Equating parenthood and empathy makes for a good sound bite, which is why politicians and other public figures return to it so often. It is vaguely comforting fluff that they (the Speaker from here on) think makes them sound like a better, and more trustworthy person. But there are just so many things wrong with that six-word phrase. Let’s start with empathy itself.
Empathy is similar to humility: if you have to declare it about yourself, then the description just isn’t accurate. In my experience, the more loudly you proclaim your empathy, the less of it you have.
Empathy is about understanding and sharing the feelings of another person. It is about stepping outside yourself to feel what the other person is feeling.
But when the Speaker announces their empathy, usually in regards to some tragedy, their focus is not on the victims of the tragedy, but on the Speaker’s feelings. Maybe they are just trying to create a good impression without feeling anything. More likely, they have begun imagining what they might feel if the tragedy had happened to them. For example, what if they were the ones whose child was murdered or whose baby was lost to miscarriage or stillbirth.
But their focus has completely left the other person. The Speaker is focused on their own feelings. They aren’t feeling with the other person or even for them. Sometimes when I share my story of multiple miscarriages with no living children, I have had people act like I should be comforting them for their brief moment of pain at hearing that sometimes there is no miracle ending to a sad story. My feelings are never to be considered by them again and it is more likely that they will avoid future conversations with me rather than risk having any repeat of experiencing those feelings. It is a selfish reaction to their momentary discomfort and it isn’t empathy.
Next, consider the narrow definition of parent that is usually implied when the Speaker says that as a parent they have empathy, namely that only those with living children qualify as parents.
My babies died - not my relationship with them.
There are many of us whose children were cruelly taken from us way too soon, some even before they took their first breath, but they are still our children and we are still mothers. The Speaker wants to divide us into one category or another; to them, we are parents or we are childless. But life is infinitely more complex and nuanced than that.
We live in a world of ‘and’ more than ‘or.’ I am grieving and loving. My arms are empty and my heart is full. I am living a life that I would never have chosen and I am still capable of empathizing with others. I am both a parent and childless.
Lastly, the qualification that the speaker has empathy, ‘as a parent,’ carries an assumption that before someone is a parent, they had little, or no, empathy. Somehow they think it is acceptable to imply that those of us who are childless (whether by choice or circumstance) simply can’t have the same level of empathy that they do.
But I think this phrase says more about the Speaker than it says about me. Perhaps, they lacked empathy before becoming a parent but that doesn’t make it a universal truth that all non-parents lack empathy.
Nor is it a universal truth all parents have empathy. You only have to watch the news to see evidence that parenthood does not guarantee empathy or even compassion. There are abusive parents, negligent parents, absentee parents and even selfish parents who want props rather than little humans with unique thoughts and feelings.
It is time to stop using the sound bite that equates parenthood with empathy; this phrase is hurtful and insults both the parents and non-parents alike. Empathy is about one individual recognizing and sharing in another individual’s feelings; it simply isn’t a description that you can apply to a large diverse group.
Maureen Schaefer