I like the way Narayan explains one of her main ideas on page 37: "the claim to the epistemic privilege of the oppressed does imply that people who are not members of the oppressed group will have to make a great deal of effort to come to grips with the details of lived oppression. Having members of the oppressed groups as friends, sharing in aspects of their lifestyle, fighting alongside them on issues that concern them, sustaining a continuous dialogue with them, etc. can all help non-members develop a more sophisticated understanding of what a form of oppression involves. But 'outsiders' who do none of the above, who simply have an abstract sort of goodwill towards members of the oppressed group, are unlikely to have much of a clear or detailed awareness of the forms in which that oppression is experienced." Furthermore, "concerned outsiders must recognize that their concern carries with it a responsibility to actively seek out and acquire such knowledge, rather than see it as the insider's responsibility ot bring such knowledge to their attention because the oppression is 'the insider's problem." Her proposed solution (for lack of a better word) assumes that the "outsiders" to the oppressed group want to, and are willing to, understand the viewpoint of the oppressed persons. So, in what situations is this solution more effective than others? How do we get people to care enough in the first place to understand others? Do you know men who take these steps toward better understanding women? Finally, is it possible to incorporate Narayan's suggestion into education without using the "tools of a racist patriarchy" as described by Audre Lorde?