Also, will such a civil code ever acknowledge, let alone consider, the rights of people who identify as gay or lesbian? Even if they have constituted 'relationships' which are far more based on equality, trust and mutual respect than any 'recognized' heterosexual marriage, gay or lesbian couples will ever have any right on each other's properties and insurance or retirement benefits?
On 6/10/07, Muraleedharan Tharayil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 -- 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
