The Pathologisation of Empathy: Why Do We Hate Those Who Care?

How did we get to the point where we mock and diagnose people who care 'too much' about others?

At some point in recent history, we started treating compassion as a weakness and activism as a pathology.

The people who fight against child abuse, poverty, war, violence, animal cruelty, and social injustice are increasingly mocked, dismissed, and even treated as mentally unwell. They are called ‘snowflakes, ‘bleeding hearts,’ ‘do-gooders,’ or ‘virtue signallers.’

Their passion is ridiculed, their emotions weaponised against them, and their drive to create change is framed as obsessive, dramatic, or even delusional.

I have even seen ridiculous articles and posts suggesting that people are now labelled, ‘Highly Sensitive Persons (HSP)’…

How did we get here? How did we reach a point where genuine care for others is not only devalued but actively punished? Why is empathy - something that should be fundamental to human survival - now treated as a problem?

The Psychiatric Pathologisation of Morality

One of the most disturbing aspects of this shift is the role psychiatry has played in pathologising those who care.

For decades, psychiatry has worked to medicalise moral and social concerns, turning them into individual pathologies.

Take, for example, the way activists and whistle-blowers have been labelled with disorders such as ‘Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)’ or ‘Personality Disorders.’

A person who refuses to conform to injustice, who challenges authority, or who dedicates their life to ending suffering can easily be labelled as having a psychiatric disorder that marks them as dysfunctional, emotionally unstable, or irrational.

If they talk about corruption and abuses, they can even be framed as crazy conspiracy theorists!

It’s no accident that psychiatry has long been used to silence dissent. Soviet Russia infamously diagnosed political dissidents with ‘sluggish schizophrenia,’ imprisoning them in psychiatric hospitals for refusing to accept the status quo. Western psychiatry is more subtle (sometimes), but no less effective in its efforts to delegitimise those who challenge power. If someone is too passionate, too insistent, too vocal about social injustice, they are often written off as unstable or even dangerous.

Consider how women who expose systemic abuse - whether in families, institutions, or entire industries - are routinely discredited by psychiatric labels. They are ‘hysterical,’ ‘too emotional,’ ‘paranoid,’ or ‘suffering from trauma-related delusions.’ The same tactic is used against those who protest against war, poverty, or ecological destruction.

The underlying message is clear: If you care too much, there must be something wrong with you.

The Systemic Need to Suppress Collective Action

This cultural shift towards punishing empathy doesn’t just serve psychiatry - it serves power. All forms of power.

Empathy, when acted upon, leads to collective action. It leads to movements, revolutions, and systemic change. And the more a society suppresses, humiliates, and isolates those who care, the less likely real change becomes.

If you tell people that their distress over the suffering of others is a sign of weakness or mental disorder, you discourage them from acting. If you mock activists as naïve or irrational, you strip them of credibility. If you frame empathy as a disorder, you individualise what should be a collective struggle.

The entire premise of individual pathology - rather than social psychology and analysis - is designed to prevent people from recognising that they are not alone. If you believe that your deep distress over war, child abuse, or climate change is a personal failing, you are less likely to connect with others who feel the same way. You are less likely to fight for something better.

The Gendered Nature of Empathy Suppression

It’s impossible to ignore the fact that empathy - and particularly emotional expression in response to suffering - is often gendered. Women, in particular, are more likely to be dismissed as overly emotional, irrational, or weak when they attempt to draw attention to injustice.

Empathy is framed as a ‘feminine’ trait. Women are framed as nurturing and empathic, men are framed as objective and strong.

Women who advocate for victims of abuse, who campaign against sexual violence, who fight for the rights of children or marginalised communities are repeatedly framed as unstable, overly invested, or even vindictive. This is a deliberate mechanism of control. The same qualities that make them powerful - empathy, determination, and an unwillingness to tolerate cruelty - are turned against them as evidence of pathology.

Men who exhibit high levels of empathy or who challenge violence and injustice are often emasculated, mocked, or excluded from traditional power structures. They are called ‘soft,’ ‘weak,’ or ‘too sensitive’ - as if their willingness to care is a personal flaw.

This is no accident. A society that benefits from violence, exploitation, and oppression has no use for deeply empathetic people. It has every reason to suppress them.

The Rise of Mockery and Shame

Alongside psychiatric pathologisation, we have also seen a rise in cultural mockery of those who care. Social media and mainstream discourse are filled with horrifying contempt for activists, humanitarians, and anyone who expresses deep concern for the suffering of others.

Think about how quickly people rush to mock vegans, environmentalists, human rights activists, or social justice campaigners. The automatic response is often not engagement or debate but derision.

Why? Because it’s easier to humiliate and dismiss people than it is to confront the uncomfortable truths they are exposing.

The dominant cultural narrative tells us that cynicism is intelligence, that detachment is strength, and that true power lies in not caring too much. People who openly care - who do not hide their distress or outrage at injustice - are framed as naïve, overdramatic, or attention-seeking.

But what does it say about a society that treats compassion as a weakness? What does it say about us that we reward apathy and punish care?

Reclaiming Empathy as Strength

The truth is, those who care are not the problem. The problem is a world that has normalised suffering, violence, abuse and death to such an extent that caring about it is seen as an anomaly.

Empathy is not a disorder. Compassion is not a weakness. Those who refuse to look away from suffering are not broken or delusional - they are necessary. They are necessary for the survival of humanity.

If anything, we should be asking why we have so readily accepted the idea that to be deeply moved by suffering is abnormal. Why have we allowed systems of power to dictate which emotions are acceptable and which are evidence of dysfunction?

We need to resist the pathologisation of empathy. We need to challenge the cultural norms that mock and suppress those who care. And we need to recognise that caring deeply is not a failing - it is an act of resistance. It’s an act of LOVE.

Because in the end, it is not the apathetic who change the world. It is those who refuse to stop caring.

Thank you so much for supporting my writing. If you enjoyed this critical article, please consider subscribing, either for free, so you don’t miss my posts as they come out, or you can become a paid subscriber and unlock all my paid, private articles and diary entries too!