On The Sin of E̶m̶p̶a̶t̶h̶y̶ Being a Woman

My review of Joe Rigney’s The Sin of Empathy garnered quite a bit of interest. A lot of it was positive. Some of it… not so much.

Of course, there was the (predictable) trolling from anonymous male accounts on Twitter/X. My approach there was simple. Ignore. Block. Carry on with my life.

But there were also those who readily dismissed my review, in toto, for one of two reasons:

1. They decided it was the “most pedantic review they had ever read”, “one of the most bizarre reviews of a book I’ve ever read” and full of nothing more than “feigned confusion over semantic differences”. This meant they felt fully justified in conveniently ignoring all aspects of my critique of Rigney’s argument.

2. They decided that I’m “a feminist” who is bent on steering the church away from orthodoxy and towards progressive ideology. This also meant they felt fully justified in conveniently ignoring all aspects of my critique of Rigney’s argument.

In this follow up piece I plan to demonstrate:

1. Why it is very important that we not only pay careful attention to the words that people use, but to also take people at the words they choose to use.

2. That I am not “a feminist”. But that Joe Rigney is a misogynist. Yes. I said it. (Edit: Please refer to this footnote¹ to understand what I mean—and don’t mean—by that)

Before I continue, let me say that if you don’t know who Joe Rigney is, why he is no fan of empathy or why I would care enough about either of those two things to write a 5000-word review, well, you have two options:

1. Continue living your life in blissful ignorance… in which case, more power to you, my friend! Long may you prosper.

2. Continue reading on, but be aware that you’ll be best served by having some degree of familiarity with my review as you do so.

In a nutshell, Rigney argues that empathy is the greatest threat to Christian faithfulness today. He isn’t particularly concerned with what that word actually means, but rather what he uses it to mean—namely, the sense in which people get swept away by their passions, emotions and feelings for the hurting, such that they abandon reason, truth, justice and love and instead jump (both) feet first into the pit of despair alongside them.

In my review, I contended that Rigney’s argument is terminologically and definitionally incoherent. I also concluded that it fails to establish itself theologically and biblically. Contrary to claims that my pesky expectation that authors employ words meaningfully and consistently (so as to mount a coherent argument) resulted in me missing Rigney’s point, readers of my review will be aware I concluded that there is an issue to be addressed, but that Rigney:

… misdiagnoses the true source of the conflicted and conflictual situation the church finds herself in today. The problem is not that (some) Christians have joined people too deeply in their suffering, but that we have been too willing to justify our own sin.

Such an assertion is not a matter of linguistic pedantry (as some have suggested). Instead, it cuts to the heart of, or perhaps more accurately, exposes the assumptions that underlie Rigney’s indictment of empathy in his book.

Because you see, when Rigney identifies empathy (weaponised, untethered, or otherwise) as the thing that leads to communities characterised by “cowardice, indifference, and cruelty,” the underlying reality he is primarily concerned about is a particular kind of sinful inclination (i.e., being emotionally swept away from reason and truth) which he sees as inherent to a particular group of people (i.e., women).

Here is how I put it in my review:

… in his framing, empathy is the folly and tool of women who, unlike men, are neither innately reasonable, wise, nor objective.

…beneath the surface, Rigney’s all-consuming sin of empathy is, in reality, the sin of being a woman.

Of course, this diagnosis did not go down well with some. Case in point:

Anyone who paid careful attention to my review would know that I did not pull an insidious bait-and-switch by sneakily conflating feminism and women. Instead, I meticulously evidenced how, in his own words, Joe Rigney’s fifth chapter begins by arguing that feminism is to blame for empathy’s destructive influence… and ends by concluding that, actually, women are the ones responsible for unleashing empathy on the world.

The real issue is Medusa. All feminism did was let Medusa out of her cage.

The Sin of Being a Woman

Perhaps you think I am being uncharitable to Rigney? Maybe I’m reading things into his words that aren’t there?

Well, don’t take my word for it. Take his instead.

