Hi Just one point in response this observation: " the uniform civil code - which might ensure protection for women has gone on the backburner and none of us dare to argue for it because of the hindutva agenda " What makes us think that women are in need of "protection" and 'monogamous marriage' is the way to ensure it?
On 6/10/07, Arunima G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I write in support of Devika and her right to protest against the both the > use of sexist language within the context of the e-group discussions as > indeed against being sent threatening and violent personal mail as a follow > up. There is absolutely nothing humorous or ironic in being told that you > will be dealt with in a crowded bus, and any number of emoticons or other > cyber props will not make it so. > > But since we are so holier than thou here, and anti "political > correctness" (read a woman's right to protest - as much of this vilolence > erupted not after Anand's first mail but after Devika's) - let me then say > in the accepted politically "incorrect" language that any arsehole who wants > to threaten should shut the fuck up as "we" (and I retain the right to use > the collective pronoun) are not interested in his crappy threats. > > So let us not go for moderation or "censorship" (as it has suddenly been > deemed - and my word - how we protest against that suddenly though had it > been casteist or communal this entire group would have been up in arms!) Let > us all just spew invective....Nothing like giving some vent to one's spleen. > > > Maybe that might make one's position a little clearer? > > Regarding the more moot question about Anand's question about matriliny, > gender and the public sphere - well - this little discussion itself will be > a clear indication of the hostility against women - intellectual and > otherwise - and their opinions. I have a lot more to say on that but shall > reserve that for that separate thread. > > How the UCC links to the above discussion is unclear to me (unless its > part of the rather tiring and slightly boring critique of feminists and > their contradictions) - but it might be of interest to Bobby Kunhu to know > that this has been central to the discussions of at least some > secular/feminist initiatives from the early 90's (in Delhi and Bombay to my > knowledge; maybe other places too) and draft alternatives that could have a > gender sensitive civil code in a highly communal context were created and > discussed. If these have not been the centre of political discussions in > this country that says more about the priorities of parties in power than > the perfidy of ginger groups, or alternative movements. > > G. Arunima > > > > On 6/9/07, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > right > > "we" at the margins can least afford to subvert democracy > > couple of anecdotes > > 1. the uniform civil code - which might ensure protection for women has > > gone on the backburner and none of us dare to argue for it because of the > > hindutva agenda > > 2. most forms of facsism, from whichever side of the ideological > > spectrum it comes from, operationalises with censorship, we in kerala are > > witnesses to it, the way CPM has operated itself > > Having said that.... and not sure whether I know Rajeender or Devika > > personally.... > > on a limited way, i need to join issues with anand to the extent that I > > might be using sexist language in my day to day conversations.... not just > > sexist.... conversations with multiple prejudices that define where I come > > from.... > > I really do not think censorship is the answer..... unless we engage and > > counter these arguments, we will let prejudices and anger and violence > > ferment within hushed spaces. > > > > > > > > > > On 09/06/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I do disagree, Sanil. Moderation is not censorship; asking for > > > non-abusive language and demanding the protection of other people's > > > privacy isn't censorship. Let's be clear. This is not promoting > > > prudery. > > > Nobody's talking against sexually explicit language -- that is not the > > > same as language that stereotypes and reduces people of other sexes, > > > or > > > people who think of sex differently, into passivity. This is like > > > 'true > > > liberals' wringing their hands nervously when non-liberal action is > > > going > > > on! As a woman who has long fought sexual harrasment and gender > > > discrimination on campuses for many years now, I know this response > > > too > > > well! > > > > > > The person in question may have taken off the offensive post and made > > > a > > > quarter-of-an-apology (because his later mails clearly indicate he's > > > not > > > convinced of it). But that gives him no right to abuse personal email > > > -- > > > indeed make veiled threats as if it were a joke, and then try to get > > > away, asking whether I had 'no sense of irony'. > > > > > > Let's not enteratin romantic fantasies about democracy. I don't think > > > we > > > -- those at its margins, at least -- can afford it. > > > > > > Devika > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Bobby Kunhu > > C1/5, SDA, New Delhi - 110 016 > > Phone - +91-11-46021460 > > > > > > > > > -- > G. Arunima > Associate Professor > Women's Studies Programme > School of Social Sciences > Jawaharlal Nehru University > New Delhi 110067 > Tel: 01126704178 (dir) > 01126704166(off) > Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- Dr. Muraleedharan Tharayil Trichur, Kerala India 680 013 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ greenyouth mailinglist is the activist support mailinglist for kerala To post to this group, send email to [email protected] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
