on moderation.. whoever be the moderated or the moderator, it will be better if we understand that we are different people, we understand words differently. a moderation can only help us away from spams, letting everyone speak whatever they want to. .. interrupting and explaining what u exaclty mean by the group is silly.. may be there are clear reasons why you started the group. but why should you expect a democratic space to stay the way "you" want it to be? why wont you let it evolve? you might completely disagree, but whats wrong?
on ajitha.. and other pioneer feminist groups.. they have worked for years and did a lot of things in kerala. we must agree. but, their feminism is stuck with someothing the whole world's forgotten... (is it some kind of contaminated disease in kerala, nostalgia?) its not that domestic violence is not an issue, but sexuality or sexual minorities are the issues the world is slowly learning to adress. here, in kerala, its not the time yet. or the people who are supposed to, they see it as a "global conspiracy" or something. and anyone/everyone who talks about it is a part of the conspiracy. she can never be different. we can find a different way or we can wait for them to grow.. On Oct 1, 1:43 pm, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ranjith, > > I refused to respond to Ajitha not merely because she attacked me > personally. > But because she refused to address Nalini whom I interviewed. > Do you think that is not silencing? > > She referred to my dialogue with Nalini as 'instigation' > and her 'dialogue' with geetha in the same issue as 'dialougue"!! > Why should i fall into the trap by > responding? Let Ajitha recognise Nalini as an individual first .. > > On 9/30/07, Ranjit Ranjit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The tragic disposition of the people who rule greenyouth has been that > > "personal attacks" divert attention from "discussion". They have maintained > > it, though at times succumbing to the very logic they pretend to serve. > > Anivar, dileep, etc. hav shown at times to "personally attack in order to > > prove their point and ideologically position against their opponent, > > difference is that anivar does it immaturely, and dileep, very cunningly. > > However, I look at all these positions (including mine) not as attempt > > to tarnish any one. rather the personality tangential drawn will help to > > pose question to the individual dispensations of ideology and how , by means > > of its public display make persuading rhetoric. > > > Many scholars have done such an attempt, of course not within the > > limitations of digitally-safe-guarded sacred place of listservs and its > > hegemonically moderated caste/religious/gender spheres. > > > Martha Nussbum on Judith butler, > > > Ambedkar on Gandhi etc could be sited as some such attempts..... > > > Ajitha's piece "DILIP RAJINTE FEMINIST JADAKAL" really exposed the kinda > > patronizing agency narrative he tends to dispense at the expense of sex > > working community. What Ajitha did was looking at dilip and his position > > vis-à-vis the issues of sex workers, and ideologically posing questions to > > it. Though I disagree with her ideologically, her posing of question can't > > at any cost be branded as "personal attack". > > > The kinda of impact ajitha's article created could not have been possible > > with a similar but a politically correct analytical piece in a journal. So, > > with all my difference, I appreciate her. > > > At this moment, I would like also to appreciate the effort taken by anivar > > (read his post-motrem mail on me in the previous discussion).. but would > > like to remind him tht , the very effort itself indicate the "ideological" > > positioning of anivar against that of mine... and I ve only referred > > this in one of my MODERATED MAILS. and that was not bz of "hate" at all. > > The effort anivar took was against his ideological opponent. He never > > attempted to do the same for others (equally culprit of being diverting)..bz > > they never position ideologically against him. > > > On the allegation of "diverting discussion" in chitralekhs issue:. > > I look at chitralekha issue not as an isolated incident happened in > > kerala. There is a whole lot of hisorical,political,social,cultural elements > > that leads to such an incident. As such, my critique of the invisibility of > > issues of the discussion of caste in the cultural spheres dominated by > > the avowed cultural leaders demanded a complex and detailed interrogation > > than an issue-based alliance formation. People who argue for alliances tend > > to underplay the deeper concerns, sometimes immaturely and many times very > > cleverly. This is the theoretical limitation of Dilip raj and his > > positioning as well....not much to mention abt Anivar and his tantrums.... > > > -- > > Ranjit > > -- > Dileep R I thuravoor- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
