Dear [Melinda],
But before I get to that, I’d like to make some initial comments. I wanted to include a few definitions (for the words pity, compassion, and empathy) here for your consideration. Just follow the links to see them.
Given these definitions, I’m curious. You have described yourself with pride seven times during our conversations of late, as an empathic person. Now it seems to me that compassion is but one small step further toward the display of the purest forms of kindness. So let me pose the following questions:
- If it’s really true that you can effectively identify with the feelings and situational stresses of others (you are empathic), then I’m puzzled as to why you object so vehemently to he who asks others to show him understanding and compassion; particularly when that person’s hardships are well-documented? When a person asks for help, he takes the guesswork out of empathy because the empathic need not figure out what he really needs if he’s forthright about it. As an Empath, wouldn’t his frankness about his limitations make your job of walking in his shoes easier? If it would, then why would you such admissions so abhorrent?
- Is it possible to be maximally empathic if you’ve never experienced a particular hardship? For example, could you really understand what someone else is going through if you’ve never dealt with their difficulties yourself? Perhaps to a degree. I mean, we can certainly be kind to those so troubled without really knowing their suffering first-hand. We need have never experienced a cold night sleeping on a Philly street for example, to know that he who does this suffers immensely. But what about those hardships that aren’t so universally well-comprehended by the mainstream population? Examples of these include: Mental retardation, most forms of mind sickness, and autism. Would you be as empathic toward someone whose hardship you did not understand? I ask this because I’ve noted that people (not you specifically) who boast of their empathy often come up short when asked to assist others that carry the most profound hardships. I wonder if you’d therefore be so opposed to my pity-soliciting letter if you’d ever experienced legal blindness and bore the stigmas associated with it yourself? This is strictly a non rhetorical question.
- Why would a person take such pride in his empathy, yet react with such disgust when another asks him to demonstrate his empathy by showing kindness to (or to pity) him? I ask this, not to put you down, but rather to acquire a better understanding of my own discomforts surrounding the sending of this request for special dispensation to women. Intellectually, I have no problem with my argument. That is to say: When one is truly in need and has spent decades attempting to fulfill that need on his own but with only marginal success, then there’s nothing wrong with him asking for extra help But emotionally, I’m not convinced. Understanding your aversion to pity-seeking might help me eliminate my apprehension about doing it. Either that, or I’ll learn that this is not something I really want to do. I suspect that both our discomforts are based more in cultural more’ and superstition than solid fact-based reasoning. Simply put: There’s really no good reason for our objections except that most others find asking for and accepting pity distasteful.
- Compassion and pity are perhaps the finest outgrowths of empathy. That is: They give meaning to its admirable quality, just as the thrills of spending money and the personal betterment that such spending affords make it appealing. People want money because spending it wisely improves their quality of living. If one could never spend his money, what would be the point in working so hard to earn it? Likewise with empathy. What practical value is empathy that results in no visible acts of kindness? Is empathy just a trophy that we keep inside the display case and boast about but never take out and demonstrate? Empathy as I see it is a frame of mind that creates the motivation necessary for reaching out and exerting sustained energy to help the needy. If one never extends a gentle hand however, particularly when he is asked to do so, then I submit that the presence of empathy in his heart means nothing. Empathy in and of itself is no more than a good intention, and so it cannot by itself augment a person’s appearance of goodness to others. Only his actions can do that. So if he has empathy but does no kindness with it, then he might as well not have it at all. Without its external manifestations (kindly, understanding acts), empathy is reduced to a trite triviality. You can appreciate this I’m sure, since you say that love is defined much more by a man’s actions than his intentions.
- Are you really so empathic if you take such great issue with the help-seekers in love? Now you’re an attractive woman, and by your own accounts, you’ve captivated the hearts of numerous men in the twelve years we’ve known each other. This leads me to think that you’ve never experienced the levels of desolation that would make someone desperate enough to go pity-seeking. There are those who go for decades without finding love. But you don’t know about this firsthand. Perhaps then, you think that they’re making their situation harder than it needs to be or that they’re exaggerating its defining parameters. I’d urge you not to dismiss the validity of others’ problems solely because you’ve never experienced them yourself.
I’ve noticed that your attitude toward the word pity seems to have a negative connotation which I cannot find in its definition. Please explain. Apparently, this word has been stigmatized, and perhaps it’s time to dispel the stigma.
Perhaps people distance themselves so strenuously from pity because it can suggest that those offering it are underestimating the capabilities of those to whom it is presented. I remember a software development class I took at work. A fellow there was mulling over an assigned problem for which I’d already found the answer. I offered to share my solution since the problems weren’t for credit. But man, oh man, was he offended! He immediately backed away asking, “I don’t need your help. Don’t you think I can do it?” I hadn’t intended to anger him. I wanted to help (not shame) him. But put off he was nonetheless. He, like so many, viewed the acceptance of help, particularly from someone vision-impaired, as an admission of inability. Heaven knows that our culture forbids us from admitting to our shortcomings, probably because no one likes to be underestimated, and he thought that I was doing just this by presuming that he might need my help.
But pity in and of itself, when it’s offered for purely altruistic reasons, is a good thing as I’ll discuss at length below. As such, I see nothing wrong with asking for it when the need is genuine and other means of satisfying the need have been exhausted.
