"Men have as exaggerated an idea of their rights as women have of their wrongs"

Edward W. Howe points to a symmetry of exaggeration between entitlement and grievance. One side inflates a sense of what is owed to them; the other magnifies the magnitude of harms endured. Both impulses are deeply human: people protect their interests and seek recognition for suffering. By placing “rights” and “wrongs” side by side, the statement criticizes a conversation that too often becomes a contest of amplification rather than an exchange of reality-tested claims.

The observation isn’t a denial of genuine rights or genuine injustices. Rather, it warns that when identity becomes the measuring stick, proportionality fades. Men may overstate prerogatives, authority, freedom from social constraint, deference, especially when accustomed to advantages that feel normal and therefore defensible. Women, often confronting real inequities, may emphasize harms in a way that seeks overdue redress but can sometimes tilt toward totalizing narratives where every slight is systemic and every setback is oppression. Either exaggeration, however understandable, distorts facts and derails solutions.

The dynamic is fueled by cognitive biases. Confirmation bias makes each side notice evidence that flatters its story. Availability bias elevates vivid anecdotes over sober statistics. Moral licensing rewards one’s own side for past injuries or virtues, justifying present overreach. Public discourse, especially online, rewards extremity: maximal claims evoke attention, while nuance sinks.

The implied remedy is not to mute claims but to calibrate them. Rights must be grounded in shared principles and reciprocal duties; wrongs must be assessed with careful evidence and attention to scale. Accountability requires language that distinguishes patterns from outliers, systemic forces from individual intentions, and remedy from revenge. Where both entitlement and grievance are right-sized, dialogue shifts from competitive victimhood to collaborative problem-solving. The paradox is that empathy, which often intensifies identification with one’s group, is most useful when extended across the aisle: to understand why others feel overentitled or overburdened is to find the leverage for mutual restraint and practical progress.