The day after my review was published, podcaster Beckett Cook released an episode with Joe Rigney about The Sin of Empathy. The first half of the episode focused on Rigney’s broad argument against empathy. The second half zoomed in on feminism and women. Here is how Rigney introduced that later part of the discussion:

“But one of the things we have to recognise is that men and women are different and women in particular are the more empathetic or compassionate sex… This is actually a really great design feature that God has built into women. It’s why they are so effective at nurturing, caring, hospitality; they are first responders when people are suffering… they are highly attuned to emotions… In general, everybody recognises that women are the more empathetic sex.

As a Danvers Complementarian I certainly agree that God has designed distinctions (as well as sameness) between men and women (i.e., the two sexes are equal but not interchangeable). And, sure, I think we can observe that men and women often demonstrate some general relational differences. I wouldn’t want to over-generalise (or confuse description with prescription). But let’s not nitpick. On with the show.

Rigney immediately continues:

What that means is that is a really great blessing in its place when it comes to nuture and care and being the glue that holds communities together… but things that are a blessing in one place become destructive when they are taken out of that place and asked to do something they are not designed for. So when it comes to guardianship, when it comes to drawing clear lines, setting a perimeter, when it comes to defining the doctrine and worship of the church or having a border as a nation, that same compassion actually becomes a liability.” Time stamp

Pay close attention to that bit in bold.

Rigney’s foundational claim here is that women’s more empathetic/compassionate nature—”the glue that holds communities together”—becomes a destructive liability in certain circumstances and situations. What are those? They are when women’s relational tendencies and dynamics presume to have a broader influence outside her immediate sphere of influence (presumably, the home) and within the boarder community. (That same community which, just moments ago, had been held together by the glue of those relational dynamics). It is especially when women presume to play any meaningful role in drawing clear lines or setting firm boundaries.

Why? Well because, according to Rigney, women are not naturally enabled to or capable of operating rationally, reasonably or reliably in these ways. Their more empathetic nature means they can’t, and so won’t, hold the line on truth. They can’t, and so won’t, discern and stick to true doctrine. They can’t, and so won’t, guard borders or boundaries.

Feminism has provided a vehicle by which women presume to attempt to do these things “they are not designed for” (elsewhere in the interview he describes this as “invading male spaces”). But, the root issue is the design flaw inherent to women themselves. The core concern is their compromised constitution. The fundamental feature is that “by nature”, women need to be constrained to a limited field of operations and influence… unlike men who, “by nature”, are meant to traverse fields of operation and influence. This is because men, unlike women, are constitutionally capable of exercising compassion without getting swept away by their emotions.

Are you still not convinced that I’ve pegged Rigney correctly? That's okay. Come with me as we look at a few other comments he made in that podcast.

“…when the trans-movement presents themselves as victims. women become mothers and so they orient to victims as mothers orient to a child who has just scraped their knee. And therefore they… [are going to say] ‘Ok, we’ll call Bruno a woman now because we don’t want to hurt Bruno’s feelings, because Bruno is oppressed and Bruno is a victim’.”
Time Stamp

Pay close attention to the narrative at play here.

Women’s nurturing nature means they maternally orient towards hurting people. Okay, that might be a generalisation, but perhaps it is a fair one. After all, female maternal nature counts for something, right?

But, look at how Rigney frames the inevitable outcome of that maternal orientation. He says that because women care deeply about the hurt of others, they “therefore” cannot and will not do anything other than affirm whatever the hurting person wants them to affirm.

According to Rigney, a woman’s compassionate, nurturing or empathetic nature means that, when faced with a complex emotional, rational, psychological or spiritual situation that involves the suffering of others, she is inherently incapable of exercising reason, discerning truth, and pursuing justice. All she sees is the scraped knee. And so, she caves. She gives in. She gets swept away by her feelings and lets go of even the most tenuous hold on objective reality. She is enslaved to her “empathy”.

Still not convinced? Read on.