I’d also say that I don’t believe this strategy will work with most women. After all, many other reasons besides prejudice, ignorance, and concealed compassion compel ladies to reject suitors before knowing them. Men are similarly moved (or not) by women. In my case, I would most likely not date an overweight female or one who is shorter than myself, no matter how much she pleads, no matter how heart-wrenching her reasoning. This is not mere prejudice, because I’ve dated many heavy and / or shorter females and consistently found the experiences lacking. In this case, my preferences come out of genuine experience and not from misunderstandings and childish ideals. However, many people reject a person without ever having tried similar people before. It always amazes me that so many teen-agers and young adults have such long lists of requirements of their mates. They want ‘em tall, dark, and handsome of course. But some of them get really wild. One 22-year old black woman I recently read about sought the following:
- Income of at least $150,000 / year.
- Plays a musical instrument.
- Works as a fireman or police officer.
- Black male (No whites, Indians, pacific islanders, or Hispanics allowed).
- Christian (no Jews, atheists, or non spiritual people allowed).
- Must be between the ages of 21 and 24.
- No brainiacs allowed.
So I asked questions like the following:
- What could a $150,000 / year man give her that would be really important to the sustenance of a relationship, that someone who made, say, $80,000 / year could not? She didn’t know.
- Had she’d ever dated someone who did not play a musical instrument. Her answer was no.
- Had she ever considered a computer scientist or a store manager? No, she hadn’t.
- Nor had she ever gone out with Protestants and Jews.
- Did she even know what an atheist was? She did not.
- Why was she opposed to dating older men? She told me that her sister had a bad experience with a 45-ish gentleman. So this youngster concluded that all older males make undesirable lovers.
- Why did she want to avoid the more intelligent males? Again, she never dated one but always considered them “geeky” and weird.
Before she and I talked, this woman had been assuming that her experience would invariably be unfulfilling with each and every one of these male types. But she had little firsthand proof of that. Almost all her tastes in men were based on misinformation, disinformation, folklore, and myth. Obviously, she demonstrated little capacity for independent thought, and she wound up sniffling in the corner on the floor once the extreme ludicrousness of her baseless, prejudging ways was shown her. I’m certain that today, she views men differently and is more willing to keep her mind open for longer periods after meeting a new man.
So many feel as they do because their parents taught it to them, or in the case of the young adult, they reject an otherwise suitable suitor because their friends do, not because they themselves have a real problem with the person. Clearly, they’re missing out on potentially wonderful relationships because they resist the effort and time it takes to really give someone a fair shake. Not only does this prejudicial prejudging hurt them, but it hurts those so judged.
Sometimes however, these girls can be shown how needlessly restrictive and unjustified their first impressions are. Some go down more easily than others. But none accept this immediately in my experience. There are many out there, where the only reason they say no is exclusively because of their misunderstandings, inexperience, and prejudice. It is these that this letter asking for pity targets. Now I admit that there may only be a few per 1000 women who would change their minds after reading the letter. But at this point in my life, every little bit helps. Picking up those few extra points in my favor is worth incurring whatever humiliation such a request for extra kindness entails. I know that practically none of them have ever dated a handicapped person before, or even befriended one for that matter. It’s my mission to show them what it’s like.
Now with all that said, let’s get to your letter, where I’ll further justify this mission and further show why it has the distinct possibility of eradicating at least a little prejudice out there.
Yes, I know you disagree [that eliciting pity is a valid means of overcoming prejudice]. That’s why I asked that you pretend. :-)
Yes, passive resistance works at times. At others however, it can get you killed. Just ask the blacks who practiced this prior to the Civil Rights Act. Many suffered irreparable injury because they allowed people to beat them. I wonder how effective they would have deemed this passive resistance to be after they’d become encumbered with the chronic pain and paralysis that so frequently resulted from the beatings. There were surely many regrets.
As we’ll see below, asking for help, and bolstering that request by citing one’s difficulties, is not the same as playing the victim.
No no. You’ve misinterpreted. I’ll be sure, in the final letter, to clarify this point somehow, so that others won’t read it wrong as well. But let me say the following:
- I consider myself most worthy. My level of self-esteem is not the problem. I’m just frustrated that it’s taken this long to realize my dreams. Believe you me; I know that I’m a good guy – upstanding, highly moral, honest, affectionate, thoughtful, responsible, and caring. I value my health and take daily steps to preserve it: No drugs or alcohol, no smoking, minimal refined sugars, and no caffeine. The issue however, is that women generally don’t see me as being worth as much as I know I am, and a big reason for that is that they spend no time getting to know me. They rule me out before ever seeing where I truly shine. I think you would agree that this is unjust, and a primary goal of any healthy and free society is to minimize injustice. I’m indeed worthy of attracting women, and they should be [encouraged] to see that. I believe whole-heartedly that I deserve them. But historically, I just have not been able to interest the ones I desire. Acknowledging this history does not lower one’s sense of self-worth however, and thus, it cannot be accurately interpreted as symptomatic of low self-esteem. In fact, a realistic assessment of field conditions, which I believe I’m providing by acknowledging my difficulties, helps in the creation of a better solution to the problem. One cannot solve a problem by denying its existence.
- I’ve “work[ed] on myself” as you call it, for nearly three decades now. And after years of trying and failing to meet others’ expectations, I came to understand that I am good enough to exist happily. If I didn’t think like this, then I would have given up on my dream long ago, and began to play the victim for real. I would have accepted failure and made excuses for giving up the quest. But resignation has never been my mantra in this particular pursuit. I’ve never been pushed into inaction by the victim mentality of which you spoke above.
