NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17335

Text File | 1992-12-27 | 3.4 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: soc.bi
Path: sparky!uunet!tcsi.com!hermes!miket
From: [e-mail] (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: Understanding
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 05:26:22 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>In <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Guy Barry) writes:
>>>[McHale:]
>>>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.
>>
>>I agree -- but we're back to comprehension rather than empathy.  The
>>two are both worthwhile, but they're completely different.  Ideally
>>you need both -- one is no substitute for the other.
>
>My point is that comprehension can aid empathy, at least for me.
>Certainly, I can empathise much better if I have a comprehension of the
>issues. Your mileage seems to vary in this regard (you can empathise
>with or without comprehension).

I think "comprehension" in the "intellectual" sense might, in some cases,
actually work *against* empathy.  Try a little Gedanken experiment here:

1.  Imagine a "story-understanding" system that analyzes the description
    of an enounter between a man and women, used to guess if the man was
    sexually harassing the woman.

2.  Let's say that, in the vast majority of cases, this system renders the
    same judgement that an empathetic jury would.  Such a system arguably
    "comprehends" sexual harassment.

3.  Unfortunately, when you substitute a man for the women's role in the
    stories, the expert-system always kicks the case out of court.
    Nothing in its programming prepared it for "comprehension" of such
    a case.

This point has personal relevance for me -- I have experienced a number
of unwelcome approaches from men, mostly when I was in my teens, and
while I'm strong for my weight, and fast for my size, I can be relatively
easily overpowered by most men, and probably outrun by many.

On this basis, and this basis ALONE, do I claim some understanding of
sexual harassment, and of the almost universal fear of rape that women
feel.  I claim this understanding because I HAVE been sexually harassed,
and because I have, at times, worried about being raped by the men who
sexually harassed me.  I don't pretend to know the depth of the feelings
of women about these things, because I doubt that I have experienced
them in their full intensity.  I can only say I know a little of what it
is like.  Lacking this experience, it's still the case that no book-learning
could substitute for seeing the tears of someone made utterly miserable by
the experience.  Only a sociopath would miss that clue, since we have all
cried in misery at one time or another.

The "empathy versus comprehension" debate is meaningless in the context
of this issue, because there is nothing here to understand BUT feelings.
---
Michael Turner
[e-mail]