Most do not — and when they do, it is usually abstract, not empathic.

1. Empathy is compartmentalised, not absent

Contrary to popular belief, many abusers are not “emotionless.” They can show selective empathy — especially toward people they identify with or feel ownership over (their mother, daughter, family name).

Neuroscience shows this as compartmentalisation in the brain:

• Empathy circuits (insula, anterior cingulate cortex) activate selectively
• Moral reasoning is applied in-group vs out-group
• The partner is unconsciously reclassified as not fully autonomous

So the thought pattern becomes:

“That would be terrible — but it’s different.”

Different rules. Different moral framework.

2. Cognitive dissonance protects the self-image

To truly imagine their behaviour happening to their daughter or granddaughter would create intolerable cognitive dissonance:

• “I am a good person”
• “I cause harm”
• “I would hate this if it happened to someone I love”

The brain resolves this conflict by distorting reality, not by changing behaviour.

Common distortions:

• “I’m not abusive — they provoke me”
• “I’m teaching, not controlling”
• “They’re oversensitive”
• “This is how relationships work”

This isn’t ignorance — it’s self-protection of identity.

3. Power reduces perspective-taking

Psychology consistently shows that power dampens perspective-taking. When someone holds dominance:

• The brain relies less on social attunement
• Curiosity about another’s inner world decreases
• The ability to imagine “what if this were me?” erodes

In other words, control narrows the mind.

That’s why abusers often speak in absolutes:

• “If they just…”
• “Anyone would…”
• “That’s normal”

These are signs of collapsed perspective, not reflection.

4. The “family exception” fantasy

Some abusers will say:

“I’d kill anyone who treated my daughter like that.”

This does not mean insight — it means ownership-based morality.

Psychologically, the logic is:

• Harm is wrong when done to someone I see as an extension of myself
• Harm is permissible when done to someone I see as separate, inferior, or responsible

This is why abuse can coexist with declarations of protectiveness.

5. What survivors see that abusers don’t

Survivors ask this question because their nervous systems remain relational.

Even after harm, survivors still ask:

• “How would this feel?”
• “What if it were my child?”
• “What is the wider impact?”

That capacity is not weakness.
It is evidence of preserved empathy under threat — something trauma research recognises as a marker of integrity, not naïveté.

---

The hard truth

Abusers rarely stop and think:

“What if this were my daughter?”

Because to do so would require:

• accountability
• humility
• relinquishing entitlement
• tolerating shame without deflection

Those are precisely the capacities abuse erodes.

And the quiet truth for you

The fact that you can ask this question — calmly, reflectively, without hatred — tells us something essential:

You were never “too sensitive.”
You were still human in a system that required you not to be.