fine by me, because when it comes to politics, I don't let my feelings get in the way.  I need facts, not feelings.  Call me a heartless bastard, but using empathy to create a moral high ground from which to pass judgement on those you deem lacking empathy?  That is new to me.  It's uniquely fascistic, but I've seen this become more common.  It is frequently used in the workplace to chastise managers who try to get more out of Millenials.  We're simply not being "empathetic" about who they are.

Which brings me to my therapy.  Empathy is something I've worked on, since I really have a hard time understanding it.  I don't lack it, really.  I just don't exhibit it or engage it well.  I sense other people's feelings, I just don't tend to worry about them too much, because I don't expect them to worry about mine.  This creates massive communication problems at work.  Not so much with people who know and understand me, mostly with people who are unfamiliar with what makes me tick.  I am considered distant.  I've been told I believe I'm a thought leader (I've never tried to be or said I was), I've been told I'm condescending (I simply tell people what they need to hear to get the job done).  So I do work on trying to present a less of these traits.  This takes tremendous effort on my part, and when I do it I can't help but feel insincere.

However, I'm told (by my HR department and my therapist) that it's part of my job to understand others and how they feel.  OK, I'm on board, I always try to take others' feelings into account in a given situation.  My standard response remains "At what point do they take the time to understand me and how I feel?"  My therapist says that's not for me to worry about.  I can only control myself.  I agree.  However, while empathy is a one-way street, I find it difficult to engage when I don't see my counterpart utilizing it.  And boy, did I see Meryl not paying heed at all.

I'll keep working on empathy, I suppose.  I've been told my genes probably are what prevent me from showing empathy.  I doubt it, since I know what it is and I do use it.  We've reached a point where society has placed empathy on some kind of 'higher moral plane' than logic and reason, and that's what bothers me.  I say this because in my discussion with friends about Meryl's speech, I was admonished with the comment that "Empathy is important, and actors show more empathy than others because it is essentially their main tool.  You're not showing empathy for her feelings and the message she was sharing if you disagree with her." 

If empathy is pure feeling, and follows no rhyme or reason, and needs none, then I accept I'm in error.  Convince me of this, though, because I simply can't buy into that point of view.  I've tried to get a handle on this concept, and my therapist has told me the reason I can't grasp it is that I don't want to understand.  Actually, I do.  But if it's not a reasoned response, I can't accept it.  Just saying "it's up to you, and don't worry about them" doesn't cut the mustard.

Maybe I really don't understand empathy at all.  But here's where I've started to come around in understanding it.  I don't lack it, but I certainly don't embrace it all the time, and maybe not even enough of the time.  But that doesn't mean there's something wrong with me if I don't.  Yet in every discussion where I try to employ reason, I'm told to show a little empathy.  Why?  Utilizing it may temper my words a bit, and make them more acceptable to a few people, but large portions of meaning will be lost.  When I do employ it, it's often turned on its head and used to try and make me change positions.  A reasoned position won't match how I should 'feel'.  When I don't employ it, I'm "uncaring and heartless."  A moral judgement is passed based on whether or not you show the right kind of empathy.  

Empathy is an overused term, and it's often misused to create a sense of accountability where none is required.  It is something I need to continue working on, but I'm now thinking attempts to employ it are better suited for time and place situations, rather than constantly.  I just will have to accept that I'll always be considered the 'bad guy' in conversations which require rational thought as opposed to empathic response.