I see what you mean. I suppose, though, that I think if someone makes an attempting-to-be-empathetic analogy to their own experience, the other person has every right to say, in some way (whether directly or indirectly): "well, but that's not the same thing, because x, y, and z." Again, that's how it tends to work in everyday conversation--in fact, I wrote a paper once that analyzed an excerpt just like that.
I really did like all the points you made here, and I think you're right about them in the context of this discussion. But looking at it from a slightly different direction, it's sounding a little too much like you're saying that when a member of a marginalized group is talking about his or her experiences as a part of that marginalized group, normal conversational procedures don't (and maybe can't) apply. And while that may in fact be true, I really hope it isn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-04 06:01 pm (UTC)I really did like all the points you made here, and I think you're right about them in the context of this discussion. But looking at it from a slightly different direction, it's sounding a little too much like you're saying that when a member of a marginalized group is talking about his or her experiences as a part of that marginalized group, normal conversational procedures don't (and maybe can't) apply. And while that may in fact be true, I really hope it isn't.
-J