- I’d also point out here as I do elsewhere in this note, that merely believing that one is worthy to solve the problem doesn’t get the problem solved. I can believe (to the point of arrogance) that I deserve a beautiful woman. But that in and of itself, won’t draw them to me. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. Such extreme attitudes I find obnoxious, lacking in humility, and self-destructive, and I know that just about all the women I’ve known feel likewise.
- As far as simply dismissing those who don’t agree that I’m worthy and attractive: One can do this if there’s plenty of others to choose from that like him. But when these people are very rare, then other options must be considered. Educating the disinterested is one choice. In my situation, I can no longer just throw them away because they initially are unimpressed. As a simpler example, it’s easy to toss out the single bad apple from a barrel where all the others are ripe and healthy. Even with half the apples rotten, just discarding them is still a practical approach because the other half are good, and there would be less effort involved in finding a good one than attempting to salvage the good parts of a bad one. But when almost all the apples show some signs of rot, now we can’t afford to discard them because we’ll go hungry if we do. Instead, we must find the least bad apples and trim the rotten parts away. So while it’s tempting to say. “to hell with those who don’t agree,” I’ve been forced to hold my tongue because my successes to failures ratio is so low (approaches zero). In other words, I can no longer say to hell with them. Again, if it takes a solicitation for compassion to get through their walls of prejudice, then so be it.
I believe my paradigm to be proper given the history and circumstances from which it grew. I’m worthy and respect myself highly. That’s why I care so much about maintaining my health. I just have no illusions about the difficulties I’m facing, and if I deemed myself as worthless as you suggest I do, then I’d not be chasing my dream girl.
While this may be outwardly true in the main [that people who don't believe that they're worth a high salary don't get a high salary], there are many cases where people insist that they’re worth a high salary when in fact, they’re not. Yes, arrogance can work to a person’s advantage, particularly if the company needs his skills. However, people who chronically overestimate their indispensability don’t inspire much respect among their peers and subordinates. Their attitudes cause strife, hurt feelings, stress, and encourage a cut-throat mentality among the ranks which undermines the team-player ideal that most of today’s corporations embrace. Sure, these self back-patters may win their fair share of battles. But ram-rodding their way to the top right through the sensitivities and sensibilities of others is neither good for them, nor those working with them. There’s little that’s more repulsive than unjustified confidence.
Also, I’d point out that there are many other reasons that a person might receive a high salary besides his insistence that he’s worth it. If he’s truly good at what he does, and if the company needs what he does, and if the company will profit by retaining him at the salary he requests, then they’ll pay him well and keep him. Even if they perceive him as meek and unassuming, they’ll worry that if they don’t fairly compensate him, then someone else will. So I’m certain that it’s not always the case that the humble do not make high salaries.
Admittedly, a degree of earned confidence combined with self-assertiveness is necessary for this. But these are frequently over-rated. People place too much emphasis on appearing confident and too little time actually acquiring the skills and experience that would make them genuinely confident. They spend all too many of their hours tooting their own horns rather than actually learning something to enhance their usefulness. There’s nothing I found more off-putting as a technical leader, than when a new hire fresh out of college would come in, and within six months, expect to change the world. These recruits acted like they knew more than the seasoned engineers, and thus felt that they deserved more money. People of today just aren’t willing to wait their turns for cracks at the big chairs, and this is a major reason that I find the corporate structure so detestable any more. The newcomers all too often cross the line from assertiveness to greed, giving unfortunate credence to the notion that the good guys finish last. After all, the upstanding fellows wouldn’t stoop to such greedy and arrogant techniques, and so, very often, they do wind up at the back of the pack even though they’ve got many more valid reasons for their self-confidence than do the juniors. The thing is that there’s more to acquiring confidence than just believing in one’s self. Granted that this positive self-assessment is a crucial ingredient in confidence. But without good reason to believe, such as the possession of highly sought skills or a well-established history of success, the self-belief is hollow and airy, and thus, it means little. Unjustified exaggeration of one’s worth therefore, won’t get them a higher salary, unless the boss is extraordinarily gullible. Attitude without the evidence to support it would in fact squelch a person’s chances at a high salary.
Finally, in reference to your CEO, your past comments indicate that he’s not too likable. He may have the dollars, but not the popularity. So, how successful is he really? Is he someone that you admire? I’d also remind you that many of these overly aspiring individuals do not in fact, get what they think they’re worth. As a result, they spend much of their lives unfulfilled and thus, unhappy. I put it to you therefore, that overestimating one’s worth frequently doesn’t work as often or as completely as you might think, to secure him the best socioeconomic status. It often has the opposite effect.
[Can the same be said of people in the process of finding a mate?] Perhaps. Perhaps not. This attitude doesn’t seem to have worked for numerous others I’ve known. It seems clear that your health is failing you and that you harbor lots of resentment and dislike toward those in your command structure and elsewhere in the company. You’ve left many, many more jobs in your career than I. Now if you like switching jobs every two to four years, that’s cool. But this makes you appear chronically unhappy, and intensifies my impression that you are no closer to living your life’s dreams than I. So any advice you might give in this area seems questionable. Again, be careful about appearing too self-righteous.
Given the fallacies of this I-think-I’m-worth-so-much-so-therefore-I-am approach to living, I wonder if it would in fact, be any more effective in winning the mating game than the more genuine down-to-earth approach that I use? My impression is that women don’t like a guy who, through smoke and mirrors, leads them to believe that he’s better off than he actually is. His confusion of aspiration with reality would make him appear painfully pathetic and disingenuous to any woman smart enough to detect it. A more grounded and, in my estimation, better approach would be to be forthright about one’s strengths as well as his weaknesses, and then let the chips fall where they may. True, the honest will not win as often. But the victories they do secure are the most benevolent and least hurtful to others. Even in Plato’s time, they knew that the liar is far more likely to win life’s finest gifts. But does this make his unjust techniques right? Do the ends justify the means? I suggest not.