In the episode, Beckett Cook suggests that “when a child comes out as gay or trans, it is usually the [Christian] mother who ends up caving to it… and becomes gay affirming and the [Christian] father doesn’t”. Rigney responds:

“A mother sees her child in distress and wants to relieve it, to do anything to make it better. She wants to kiss the boo-boo. Mothers comfort in that way. And so if the child says ‘This is who I am”’, Mom wants to accept. Right. She’s wired to do this. Which is why there needs to be some boundaries. She needs to have a husband and she needs to have a wider community that is going to say “no… we are the sort of people who do what God says”. Time stamp

Read that again.

A mother is wired to do anything and everything that makes her child's hurt go away… regardless of what is true, reasonable, good, just…and despite what God says. And so, “there needs to be some boundaries” placed around her to stop her from becoming a victim of her folly (and so too victimising others by it). What are those boundaries? Well, to save her (and others) from herself, she needs a husband and a community (presumably a community full of men since they are the sex capable of being compassionate and reasonable at the same time).

Because the mother is a slave to her feelings and so can’t say “No” to ungodliness and foolishness, she requires (male) others to do it for her.

But according to Joe Rigney, mothers are not the only females incapable of exercising discernment, applying reason, pursuing truth, and enacting justice in the face of their empathetic nature. In Rigney’s opinion, childless women are as equally self-deluded.

“It’s the mamma bear phenomenon, but for childless women. They don’t have children to nurture, but that maternal nature that God gave them is still there and looking for an outlet. And so it fixates then on the most deranged victims that they can find and therefore accommodates, appeases and demands that all of society reorient around these so called vicitms.” Time Stamp

According to Rigney, a woman’s empathetic nature is so desperate for an outlet, and so unable to be controlled and corralled, that even the childless woman will determinedly fixate on the most deranged victims. And then, to make matters worse, she’ll demand that everyone else accommodate and appease them in their (and now also her) derangement. She, too, is enslaved to her emotions and incapable of exercising rationality. Indeed, she is so enslaved to her emotions that she cannot help but fixate on those who are most unhinged… and in so doing becomes unhinged herself.

The Sin of Misogyny

Let me remind you what ‘Wokal Distance’ said in his (her?) critique of my review:

No. I didn’t pretend Rigney criticised a category of people based on their nature. Rigney himself criticises a category of people based on (what he perceives to be) their nature. Over and over and over again.

For Rigney, the sin of empathy is ultimately the sin of being a woman—of being that sexed human creature who is incapable of rationalising her feelings and controlling her passions; who is wired to become fully enmeshed with the hurting; who, as a result, seeks out the deranged, becomes deranged, and—when she doesn’t stay in her rightful place—deranges everyone else in the church and society around her.

Friends, I have been labelled as “a feminist” for simply calling out that view of women as insidious, infantilising, indoctrinating and invidious. Oh, and also unbiblical, unloving and unkind.

Really?! That’s what it is to be a feminist now?!

The bar is now so low that simply affirming the human female was designed by God to be equally capable of rationality, equally invested in preserving truth, equally concerned with guarding what is good — and, tragically, that these good design features in women were just as compromised by sin as they were in men — is enough to be branded a feminist? That’s where we’ve shifted the goal posts to, huh?

No. I’m not “a feminist”.

But someone who says the demeaning words about women that I’ve cited above is certainly a misogynist. And, frankly, so are those who would defend those words as being true, accurate and fair.

Anyone who claims that Joe Rigney faults feminism—rather than women themselves—for what he considers to be empathy’s destructive impact on church and society has either failed to understand his words or failed to take him at his words. As a result, they are not only blind to the misogyny running through his argument, but—as we’ll see in the next post—they are also blind to his argument’s internal incoherency, inaccuracy and inconsistency.

1. As I was writing this post I looked up the Merriam-Webster definition of ‘misogyny’ (see below) to make sure I wasn’t using the term incorrectly. Following a comment made on this post, I realised it might be helpful to mention that and to clarify that I use the word with respect to Joe Rigney’s cited comments about women as evidence of a prejudice against and, I think, a consequential aversion to women. I do not contend he “hates” women. But I do contend his comments are misogynstic in the other (equally valid) meanings of the word.