Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsSelf-DefenseWomen are more empathetic: power …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Women are more empathetic: power move

#1 · September 25, 2023, 9:33 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 25, 2023, 9:33 pm
Hello TPM community,
at work we were talking about a 14 years old psychiatric hospitalized patient who was agitated. She's highly highly manipulative and aggressive both towards herself and others. So we had to restrain her both physically and chemically. There was 3 females (1 resident and 2 nurses) and me in the room.
I talked to the team about how she was using the nurses' empathy against them: using their kindness to attempt escapes as they would trust her. She was basically like a prisoner until we are waiting to send her to a psychiatric facility as we cannot treat her at our pediatric hospital. It's not our specialty and we don't have the staff nor the skills nor the drugs to take care of her.
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: I choose not to be empathetic towards her. [starts to justify]
Female resident: I'm joooking. 2nd degree joke.
Me: [moves on]
Analysis
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Here she uses authority argument to do 2 things: ostracize and it's also a shame attack.
Ostracization: I'm a man, they are 3 females.
Shame attack: she frames me as if I said: "empathy is weakness, therefore women are weak". Which is not what I think nor what I said. Her frame: "empathy is good, you don't have empathy you are bad"
Me: I choose not to be empathetic towards her. [starts to justify]
Here I made the mistake of entering her frame. So I say: "I'm able to be empathetic in this case I think it's better not be". However, here I made the mistake described in PU: I defended an undefendable position. Entering her frame it's like I agreed I don't have empathy and therefore I'm bad.
Female resident: I'm joooking. 2nd degree joke.
Here she backtracks so it's kind of power protection. But at the same time she frames me as not having humour: "2nd degree joke" means "come on you did not understand it was a joke?"
My solutions
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: what is this sexism?
Here I do what's proposed in PU. I don't use logic, I counter-attack. I'm not entertaining the studies or their results I shame her back. I show teeth.
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: It's not about this. Empathy is an individual characteristic.
Whataboutism/philosopher's frame.
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: I did not say empathy is bad. Empathy is good. It's about choosing when having empathy and not having too much of it as we can be manipulated through it.
Frame rejection. I expand more effort but I stay factual. More appropriate at work.
I'm curious if you guys have any comments on this.

Hello TPM community,

at work we were talking about a 14 years old psychiatric hospitalized patient who was agitated. She's highly highly manipulative and aggressive both towards herself and others. So we had to restrain her both physically and chemically. There was 3 females (1 resident and 2 nurses) and me in the room.

I talked to the team about how she was using the nurses' empathy against them: using their kindness to attempt escapes as they would trust her. She was basically like a prisoner until we are waiting to send her to a psychiatric facility as we cannot treat her at our pediatric hospital. It's not our specialty and we don't have the staff nor the skills nor the drugs to take care of her.

Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: I choose not to be empathetic towards her. [starts to justify]
Female resident: I'm joooking. 2nd degree joke.
Me: [moves on]

Analysis

Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men

Here she uses authority argument to do 2 things: ostracize and it's also a shame attack.

Ostracization: I'm a man, they are 3 females.
Shame attack: she frames me as if I said: "empathy is weakness, therefore women are weak". Which is not what I think nor what I said. Her frame: "empathy is good, you don't have empathy you are bad"

Me: I choose not to be empathetic towards her. [starts to justify]

Here I made the mistake of entering her frame. So I say: "I'm able to be empathetic in this case I think it's better not be". However, here I made the mistake described in PU: I defended an undefendable position. Entering her frame it's like I agreed I don't have empathy and therefore I'm bad.

Female resident: I'm joooking. 2nd degree joke.

Here she backtracks so it's kind of power protection. But at the same time she frames me as not having humour: "2nd degree joke" means "come on you did not understand it was a joke?"

My solutions

Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: what is this sexism?

Here I do what's proposed in PU. I don't use logic, I counter-attack. I'm not entertaining the studies or their results I shame her back. I show teeth.

Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: It's not about this. Empathy is an individual characteristic.

Whataboutism/philosopher's frame.

Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
Me: I did not say empathy is bad. Empathy is good. It's about choosing when having empathy and not having too much of it as we can be manipulated through it.

Frame rejection. I expand more effort but I stay factual. More appropriate at work.

I'm curious if you guys have any comments on this.

Jack, Kavalier and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

#2 · September 25, 2023, 10:33 pm

Hey John

Because there s 3 women and Swiss work culture is really herdy you want to be careful it doesn't end up you against the sisterhood.