I think you’re exaggerating some otherwise very small semantic differences in word definitions. Generally, the word attractive means someone who is pleasing and thus desirable. It does not imply that the interest is just physical, or just mental, or just short-term, or anything specific at all for that matter. It just means interest in general, and says nothing about the quality of that interest. Now in order for me to want someone, I must be attracted to them. Thus it follows that they must be attractive to me. What you say next depends on this attraction, even if it does not say it explicitly.
[You say that you're looking for someone whom you want, and who wants you equally.] Well, for you this may be the correct mindset. And yes, it may politely generalize the mating desire while concealing the underlying details about what makes for such mutual wanting. But what, if I may ask, fuels this wanting [...]? As I just said, as I see it, it’s attraction in some form or other. What else could it be? So why not use the word attractive?
You’ve commented on how much you admire my down-to-earth nature. Well, one of the tenants of maintaining such a persona is being honest, forthright, and as transparent as practicable with others. So, in line with that, I admit that yes, I do feel some desperation about this. Perhaps this is akin to that redoubtable biological clock that women hear as they approach menopause. It’s normal for desperation to ensue when someone believes that she’s running out of time to have a baby, particularly when she’s passionately yearned to mother for her entire adolescent and adult life. So why not be honest about the desperation? Desperation is a reality of human existence that our culture unfortunately sweeps under the rug. Now I know that therapists galore advocate putting one’s best foot forward and to hide any negative data, particularly at the beginning. They have popularized this notion and it’s become so woven into the fabric of our customs and practices that most people today can’t imagine living any other way. But this approach has definite drawbacks:
- It encourages people to focus more on creating illusions of attractiveness than honing the traits that actually foster attractiveness in others, and as we’ll see, these creations tend not to last.
- It gives them excuses for not performing their best. For instance, why lose the weight if you can wear girdles that conceal those extra pounds? Why avoid smoking when there’s makeup that hides the premature wrinkling and spotting that frequently results?
- It undermines the longevity of love-at-first-sight (LAFS). You’ve noted how short-lived LAFS can be. Well, a primary reason for this is peoples’ manipulative tactics. Folks make themselves up, hide their imperfections, behave in exaggeratedly polite and yielding ways, and as such, create a more favorable impression than their real character warrants. But they can’t keep up the acting for long, and once they begin to teeter and falter, so to does the LAFS they originally inspired in their mates.
- As such, this misleading persona creates needless disillusion in relationships once the fakery falls away. This generates more money for the therapists since people seek them for the quick fix, and therefore it calls into question the real usefulness of the best-foot-forward philosophy. The disappointed want the therapist to tell them why they stopped loving their lover, and spend thousands of dollars for that answer. But the free and best answer is that they fell in love with an illusion created by their lover. Once the lover stopped creating the illusion for whatever reason, they fell out of love. A large part of the mating game involves this bate-and-switch strategy of trickery; and it has for eons. But in spite of the historic precedent of this “harmless” fibbing, I tell you that we’d go a along way toward alleviating today’s unhappiness if people learned to put their natural foot forward in the first place, instead of hoodwinking potential lovers into believing that they offer more of the traits of attraction than they actually do. We’re programmed to exaggerate our good sides while shrouding the bad. This may help us in the short term to get the girl, but over the long haul, it harms society. How so? Read on…
- Deception violates the Golden Rule. People are always doing things to others that they’d rather not have done to themselves. Surveys for example, suggest that people object far less to telling lies than they do to being victimized by them. No one enjoys being played for the fool yet so many play others for fools and view this as acceptable behavior. Now I do not mean to disparage women in general here. But I all-too-often hear that age-old lament: “Wow, things were going so well between he and I. But as soon as we went to bed, he went off to find someone else.” The women blame the men and their “shallow” ways. But I contend that females share the blame here because their own behaviors (which deceive the man until he gets them into bed – no hiding then) bring this about.
- Deception promotes insecurity in men and women alike. As women assimilate this game of trickery, many become ashamed of their bodies and are thus afraid to show them, even after many months of coaxing. They learn that they cannot possibly interest a man without pretense. Of course, a simple walk down South Street in Philly on a warm Sunday afternoon dispels this notion. There, we find couples who do not prop themselves up on the weak stilts of body decoration. Some wear no makeup, and avoid clothing that accentuates and detracts. Yet men still walk with them and love them. People don’t need all the goop because while it may initially snare someone’s heart, it won’t last. This sort of thing is starting to impact men as well, now that male pedicures and facials are coming into vogue.
- Lying needlessly complicates mating rituals. It’s easier for all involved to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yet our rituals, such as they are, require a measure of creativity, in order to mislead and convince more people than we might otherwise, that we’re loveable. And unfortunately, these measures seem to work somewhat. But this doesn’t make them ethical. That is, the ends do not justify the means.
- It promotes the excessive use of alcohol and illicit drugs. With all the insecurity, defensive tactics, vengeance, and other stressors that current mating practices generate, people look for relief in the drink, the pill, and the smoke. I’m sure you know the detriments of this behavior, so I’ll not elaborate further on them here. I’ll just say that like the other mating instruments discussed above, the positive effects of alcohol in the mating game, in spite of its wide-spread popularity, are also most temporary, and most expensive. When a person drinks, he feels good for, what, two to three hours? Then he’s often wiped out for all of the next day and beyond. And if he did manage to get a woman to come home with him, he regrets it as soon as he takes one look at her in the daylight of sobriety that follows. Thus, the little story: At two o’clock I went to bed with a ten. But at ten, I woke up with a two. Not good.
