Women Do Have it Harder
Dear [J],
Okay, first, let me align myself with your thesis here. I get the impression that the physical nature of women forces the fairer sex to endure more pain than men in general. Women are burdened with the monthly pains of menstruation. They must carry the bulk of the load of physical suffering when it comes to birthing. They can sometimes even be disfigured by having a baby. And they must deal with menopause. Not that a man’s life is totally pain free. I just think that a woman through the course of a normal life must deal with a great deal more pain than a man. And assuming that the amount of suffering experienced directly impacts how compassionate a person is. women are by nature, more compassionate, because they suffer more. Yes, I would agree with your observation that suffering instills compassion in its victims.
Additionally, the domineering, controlling attitudes that many men are raised to have, would seem to interfere with their ability to demonstrate sufficient compassion for another. How so?
The dictionary defines ‘compassion’ as a motivation to help another or to be merciful, the origins of which appear to be pity. And ‘pity’ is defined as a feeling of sorrow or sadness, arising out of the observation of another’s condition or situation. But in order to pity well (and therefore express genuine compassion), one must be able to empathize with another, to actually feel the others’ pain, to walk in the others’ shoes as it were.
Yet between many men and their mates, a sort of barrier exists. Men are often unable to (or have no interest in) feeling, along with the women. What is this barrier? Ego perhaps? Throughout our classic literature, men are frequently identified as having enormous egos, so big in fact that there is often no room within their character make-ups, to consider different points of view. Smaller egos might have rendered our wars far less bloody. But what are the symptoms of a big ego?
With a large ego comes a driving need to “be right” or to have all the answers, to be hard, rigid, unyielding, controlling, and insistent. But in order to be compassionate, one must be quite different. He must show a bit of humility, acknowledge his own weaknesses so that the other might be comforted by the reassurance that she is not alone. The caring person recognizes another’s rightness, deferring his need to be right. He is soft (as in soft hearted), and flexible — to accommodate and support his lady in whatever she may need to do to rise above her suffering. But apparently, the attributes of excessive ego are the opposite of those of compassion, are they not? You are correct about how society shapes the experiences of men and women so differently. These dissimilarities are no doubt responsible for the overly large egos of men, and the compassionate natures of women. Our patriarchal society (to borrow your terminology) rears its men to be egotists, not “compassionists”. 
Many live their whole lives without making the transition from egotism to compassionate pursuits. However, there are certainly some compassionate men out there. Either empathy was born into them and they were raised to be that way, or were once were egotists but somehow learned to sincerely pity and assist. So, regarding those who WERE egotists but somehow switched to a more altruistic life style, your friend has asserted that hardships in their lives may have been responsible for enabling them to change. I agree with this. But how does it work? How does the suffering experience deflate the ego and instill compassion in a man?
First off, suffering humiliates. It unequivocally demonstrates that we are NOT the all powerful beings that we (especially us men) like to think we are. It drives us from Olympus and teaches with brutal force, that our continued existence is just as fragile as the next person’s despite outward appearances. We learn just how delusional the belief that we are “better” than another really is. And so we are less likely to ridicule and judge harshly when someone comes to us in true need of our help. This therefore, can shift our behavior away from selfishness, toward compassion.
Second, suffering equips us to better empathize. How? The pain and suffering can become so great that, regardless of how independent and righteous we perceive ourselves to be, we are forced by the intensity of the pain, to seek help from another to soothe it. Whether the aid comes from a doctor to cure a cancer, or a psychotherapist to mend a broken heart, or even from a good friend to hear us gripe about how bad a day we had, its effect cannot be ignored. We learn of the positive effects of another’s comforting nature, and thus, would tend to understand someone’s need for such a hand lent to them, from ourselves. In this way, having suffered makes us more appreciative of another’s suffering I believe, because we have a common frame of reference, the experience is shared. Having experienced enough pain allows to understand pain in others in a most reassuring and helpful way. It makes us more compassionate.
Unfortunately, I do not know how a man could learn genuine compassion short of real suffering. Some things cannot be assimilated by just reading a text book but must instead, be experienced.
There. Whacha think about that?