So I d just dismiss with a one-liner. Said very softly with a head nod. Yea studies say this and that. Anyway should we try and... What do we think?

You could go with surfacing Oh why do you say that?

But the danger is you ve just given the floor for her to give you a big lecture with the others 'me tooing'

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 5 other users have reacted to this post.

#3 · September 25, 2023, 10:36 pm

Hello Transitioned,

Cool to see you back! I hope everything's good with you.

I'm with you on this one. Totally: it's better to go with agreeing. Did not consider it. 100%. Also about the risk of thread-expanding on her idea

For instance:

Yeah, some studies say that. I hope it's clear that I recommend you not to let her use your empathy to manipulate you. Anyway...

Thanks a lot!

Kavalier and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#4 · September 27, 2023, 1:05 am

As a woman, I feel that she could be joking - kind of a rubbing in as you against them and trying to balance the power differential between you and them.

Yes I would say something similar of frame rejection, it's not about empathy in this case.

Empathy is good for our trade, but we also need to separate our emotions from what's the best logical approach for our patients. In this case I don't think getting very emotionally involved so as to do as what the patient says is effective or for the patient's best interests.

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#5 · September 27, 2023, 2:20 am

Quote from Kavalier on September 27, 2023, 2:20 am
Hello, John, hello, everyone! I think this one is very good:
Quote from John Freeman on September 25, 2023, 10:36 pm
Yeah, some studies say that. I hope it's clear that I recommend you not to let her use your empathy to manipulate you. Anyway...
Another variation would be:
Sure, hence the danger (tonality: you're emphatically agreeing). Some people are just too good at using other people's virtues against them, no matter how smart you are
My intention here is to:
Try to make the judge power more subtle, without removing it altogether, since you are still in a position of authority in your job. Many feminists have a pretty good nose for what they call "mansplaining" (even though they do an awful lot of "womansplaining" too). When you add "I hope it's clear..." and then "I recommend...", you're doubling down on the judge frame. While it's not exactly an issue, especially as you're above them in the hospital's hierarchy, toning it down might help dissipating the tensions.
Degenderize the discussion altogether. She's trying to frame the situation as another battle in the war of "men x women", which is completely irrelevant to the situation. If you agree or disagree, you're already accepting the frame and hence falling for their game. You don't even validate the study, and instead of "women..." we have "people".
I believe this works better than trying to point out their own contradictions, like in "what is this sexism (or racism, etarism, etc)?". While what you are saying is technically true, it's not uncommon for people to have double standards, and a potential comeback is she telling you that a man cannot tell a woman what sexism is, just as Transitioned pointed out
Blame a third party (some people...) and compliment them. Now they fell for it not because they're being manipulated (which might feel as if you were saying they were naive). It just happens that some kids are so good at manipulating others that even smart people fall for for it, and being empathetic is a moral strength, not a liability
Smoothen the transition to the main message. My feel is that, if you go from "Yeah, some studies say that" to "i hope it's clear..." or to whatever you might say without a bridge, it might sound dismissive. It might make them resentful in the long run. With "hence the danger" I try to validate her point, and make it seem that the main message is a logical conclusion to what she said herself.
So, this is is my take. It's more a different style than something that I'd recommend over yours. But, just like Emily, I think they're trying to rebalance the power differential between you and then. With a more toned down approach, they'd have fewer reasons to raise up their defences.

Hello, John, hello, everyone! I think this one is very good:

Quote from John Freeman on September 25, 2023, 10:36 pm
Yeah, some studies say that. I hope it's clear that I recommend you not to let her use your empathy to manipulate you. Anyway...

Another variation would be:

Sure, hence the danger (tonality: you're emphatically agreeing). Some people are just too good at using other people's virtues against them, no matter how smart you are

My intention here is to:

Try to make the judge power more subtle, without removing it altogether, since you are still in a position of authority in your job. Many feminists have a pretty good nose for what they call "mansplaining" (even though they do an awful lot of "womansplaining" too). When you add "I hope it's clear..." and then "I recommend...", you're doubling down on the judge frame. While it's not exactly an issue, especially as you're above them in the hospital's hierarchy, toning it down might help dissipating the tensions.
Degenderize the discussion altogether. She's trying to frame the situation as another battle in the war of "men x women", which is completely irrelevant to the situation. If you agree or disagree, you're already accepting the frame and hence falling for their game. You don't even validate the study, and instead of "women..." we have "people".
- I believe this works better than trying to point out their own contradictions, like in "what is this sexism (or racism, etarism, etc)?". While what you are saying is technically true, it's not uncommon for people to have double standards, and a potential comeback is she telling you that a man cannot tell a woman what sexism is, just as Transitioned pointed out
Blame a third party (some people...) and compliment them. Now they fell for it not because they're being manipulated (which might feel as if you were saying they were naive). It just happens that some kids are so good at manipulating others that even smart people fall for for it, and being empathetic is a moral strength, not a liability
Smoothen the transition to the main message. My feel is that, if you go from "Yeah, some studies say that" to "i hope it's clear..." or to whatever you might say without a bridge, it might sound dismissive. It might make them resentful in the long run. With "hence the danger" I try to validate her point, and make it seem that the main message is a logical conclusion to what she said herself.