- Lying erodes society’s moral pillars.
I could go on about the negative effects of the treacherous strategies employed by both men and women these days to find true love. But so you won’t fall asleep, I’ll stop here. :-) I’ll just conclude that the problems you’ve cited with love at first sight [LAFS] may not in fact originate in LAFS itself, but rather, grow out of an unhealthy mating game in general. LAFS is real and it can last provided that both parties maintain an open and honest air throughout their romantic relationship. If they don’t, then it won’t.
Again I feel compelled to point out that even with the best behaviors and attitudes, a man may still remain largely unattractive. Remember those disfigured people I told you about from my high school? As noted, many have the sweetest personalities, but are viewed as undesirable by their mainstream contemporaries.
I mentioned Maslow because I thought you’d know his work since he’s mentioned so often in corporate managerial classes. Though he died in 1970, he’s still considered one of psychology’s most forward thinking and on-point clinicians. His hierarchy of needs triangle, which is based on the idea that gratification is healthy and frustration is pathologic, really seems to organize well the progression of needs satisfaction in humans. His discussions reveal that one has not realized his maximal potential to be happy until all of the following needs are met in order listed below:
- Food, shelter, and clothing needs. Obviously, a person will seek food, clothing, and shelter before he does anything else. Otherwise, he won’t survive.
- Once those are met, then there comes the Safety needs. A person must feel safe, without the fear of being harmed, in order for him to pursue the goals at levels 3, 4, and 5.
- The love needs (familial and romantic needs). Once people satisfy their food, clothing, shelter, and safety needs, they usually want to secure love.
- The esteem needs (recognition from others).
- Self actualization needs (Needs to express creativity, innovativeness at work, and such).
Check out Abraham Maslow’s book Motivation and Personality for a detailed explanation of this hierarchy.
My point in bringing this up is that in order to be the best we can be at levels 4 and 5, according to the Maslownian school of thought, we first must satisfy our romantic associations. If we do not, we won’t go as far or do as well at work or among friends in other social settings. You’ve heard the saying that behind every good man is a good woman. This is probably true because this good woman helps him meet his level 3 needs for love, and thus, he is unencumbered by loneliness and sexual frustration, and he can therefore do a better job at work and in his communal activities that cater to level 4 and 5 needs..
This is not to say that people without love in their lives cannot succeed in the other areas. But true love has the effect of spicing everything else up by enhancing one’s enjoyment of all other activities, not just the loving itself.
Finally, worrying about achieving the highest levels of happiness is indeed a worthy concern, for the following reasons:
- When one is happy, one is healthy or at least, is more predisposed to good health than when he’s sad and depressed. He can more quickly and completely recover from more illnesses and can better avoid them in the first place when his immune system is uncompromised by the typical stressors of unhappiness.
- The happier one is, the higher his quality of life. He gets along better with others because he’s more accommodating of their needs. He would connect in more energizing ways with his neighbors, because happiness begets more happiness.
- Society loses out when unhappy people die prematurely. Unhappy people do indeed die before their times. Get them to be happier though, and they’ll live longer and thus, with more time for reflection and introspection, they’ll be better able to acquire wisdom and pass it on to subsequent generations. The happier the current generation, then the more benefit it will bestow upon subsequent generations. Imagine if we could have added ten years to the average lifespan one to two hundred years ago. If Einstein had lived longer, it’s humbling to think about what further great contributions to science he would have made. The same with Edison and Bell and so many others. Imagine all those undiscovered edisons and bells that never became famous because they died before they had a chance to utilize their talents. Make people happier, and we reduce these losses.
- The happier one is, the more he’ll strive to help others find happiness. When all of a person’s needs are satisfied, his selfishness fades. He contends less with others for what he wants because by definition, his happiness indicates that his primary desires are met. Happiness promotes harmony, and we certainly need more of that today.
- The effects of disappointment are minimized. The happier one is, the more firmly he can stand against life’s disappointments involving loss of a lover or family member, loss of work, discovery of a long-term illness, and so on. The happier we are, the stronger and the more independent we are.
- Happiness promotes benevolence. Happy people fight less and the need for hidden agendas and other forms of subterfuge all but vanishes. If people were as happy as they could be, then they’d have no reason to swindle their neighbors because there would be nothing that they’d want so badly that they’d consider it worth behaving immorally to get. Without this trickery, people would have much less reason to fight. Thus we’d see a more peaceful human nature develop.
With all the benefits of maximal happiness to the individual and to society, it’s clear that attaining joy for all should be a primary goal of any enlightened nation that wants to survive longer than a millennium or so. We should not dismiss it therefore, as “a big time-waster” [as you've done in your latest letter. 
In response [to your interpretation that I have this I-am-handicapped-I'm-a-victim attitude], let me make the following points:
- There does seem to be a perception problem here, I agree. So perhaps I’ll use different words to express my sentiment. The problem here is with the words used, but not with the sentiment itself.
- My code of ethics demands that I not hide the handicap or obscure its resulting difficulties. It is what it is, and to do so would violate my down-to-earth living policy. Though people who have never experienced it would rather that those who have just keep their mouths shut, the truth is that I can no longer keep silent. Whether a victim or not, the handicapped life is tough, and it’s time to heighten mainstream awareness of that fact.
