This seems to me to be missing the point. You don't need to understand why someone is upset, to appreciate that they're upset by something you did or said. You do have the option of replying, "Oh. I didn't know that what I said was offensive. I didn't mean to give offense. I'm sorry." and then going off to figure it out on your own or asking other, uninvolved people.
I saw a fascinating thing last night. I was at a subway station around midnight, waiting for my train, and a station official was having a heated conversation with a passenger who was departing the station. The passenger was complaining bitterly that a woman had taken his picture; the station official was explaining that when you leer at women's legs, "it offends them", and they do things like take your picture to submit to the police. The official was actually doing a very nice job at ripping this extremely entitled creep a needed new orifice, explaining in high volume that no, it DOESN'T matter how they're dressed and so forth.
At it really illustrated nicely how, this creep did not need to understand why women might object to a skeezy guy leering at them in a subway car. He didn't particularly need a copy of Shrodinger's Rapist nailed to any of his body parts; it clearly would have done him no good. What he needed to "understand" is that bad consequences would ensue for him if he didn't desist in the behavior.
When someone else says, "Hey, that was hurtful," what you need is to give a good god damn that you're hurting someone else -- or at least fake it convincingly so witnesses don't think you're a complete sociopath. What you need is for other people's feelings to count. The demand that someone justify why it's hurtful by explaining to how and why it is, is the opposite of that. It's saying, "Well, I don't think I should have to care about this, but I'm so broad minded, I'll allow you the opportunity of petitioning me to. Go on: beg me to care."
To which the only reasonable response is, "You know what? Fuck you."
(no subject)
I saw a fascinating thing last night. I was at a subway station around midnight, waiting for my train, and a station official was having a heated conversation with a passenger who was departing the station. The passenger was complaining bitterly that a woman had taken his picture; the station official was explaining that when you leer at women's legs, "it offends them", and they do things like take your picture to submit to the police. The official was actually doing a very nice job at ripping this extremely entitled creep a needed new orifice, explaining in high volume that no, it DOESN'T matter how they're dressed and so forth.
At it really illustrated nicely how, this creep did not need to understand why women might object to a skeezy guy leering at them in a subway car. He didn't particularly need a copy of Shrodinger's Rapist nailed to any of his body parts; it clearly would have done him no good. What he needed to "understand" is that bad consequences would ensue for him if he didn't desist in the behavior.
When someone else says, "Hey, that was hurtful," what you need is to give a good god damn that you're hurting someone else -- or at least fake it convincingly so witnesses don't think you're a complete sociopath. What you need is for other people's feelings to count. The demand that someone justify why it's hurtful by explaining to how and why it is, is the opposite of that. It's saying, "Well, I don't think I should have to care about this, but I'm so broad minded, I'll allow you the opportunity of petitioning me to. Go on: beg me to care."
To which the only reasonable response is, "You know what? Fuck you."