As I mentioned in my interesting links last week, I was watching a video called The Empathic Civilisation on this blog: http://mckitterick.livejournal.com/656954.html. I recommend both watching it and reading the article below as they touch on topics dear to me, focusing on how the cultural emphasis on individualism and separation undermines our empathic abilities, or rather that which brings us together and allows us to support each other as a community.

The competitive edge means that everyone is out to get you, to take something you rightfully believe is yours. It makes people fight those who could be their companions, and makes others despair to see they’re hopelessly outclassed in this competition whether it’s physical prowess, economic success, emotional success, or whatever measure they’re using. It’s one of the reasons I encourage writers to set their own goals and measure against themselves. Even the people who write amazing amounts can turn around and find someone who is faster, more efficient, who writes cleaner first drafts, etc. if they try.

The old phrase of “it takes a village to raise a child” refers to the extended family, aunts, cousins, grandparents, or even just friends being an active part in the lives of the younger generation. This gives roots, a safe adult to talk to who isn’t directly involved in the situation, a place to go if your parents aren’t home, and other benefits lost in a world where many neighbors don’t know each other beyond the occasional hello and the nuclear family is the standard unit, often living far from any other member. (Note that I’m not saying such an involved community doesn’t come with issues. Crushing of individual spirit is often one, for example.)

That’s not to say there isn’t cooperative behavior and reaching out to help others because there absolutely is. I see a lot of it in the writing community where people mentor others as a form of paying back or paying forward for the assistance they themselves will receive.  But Western culture finds that an aberration and often delegates cooperative behavior to the female, and therefore lesser (according to cultural tradition), role.

Which brings me to what bugged me about the video. I began watching because I liked the concept and wanted to see the scientific backing of humans as empathic rather than aggressive. However, as minute after minute passed, a feeling crept over me of isolation–like this video wasn’t talking to me, wasn’t including me.

It wasn’t until about half way through that I realized why. I haven’t rewatched it, so I may have missed a few, but the females with three exceptions exist in the background if at all. The communication and connection throughout history is designated with a necktie (traditionally male dress), the scientist is male, the thinkers, and in every group depiction, if there is a woman, she is behind a male figure.

The primary females I noticed were:

1) A woman screaming because a spider ran up her arm.

2) An incomplete figure giving birth, with the emphasis on the birth canal and the male baby seen inside (through the mother’s skin). The wording was the same…something like since we came out of the birth canal as opposed to out of our mothers, dehumanizing the mother.

3) The genetic mother whose gene markers are present in humans across the globe (paired with the “potent” genetic father).

Now, having been affected by sexual discrimination in the workplace, in attempts to constrict my activities, and when people mistook me for a boy when I was young, I have not been blind to sexual bias. This may make me more aware of when it’s happening. Millions of women may be able to watch this video without realizing how it marginalizes half the human population. What’s sad about this is the video is focused on empathy. On recognizing ties and building a global community strong enough to stretch to include not just the creatures on Earth, but even the biosphere.

I support the aims of the video, and especially the discussion on the blog where I found it. However, I can’t help but see the difficulties in approaching a global community through a vision so riddled with cultural bias that it doesn’t seem aware of its own divisions. Unconscious sexism, like unconscious racism, is the hardest to weed out because the person does not realize, and often will argue there is no such sexism in the presentation. Because of that lack of awareness, this is the way discrimination based on gender, race, social class, etc. gets passed from generation to generation. It’s easy to combat deliberate attempts to discriminate. Not so easy to when the perpetrators and those absorbing the message are unaware one is being sent.

Another concern is that the video was aware. That the presenters deliberately set up the video as male-centric. Offhand, I can see two reasons for that: one is the assumption that women don’t need to hear this message (one from a man who has never seen female rugby :)) and the other is that women are irrelevant to the solution.

Now here’s where it gets even more complex. I’m not advocating dumbing down the language to avoid potentially offensive terms, enacting complicated laws to try and create balance where there is none, or any other top-down solutions. Political correctness only creates a situation where those who follow the rules can bash those who don’t. Personally, I don’t think that changes perceptions, and certainly wouldn’t address unconscious discrimination because it requires a conscious word choice.

So…if you’ve managed to get this far, what do you think? Did you watch the video and see the same thing I did? If you didn’t, what did you see? And what are your thoughts about Homo Empathicus?