- As noted above, thinking with clarity about the difficulties of being handicapped is not the same as using the handicap to justify one’s sense of worthlessness. I’m realistic about the limitations of low vision but am not daunted by them, nor do I believe myself to be any less deserving of the fulfillment of my dreams.
- Admitting one’s handicaps differs markedly from stating that he’s a victim. People who play the victim tend to paint their situations as more grave than they actually are. They look for ways to get over on the system and escape the usual hardships that most others must endure to achieve success. These types believe that they deserve the prize without having to work as hard for it as someone else. But that’s not what’s going on here. I’m not attempting to circumvent my share of fair hardship in dating. Unlike the child who fakes an illness to get out of school, I’m not faking. My difficulties are real, I’ve carried them all my life, and it’s unlikely that they can be overcome without the support and compassion of the women in my life.
No. I’m not a victim; just someone who’s strongly motivated to get love from his dream girls. If, by “straightening out this unhealthy mindset,” you mean that I must conceal my unique hardships, then I believe that the mindset that you’re proposing is no healthier than mine.
You may not ask in so many words for a pity party [when you ask your boss for special consideration when yuo're sick]. But you do get dispensation for your illnesses, and, by your own accounts, you accept it most fully. You don’t have to ask, because current corporate policy provides this allowance. You’ve commented often about how understanding your boss is regarding your frequent absences and how much you appreciate it. And yes, I agree that employees should be treated this way.
The sicknesses you’ve endured are commonplace nowadays. They’re widely experienced by much of the workforce, bosses and subordinates alike. Thus, most people either know what it’s like firsthand to be sick, or they can imagine the difficulties a particular malady poses pretty accurately since they’ve known similar ailments themselves. It’s easier for them therefore to understand and empathize when a coworker becomes ill. As a result, they’ll often go easier on him until he’s better. That’s today.
But there was a time when bosses were not so accommodating, and viewed workers who needed time off to nurse a cold as slackers, and denied them raises, bonuses, and promotions accordingly. Often, the sick were fired for showing insufficient dedication to the job or they were judged as too lazy. Policies prior to World War II incorporated far less compassion than they do today. If you were working during the industrial revolution a hundred years ago and got sick as often as you do today, your boss would have fired you long ago. Fortunately thank goodness, times have changed.
So how did the white-collar workplace of the 21st century come to regard illness as a valid constraint to productivity, as opposed to in previous centuries, where it considered illness a grave sign of weakness? This transition happened due to scores and scores of people challenging the status quo as follows:
- Some unionized and through the collective bargaining process and other less savory practices, made it difficult for management to profit unless it acknowledged workers’ ailments.
- Others, who had no union support, relied on the courts and legislature to understand their plights and to mandate a more compassionate work setting.
- Still others, such as those working in small businesses who could neither afford a lawyer nor to unionize, had to plead with their bosses for the needed convalescence time. In the early days of the industrial revolution, before laws forbade worker cruelty, any time off was granted on a piecemeal basis, and was only secured through the sick person’s begging the boss to show a bit of compassion. Whether or not the people actually received the time off largely depended upon how compassionate the boss was feeling at the time.
- The rest kept quiet about their ailments, and many died before they should have because they couldn’t afford the time off to heal themselves, and they dared not ask bosses for any because they feared that doing so would tarnish their good names.
The tyrannical bosses in the 19th and early to mid 20th centuries were neither compelled nor inclined to grant sick time, insisting that such requests were merely ploys by employees to avoid work yet still be paid. These profit mongers were notorious for firing the ill without making any effort whatsoever to accommodate them. And as a result work places were filled with apprehension as people feared confrontations with the redoubtable boss and wondered every day whether they’d have a job tomorrow. You would agree I think that by today’s standards, such work conditions were horrible and would be tolerated by less people today than back then.
But clearly, if folks hadn’t risen up and renounced such practices, the all-mighty profit margin would still be the supreme dictator of corporate policy today. Fortunately however, due to the creation of organizations like The Occupational Safety And Health Administration (OSHA) and the Labor Relations Board among others, this systemic brutality is far less prevalent today. The mistreatment of workers is no longer as profitable as it once was, and I contend that the seeds of this movement toward a culture of heightened compassion were made up of the meek and the weak asking for help from the powerful; by soliciting compassion and pity from them. A commonplace tactic of the disadvantaged was to:
- Show their would-be benefactors the hardships they faced daily.
- To convince them that such hardships were debilitating, slavery-like, and torturous.
- And then to outline the changes necessary to reduce said hardships.
Often, this tactic failed. But very often, it worked. The laws that created suffrage for women, rights for minorities, and safer working conditions for all would not have come into their current, advanced form without a measure of pity that the weak instilled in the powerful. People in high places felt sorry for those beneath them in the social pecking order, and wanted to help make things more right. Therefore, this phenomenon cements the role of compassion as among the most weight-bearing pillars in our civilized society. I shudder to think what our culture would be like today if pity were completely excised from our history. Without it, we’d still be as barbarous as in times of antiquity where the gladiator, revered for his brutality, drew more crowds the more violent he was. If those countless thousands so brutalized hadn’t cried out, and if the influential majority hadn’t heard them and felt sorry for them, this practice would probably still entertain us today.
