The Myth of “Toxic Compassion”
What research says about women, power, and the stability of nations
All right. I admit I’m a bit incensed.
I just read an article in The New York Times about women who want to erase women’s right to vote. Not just men—for whom that is nothing new—but women themselves, buying the argument that our participation in democracy has made the world run amok.
The idea might seem fringe after a century of women’s right to vote. And yet, here we are—watching policies emerge that quietly erode voter access.
The SAVE Act proposes that anyone whose name doesn’t match their birth certificate must provide documentation linking past and present names. For tens of millions of married women who changed their names, this becomes not just an inconvenience, but a barrier.
And the current Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, who is waging a “Holy War,” in Iran, attends a church who openly supports ending the 19th Amendment.
In the Times article, one prominent conservative voice, Allie Beth Stuckey, warned us against women’s “toxic empathy”—the idea that love and compassion somehow “paralyze your brain from thinking,” and cloud our judgment and ability to lead.
Really?
When the dominant models of power—overwhelmingly shaped by men—have led us into endless wars, environmental collapse, sexual exploitation, a disastrous financial system, and a world organized around competition and control…
You’re telling me compassion is the problem?
Let’s set the record straight.
The data tells a different story.
When women are included in peace negotiations, agreements are significantly more likely to last—by as much as 35 percent over 15 years.
Countries with less gender equality are more likely to experience conflict—and the more men in power, the more severe the violence that occurs.
The greater the number of women in government, the less it spends of defense and internal conflict.
The United Nations recognized this decades ago in Resolution 1325, citing the direct link between women’s inclusion in politic positions and global security and stability.
And if we want to talk about violence in its most concentrated form:
About 98% of mass shooters are male.
Not 60%. Not 70%.
Ninety-eight percent.
So we have to ask—honestly, and without deflection:
Are compassionate women really the liability here?
Or are we the missing ingredient?
Because what is being derided as “toxic empathy” may actually be the very capacity that we need right now. The ability to feel, to include, to consider the whole—is the necessary ingredient to offset systems of domination.
This is not about women being “better” than men.
It’s about balance.
A world run on unchecked aggression, competition, and conquest is not strength—it is danger.
A system that excludes the voices most attuned to relationship, care, and long-term well-being, will inevitably fracture under its own weight.
If we are to evolve beyond the crises we are facing, we don’t need less compassion.
We need more of it—tempered with wisdom, grounded in truth, and shared across all genders.
Because the future will not be secured by doubling down on domination.
It will be shaped by those who can hold power and care in the same hands.
A bird can only fly with two wings. Cut off the wings of women and the system will fall.
And when it does, compassionate women will pick up the pieces.