From: cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Date: 21 Dec 92 15:21:15 GMT
Organization: DSG, Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

In <1992Dec20.192301.1250@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>>Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>>I would rather be told that I don't understand than I can't understand.
>>
>>Again, I agree.
>
>/1/ I would say that when a member of group B says of another group A that
>"A's can't understand B's", they're actually saying "I don't *want*
>A's to understand B's", or (implicitly) "I don't want A's to
>understand *me*".
>/2/ If person X wants to understand person Y, and
>person Y wants to be understood, then there's no reason why
>understanding shouldn't take place.

[I've annotated Guy's comments with /1/ and /2/ for ease of reference]

/1/ I disagree. I think saying "A's can't understand B's" is likely to
be borne out of frustration and personal experience. "The last 9 dozen
times I have tried to explain something to A, they didn't understand so
I have concluded that they are incapable of understanding."

/2/ One reason why understanding may not take place is that Y may have
met with frustrating failure the last 9 dozen times s/he tried to
explain things in the past. In this case, I do not think it is
constructive to blame Y for not making an effort to be understood.


>>Here is how it is for me.
>>
>>	When it comes to learning principles from listening to the
>>	experiences of others, I am a slow learner. Thus, if a woman
>>	told me her experiences of XYZ and why it gets to her, I
>>	probably wouldn't "get it." So she might have to tell me again.
>>	And again. And again. Or better still, if different women _each_
>>	told me their experiences then _eventually_ I would start to
>>	"get it."
>>
>>Of course, it would probably be very frustrating for all these women to
>>have to realte their experiences to me repeatedly until I "got it" and
>>then to have to repeat the process again for the next guy who comes
>>along. [...]
>
>Why not try to empathize *first*, and rationalize afterwards?

Empathy requires some level of understanding. If I "don't get it" then
I don't think I have enough understanding to be able to empahise.

>In other words, if someone tells you they feel hurt or angered or
>betrayed or whatever by a particular experience, just imagine a
>situation where you've felt hurt or angered or betrayed yourself.

But if I can't understand *why* they are upset then I am likely to
think that they are over-reacting. Isn't this one of the often used
lines to dismiss women: "You're over-reacting/too-sensitive."

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point. If you can manage to
empathise with a person when you have no understanding of their
anger/hurt then good for you. But I can't do it so good.

>>What works for me (your mileage may vary) is to find a book which
>>contains personal accounts written by a large number of women, where
>>each account discusses that woman's experience of XYZ. In this way, the
>>women only need to relate their experinces once and since the book can
>>be mass-printed, many men can hear (read) all these experiences easliy
>>and repeatedly.
>
>That's certainly very useful if you want to gain an appreciation of
>the experiences of women *in general*, but it's not the same as
>relating on an individual level.

My point was that reading such books might help you understand the
general concepts. If you can manage that then it should help quite a lot
if/when a person tries to relate their own specific story. Besides, very
often, men want to understand the general issues rather than the
specifics of one woman's experiences. In this case, the book will be
just as suited (probably more so) as hearing one woman tell her specific
story.

>>	o Once the book has been produced, a woman who has been asked by
>>	  a man to relate her experiences of XYZ can say "Here's a
>>	  great book on the topic. Why don't you read that instead."
>
>That just sounds like a cop-out.  No book can be a substitute for
>someone's individual experiences.  Reading the book *as well* as
>hearing the person's experiences may be useful, since it serves
>to put them in a broader context, but just giving someone a
>book is absolving yourself of the responsibility of having to
>relate your own experiences honestly.

Let me rephrase the above into the following dialogue.

	Man:	Please tell me about what it's like to suffer sexual
		harassment on a dail basis.
	Woman:	Here's a great book on the topic. Why don't you read
		that instead.
	Man:	But I don't want to read about _other_ women's
		experiences. I want to hear about _yours_.
	Woman:  I could tell you about my experiences but I don't think
		you would understand and thus it would be a frustrating
		waste of time. However, if you read this book, I think
		it will help you understand the basic issues much better
		than I could explain them. So, why not read the book
		first, and *then* I will tell you my story, if you are
		still interested.

I don't think that is a cop-out. It is simply being pragmatic.
Especially if the woman has tried 9 dozen times in the past to relate
her experiences to men and is sick and tired of doing it.

BTW, I do *not* have a responsibility to educate every single Jo Soap
who comes along about queer issues. I may *choose* to educate a person,
but it is by no means a responsibility.


Ciaran.
-- 
---- Ciaran McHale (cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie)
\bi/ Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
 \/  Telephone: +353-1-7021539 FAX: +353-1-6772204