So, this is is my take. It's more a different style than something that I'd recommend over yours. But, just like Emily, I think they're trying to rebalance the power differential between you and then. With a more toned down approach, they'd have fewer reasons to raise up their defences.

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#6 · September 27, 2023, 9:40 am

I haven't yet read all the posts and will do so right after since this is interesting.

But I wanted to share my "gut reaction".

My take and preferred solutions are different and stronger than the proposed ones.

Right not, it seems to me, you are:

Giving her too much importance. Remember, she's below you, your approach reacts to her like she's an equal or above you
Forgetting about the mission/goal, which is to discuss solutions and/or analyze the case for lessons learned

So my approach is:

Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
You: (look at her like "WTF is that", shrug shoulders) whatever, maybe, we're not discussing that there, the point I'm making is...

See the huge difference?

This option even agrees with her because the mindset is that it doesn't f*cking matter who's more what when you're focusing on final goals.

This is high-power flying higher.

Depending on the situation, you can display and say that with a very judge-y annoyed demeanor, sub-communicating:

Don't come up with that stupid cr@p here you idiot, I'm focusing on getting s*it done here, don't even try sidetracking us with your BS male/female competition

SAME FOR RELATIONSHIPS

Incidentally, this is the same stance I'd use if your dating/relationship partner takes the same combative stance of women VS men.

The stance is:

Who the f*ck cares, we're now in this together, are you on my f*cking team or not. Because if you gotta bring that "we better than you" competitive shit, I'm gonna find a collaborative partner

Ali Scarlett, Kavalier and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#7 · September 27, 2023, 9:42 am

P.S."

That approach is also very value-adding leader-like -together in this, not divided- and very attractive in dating -high power and high warmth-.

John Freeman, Kavalier and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#8 · September 27, 2023, 9:00 pm

Thank you Emily! Yeah you're right. It's one of my flaws: I want people to be free... to do as I say :D.

More seriously yes sometimes I don't understand why people try to one-up me and sometimes it's to rebalance the power. I understand it. I must be more aware of this, thanks. I could prevent it by re-empowering them myself as well.

Lucio Buffalmano, Kavalier and Emily have reacted to this post.

#9 · September 27, 2023, 9:13 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 27, 2023, 9:13 pm
Thank you Kavalier!
Quote from Kavalier on September 27, 2023, 2:20 am
Sure, hence the danger (tonality: you're emphatically agreeing). Some people are just too good at using other people's virtues against them, no matter how smart you are
I think this is wicked smart. It's a bit of reverse psychology. One is stroking their ego saying: you're so good at this that it could turn against you. I think it's brilliant. It's a compliment/olive branch hidden in a teacher's frame. I think it's beautiful.
My intention here is to:
Try to make the judge power more subtle, without removing it altogether, since you are still in a position of authority in your job. Many feminists have a pretty good nose for what they call "mansplaining" (even though they do an awful lot of "womansplaining" too). When you add "I hope it's clear..." and then "I recommend...", you're doubling down on the judge frame. While it's not exactly an issue, especially as you're above them in the hospital's hierarchy, toning it down might help dissipating the tensions.
Yes, toning it down. I did not think I could be overpowering. But Emily and you both pointed it out. I have to raise my self-awareness definitely.
Degenderize the discussion altogether. She's trying to frame the situation as another battle in the war of "men x women", which is completely irrelevant to the situation. If you agree or disagree, you're already accepting the frame and hence falling for their game. You don't even validate the study, and instead of "women..." we have "people".
Yeah I love this. It's like Lucio's "some people" instead of "you". Generalizing here works perfectly I agree.
I believe this works better than trying to point out their own contradictions, like in "what is this sexism (or racism, etarism, etc)?". While what you are saying is technically true, it's not uncommon for people to have double standards, and a potential comeback is she telling you that a man cannot tell a woman what sexism is, just as Transitioned pointed out
Yeah true, potential self-made trap.
Blame a third party (some people...) and compliment them. Now they fell for it not because they're being manipulated (which might feel as if you were saying they were naive). It just happens that some kids are so good at manipulating others that even smart people fall for for it, and being empathetic is a moral strength, not a liability
As I said I love it. I think it's advanced stuff.
Smoothen the transition to the main message. My feel is that, if you go from "Yeah, some studies say that" to "i hope it's clear..." or to whatever you might say without a bridge, it might sound dismissive. It might make them resentful in the long run.
Yeah, that's my issue. A resident said that she thought I was condescending. I got this feed-back in my previous rotation as well. So I have to work on it. I think it might be a bit of overcompensation. Maybe I fall into the "having been for a long time obliged to submit" and unconsciously take a revenge. As I was powerless for so long, I might be a bit taking people from above in a counter-action. Probably. And also because I feel I have more experienced and have done more than them in my life. So I probably get trapped into my ego here. So I think it's with time I will improve my communication IF I want to be a good leader which I want.
With "hence the danger" I try to validate her point, and make it seem that the main message is a logical conclusion to what she said herself.
I think this is just brilliant. I think you could write more here. You're depriving us from pearls like this!!! :D (joke but I mean it: I think that would be cool if you would write more here.)
So, this is is my take. It's more a different style than something that I'd recommend over yours. But, just like Emily, I think they're trying to rebalance the power differential between you and then. With a more toned down approach, they'd have fewer reasons to raise up their defences.
Totally.
Thanks a lot!

