As a long standing [or crawling?!:)] theravu insider, full of more vice than poor Velayudhan Nair can ever imagine, I must say I was utterly amused to read the rather ridiculous little piece written by him about the "real roots" of violence against women. While I agree, in part, with Bindu that one can't judge Sugathakumari on the basis of her husband's idiocy (except wonder why she's still with him - if she is!) I also think that if this was published, as Geedha says, when she was the Chair of the Vanitha Commission, I think it raises rather different issues. It is morally incumbent on her, in her political capacity, to respond to such a point of view, particularly at a time when there was such a raging debate on violence against women. And if that isn't forthcoming, it is tantamount to her sharing the same viewpoint.
However, much of the heated debate in this forum, though addressing many of the substantive issues about political positioning etc, has also centrally been about the right to express a point a view that is different - i.e. Ranjith's right to say that he believes SK might hijack the Athirapally issue, and commenting on her supporters, and more recently on Geedha trying to post the VN piece. I am struck by the extraordinary pains the moderator has taken not to engage with this issue. Sanil has repeatedly pointed out the minimum grounds on which cyber-spaces can be moderated. The frequent response has been that if people don't like this arbitrary and dictatorial stance they can leave. I am sorry - I am here to stay - and to express my difference in as many ways as I think fit, which at the moment is simply concerned with everyone's right to redefine the meaning of this "community". The protracted debate on Athirapally to mind has added, and not detracted, from the issue. Any serious activist will be able to see that. Activism I am afraid is not simply about jumping on to the latest, available, fashionable band-wagon - it is about taking risks. If Ranjith is to be charged with anything - it is about taking such risks. I support that even if on many issues we might differ, wholly or in part (as indeed many of us may, in this forum). That does not mean that we will not engage in debate. He has asked repeatedly why his position should be characterised as "hate mail" when any numbers of instances abound with such "hate". Recently someone posted a mail characterising this entire discussion as "intellectual masturbation". Now I personally respond to that as one should to someone who is onanistically challenged - but why is that language not objectionable? The moderator must respond to this, and to all other instances where he has allowed some people to post, but has blocked, or "moderated" others. Finally, I am not at all convinced about this "policy" of checking the first 3 mails (the argument about why Geedha wasn't allowed to post) and then "opening" up the space. Many of us were added to this list by Dileep, and at least as one of the people who wrote only in response to a similar incident earlier in the year, I don't think any of my mails was "moderated" even though I was 'new', and had not ever posted anything before? The enabling possibility of cyber-communities is that they have the potential to be infinitely open and inclusive. One wishes that the moderator would bear that in mind, at least once in a while. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