Now if you still don’t think that pity works to better the lives of those who ask for it, then consider the Jerry Lewis Telethon that was held almost every September during the latter half of the 20th century. This actor raised billions of dollars to assist those suffering from muscular dystrophy (MD) by letting the public see firsthand his deformed and decrepit beneficiaries. He graphically depicted their suffering; the braces they had to wear to keep their legs straight, their daily torment at being unable to bathe and dress themselves, and perhaps most movingly, the lives of solitude that those afflicted typically live. People avoid them because without understanding, they perceive the hardships as too leachy, sacrificial, and otherwise too difficult to accommodate. But the telethon helped to dispel prejudice and showed potential benefactors that meaningfully helping the MD patients really wasn’t so difficult after all. Because the sick were willing to place themselves on public display and admit to the full extent of their hardships, they engendered monumental compassion which fueled an outpouring of wealth the likes of which hasn’t been seen since. The able-bodied came out of the proverbial woodwork to assist once they better understood, and today, their generosity has resulted in numerous medical and psychological breakthroughs that reduce the pains MD. These folks live far better today because they went to the rich and powerful with their hats in their hands so to speak, and asked for help. Does this asking make them losers? I think not.
Now back to my letter [asking women to temper their judgement of me with compassion] we’ve been discussing: Virtually every woman I’ve encountered seems to reject me for among other reasons, ignorance and prejudice. They’ve never dated someone vision-impaired before, and so do not know what it’s like. They fear it because they don’t know it. They detest it because of their misunderstandings about it. Among the more popular premature assumptions they make and have communicated to me are that:
- I’m too needy.
- They won’t know how to meet those needs.
- A legally blind man will consume too much of their time.
- I’m lazy for not having overcome my limitations by now.
- They wonder why I’ve not taken surgery to fix my eyes. They believe, in their ignorant fashion, that surgery can fix all eye problems, and so conclude that I should have had it, and think I’m psychologically damaged because I haven’t.
- They think me incapable of making a living.
- They assume that if I am chronically lonely that it’s exclusively my own doing, and therefore don’t wish to help. They regard me as a bum.
- A modest income like mine currently, implies that there are seedy behaviors and questionable character traits involved.
- They’ll have to put more work into the relationship than when dating someone fully sighted.
I say it’s time to take a more active role in dispelling their prejudices by showing them that the more tightly they hold on to their faulty information, the more alone they make me. This hopefully, will generate compassion in their hearts; at least enough to motivate them to take a closer look. This approach is no different than those that the blacks employed to secure their freedom or that women used to acquire voting rights or that pre World War II workers used to evolve a more compassionate work culture in the post industrial age. At some point in any struggle for justice, compassion plays pivotal roles. So I don’t see any problem with taking steps, as is done in my pleading letter, to bring it to the surface. Securing the same level of acceptance for the handicapped in the mainstream dating arena is no less valid a social problem than minorities’ struggles for civil rights or any other freedoms. So why not use the same techniques?
Finally, where’d you get this idea that asking for help is identical to admitting that one is a loser? Why do you imply that seeking assistance and understanding makes he who does so a loser? Would you suggest that the Jerry’s kids on the telethon I spoke of above were losers because they sought extra measures of kindness? The fact is: We need not be independent to win. For example, successful people ask for and get help every day, whether it be in corporate endeavors or familial tasks at home. In fact the most consistent winners, very often, most effectively delegate and thereby tap most efficiently the talents of subordinates. They succeed by effectively asking for help, and they’re not losers for having done so. In my case, I’m just asking women to consider my limitations and the rough time I’ve had before they choose to reject me. Acknowledging a limitation and asking for help to overcome it makes not one a loser.
Well, if that [challenging and grumpy] attitude [you have when people bother you when you're sick] works for you, then go for it. It seems though that you’ll needlessly upset bosses with this arrogant vent, and then, they won’t be as willing to cut you a break. I see several problems with this screw-you-if-you-don’t-understand-me attitude:
- It creates needless hostility and thwarts harmony.
- It makes you appear like you’ve got a chip on your shoulder. When you approach a boss this way, it sounds a lot like you’re blaming them for your problems. Not a good idea.
- It ignores the concerns of others and as such, it makes you appear insensitive. You’ll agree that the boss’s chief concern is maximizing productivity. If you appear to dismiss his concerns as you seem to in this tirade, then you’ll likely alienate him / her.
- It makes you appear overly selfish because you are more focused on your own good than that of the team. Ultimately, I agree that we must put ourselves first. But shouting this ideal with such powerful words is almost never wise.
- It discourages others from empathizing with your position, particularly if you refuse to discuss your difficulties in a more inviting manner. This attitude of that’s-the-way-it-is-and-too-bad-if-you-don’t-like-it actually challenges people to resist you all the more. Why should they want to accommodate a person who displays this kind of blatant disregard for their sensitivities? You seem to expect their understanding here. Unfortunately, another’s understanding is generally not a right, but a privilege that we earn through treating them equivalently. Again, the Golden Rule applies, and I know that you’d be hurt if someone responded this way to you.
- It drips of excessive machismo. We’d expect to find this sort of attitude among young adult uneducated males, but much less so in educated, well-established females such as yourself. Simply put, your words above do not become you.
- People who go off like this are viewed as bad team players and as such, your success in most corporate environments will be seriously curtailed. Since virtually every corporation utilizes the team-player mantra, disregarding team concerns, as you seem to do here, will probably mean needless difficulty and stress for you. People will resist such colorful and negatively emotional language because it shows a distinct lack of empathy in you for them.