Thank you Kavalier!

Quote from Kavalier on September 27, 2023, 2:20 am
Sure, hence the danger (tonality: you're emphatically agreeing). Some people are just too good at using other people's virtues against them, no matter how smart you are

I think this is wicked smart. It's a bit of reverse psychology. One is stroking their ego saying: you're so good at this that it could turn against you. I think it's brilliant. It's a compliment/olive branch hidden in a teacher's frame. I think it's beautiful.

My intention here is to:
Try to make the judge power more subtle, without removing it altogether, since you are still in a position of authority in your job. Many feminists have a pretty good nose for what they call "mansplaining" (even though they do an awful lot of "womansplaining" too). When you add "I hope it's clear..." and then "I recommend...", you're doubling down on the judge frame. While it's not exactly an issue, especially as you're above them in the hospital's hierarchy, toning it down might help dissipating the tensions.

Yes, toning it down. I did not think I could be overpowering. But Emily and you both pointed it out. I have to raise my self-awareness definitely.

Degenderize the discussion altogether. She's trying to frame the situation as another battle in the war of "men x women", which is completely irrelevant to the situation. If you agree or disagree, you're already accepting the frame and hence falling for their game. You don't even validate the study, and instead of "women..." we have "people".

Yeah I love this. It's like Lucio's "some people" instead of "you". Generalizing here works perfectly I agree.

I believe this works better than trying to point out their own contradictions, like in "what is this sexism (or racism, etarism, etc)?". While what you are saying is technically true, it's not uncommon for people to have double standards, and a potential comeback is she telling you that a man cannot tell a woman what sexism is, just as Transitioned pointed out

Yeah true, potential self-made trap.

Blame a third party (some people...) and compliment them. Now they fell for it not because they're being manipulated (which might feel as if you were saying they were naive). It just happens that some kids are so good at manipulating others that even smart people fall for for it, and being empathetic is a moral strength, not a liability

As I said I love it. I think it's advanced stuff.

Smoothen the transition to the main message. My feel is that, if you go from "Yeah, some studies say that" to "i hope it's clear..." or to whatever you might say without a bridge, it might sound dismissive. It might make them resentful in the long run.

Yeah, that's my issue. A resident said that she thought I was condescending. I got this feed-back in my previous rotation as well. So I have to work on it. I think it might be a bit of overcompensation. Maybe I fall into the "having been for a long time obliged to submit" and unconsciously take a revenge. As I was powerless for so long, I might be a bit taking people from above in a counter-action. Probably. And also because I feel I have more experienced and have done more than them in my life. So I probably get trapped into my ego here. So I think it's with time I will improve my communication IF I want to be a good leader which I want.

With "hence the danger" I try to validate her point, and make it seem that the main message is a logical conclusion to what she said herself.

I think this is just brilliant. I think you could write more here. You're depriving us from pearls like this!!! :D (joke but I mean it: I think that would be cool if you would write more here.)

So, this is is my take. It's more a different style than something that I'd recommend over yours. But, just like Emily, I think they're trying to rebalance the power differential between you and then. With a more toned down approach, they'd have fewer reasons to raise up their defences.

Totally.

Thanks a lot!

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 4 other users have reacted to this post.

#10 · September 27, 2023, 9:22 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 27, 2023, 9:22 pm
Thank you Lucio!
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 27, 2023, 9:40 am
Right not, it seems to me, you are:
Giving her too much importance. Remember, she's below you, your approach reacts to her like she's an equal or above you
Forgetting about the mission/goal, which is to discuss solutions and/or analyze the case for lessons learned
True, I missed this one.
So my approach is:
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
You: (look at her like "WTF is that", shrug shoulders) whatever, maybe, we're not discussing that there, the point I'm making is...
Boom. I think it's next-level very leader/executive-like. The staff physician (executive) who left today (family reasons) he does this: always focuses on the point at hand.
See the huge difference?
This option even agrees with her because the mindset is that it doesn't f*cking matter who's more what when you're focusing on final goals.
This is high-power flying higher.
I think this a beauty. It cuts through the meaningless stuff.
Depending on the situation, you can display and say that with a very judge-y annoyed demeanor, sub-communicating:
Don't come up with that stupid cr@p here you idiot, I'm focusing on getting s*it done here, don't even try sidetracking us with your BS male/female competition
Yeah, got it.
SAME FOR RELATIONSHIPS
Incidentally, this is the same stance I'd use if your dating/relationship partner takes the same combative stance of women VS men.
The stance is:
Who the f*ck cares, we're now in this together, are you on my f*cking team or not. Because if you gotta bring that "we better than you" competitive shit, I'm gonna find a collaborative partner
Silent boom. I learned a lesson here. I understand it even better in those terms than in PU. The frame of the person is so clear that there is no room for f*cking around. It's like if we are a group of people lost in a desert without water for 3 days and someone proposes to do a selfie: WTF?!?
Thank you very much!
I learned a lot from you, Emily and Kavalier. I'm grateful guys and happy this thread was interesting to you.
I also think that it's crazy how much we can find in a short interaction. It shows that frames are ever present and sometimes are more complex than we think. There are layers of frames in every interaction. Food for thoughts...
I just had a new idea. Layers of frames. Like Kavalier putting a teacher's frame on top of a compliment/olive branch. That's how I see it.

Thank you Lucio!

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 27, 2023, 9:40 am
Right not, it seems to me, you are:
Giving her too much importance. Remember, she's below you, your approach reacts to her like she's an equal or above you
Forgetting about the mission/goal, which is to discuss solutions and/or analyze the case for lessons learned

True, I missed this one.

So my approach is:
Female resident: studies show that women are more empathetic than men
You: (look at her like "WTF is that", shrug shoulders) whatever, maybe, we're not discussing that there, the point I'm making is...

Boom. I think it's next-level very leader/executive-like. The staff physician (executive) who left today (family reasons) he does this: always focuses on the point at hand.

See the huge difference?
This option even agrees with her because the mindset is that it doesn't f*cking matter who's more what when you're focusing on final goals.
This is high-power flying higher.

I think this a beauty. It cuts through the meaningless stuff.

Depending on the situation, you can display and say that with a very judge-y annoyed demeanor, sub-communicating:
Don't come up with that stupid cr@p here you idiot, I'm focusing on getting s*it done here, don't even try sidetracking us with your BS male/female competition

Yeah, got it.

SAME FOR RELATIONSHIPS
Incidentally, this is the same stance I'd use if your dating/relationship partner takes the same combative stance of women VS men.
The stance is:
Who the f*ck cares, we're now in this together, are you on my f*cking team or not. Because if you gotta bring that "we better than you" competitive shit, I'm gonna find a collaborative partner

Silent boom. I learned a lesson here. I understand it even better in those terms than in PU. The frame of the person is so clear that there is no room for f*cking around. It's like if we are a group of people lost in a desert without water for 3 days and someone proposes to do a selfie: WTF?!?

Thank you very much!

I learned a lot from you, Emily and Kavalier. I'm grateful guys and happy this thread was interesting to you.

I also think that it's crazy how much we can find in a short interaction. It shows that frames are ever present and sometimes are more complex than we think. There are layers of frames in every interaction. Food for thoughts...

I just had a new idea. Layers of frames. Like Kavalier putting a teacher's frame on top of a compliment/olive branch. That's how I see it.

Lucio Buffalmano, Ali Scarlett and 2 other users have reacted to this post.