- It communicates your sentiments too loudly. You know, in Ham Radio, there is a code of ethics when operating a radio transmitter that says: Use no more power than necessary to maintain effective communication. It’s bad practice to use the maximum allowable power of 1500 watts whenever less than 1 watt would work well. In short, it says: Why yell when a whisper will do?
- There’s almost never a good time to employ the “F— off” sentiment. You might win a few battles with this, but you’ll virtually never endear yourself to anyone with this your-concerns-are-trivial-next-to-mine-and-screw-you-if-you-don’t-agree attitude.
- People often use bristling bluster like yours above, to conceal their weaknesses. Might you be doing that here? If so, you’re not fooling anyone. It’s widely understood that males, and yes, sometimes females, beat their chests and thunderously roar to deceive their competitors into thinking that they’re stronger and more menacing than they actually are. It’s an outgrown tactic of intimidation which doesn’t work well these days, particularly in white-collar work places where, presumably, the people are more educated and attuned to current serological trends.
- This implies that you don’t need your boss’s understanding. But you do because it is generally he who decides the type of work you receive, how well you’re compensated for that work, and who, along with his peers, determines your rate of progress up the corporate ladder. If you alienate him, you risk future advancement and perhaps even your job.
- This rant just doesn’t make you seem very likeable. You could have conveyed the same sentiment with far less abrasive language than is contained above. If I were going to say what I believe you’re attempting to communicate about your sickness, I’d word it something like this: “Gee, I’m really sorry I can’t make your deadline. But I’m very sick. However, I promise that you’ll get my work when I feel better. I know you need it right away and I feel awful that I cannot get it to you sooner. But if I attempt to do it right now, while I’m still feeling lousy, it won’t be of very high quality and you’ll definitely not like it. I understand that you might not be able to wait until I’m better. So maybe we could delegate the project to someone else while I heal. “ Rather than the bluster it’s better to fully own up to our sicknesses / weaknesses / limitations. With this more humble approach, you’ll find people more accommodating than you imagined. I’m sure.
- You act like you have no complicity in making your boss understand your plight. But people can’t read our minds, and they may not understand, particularly if they’ve never experienced our difficulties. It’s unfair therefore, for us to mandate that they always know the depths of our pains and to automatically judge them as imbeciles when they do not. The truth is that we do bear some responsibility for educating people about our peculiarities, and it isn’t always the case that someone who doesn’t is a hopeless fool that is incapable of understanding. We can’t rightly blame all of them for all their unawareness, unless of course they actively seek to remain in the dark once shown the light. Your words above might be appropriate for example, if on three to five previous occasions, you tried more benevolent and gently persuasive tactics. But to come out of the starting gate with them as your opening salvos makes no sense to me. Sorry. After all, there are those who, while not strongly opposed to embracing new knowledge, just haven’t done so due to prevailing circumstances. They may misunderstand the handicapped for example, because they never went to school with them, nor did they grow up with a disabled family member. But once they’re given a small taste, they sometimes accept it with great interest. They eventually come to embrace it. We can find countless stories like this within the numerous service organizations throughout the country these days like Kwanis International, Lions Club International, and churches of most denominations. People want to help if they can be made to understand the following:
-
- the legitimacy of the need,
- and then, once that’s been established, they need to learn how they can help.
The ignorant can be transformed into the enlightened with the correct strategies, and I think my request for pity aids in this transformation.
Finally, how would you feel if as a boss, a subordinate took this tone with you? You wouldn’t like it, would you? Again, employing a variation of the Golden Rule would work well here. Only treat people as you would like to be treated yourself.
I don’t see soliciting pity as bad advice in some situations. A letter that begs for compassion is but one of many strategies for winning a woman’s heart, and it is not one of the first ones I would use. But it is a reasonable last resort. I don’t like laying myself so open, but if it gets someone to more fully appreciate my situation and show me compassion as a result, then it’s worth it. Whether they come to my bed because they desire me or because they feel sorry for me really doesn’t matter to me; at least not in the beginning. At least if they pity me, I get a better opportunity to fully make the case for loving me to them.
Yes, I agree that men aren’t created equal. However, you might feel differently about society not needing equality if you were to ever experience discrimination or, more generally, oppression. Then, you might better understand why people take these desperate measures to counteract it.
Yes, [...] I am me and [...] I have a vast set of talents to offer. But highlighting the good does not mean dismissing the bad. Realize that this is part of what makes being down-to-earth work so well for me. I make sure that people see the whole me, and not just the static-free, colorized, admirable parts. By giving them an accurate summary of both my good and bad points, I find it easier to live with myself. If I’m not forthcoming about the extent of my handicap, then my conscience bothers me. I can’t live with it. I won’t, because dealing with a pesky conscience has long-term and grave health effects both physical and mental that so far, I’ve managed to avoid.
I’ve picked my own route. You’d be amazed at how many friends and family members think that I’m crazy for trying to find true love for as long as I have. But it’s my mission and I’ve stayed the course. It’s more important to me than anything else, except my health that is. And like I said before, I will either find it, or die trying.
I’m only concerned about others’ opinions to the extent necessary to promote the sort of relationship I want. They don’t impact my self-esteem these days. Beyond how they treat me, I don’t really care what they think. In fact, my argument of desperation could be viewed as illustrating a very high self-esteem, and not a low one. After all, I’m willing to buck the illusory rhetoric of self-sufficiency which so permeates the media these days, and to stand up and say hey, this is not the case. At least, not for me. I need to be loved by a true love in order to achieve maximal happiness.
Well, I could write on and on about this but I think I’ve said enough for now. Take care and write again soon.
Tom Hesley
Related Posts
