Fine; I expected this line of response from someone or other, but that was not my point at all. One can be leftist, non-dalit supporter of dalit cause , Payyanurkkaran , bisexual(sexual orientation so declared), Malayalee, (male) feminist , or anything else. There need not be clashes between these identities so long as you want to defend them in your personal/political struggles. It is pretty strange that Dileep finds something extra ordinary in someone defending his "leftist"identity on one occasion, and other identity later! (as though one could not have done it?..though it was not clear to me what Dileep actually meant) For me, it is just the contrary. Even in a supposedly informed discussion forum like this, people want to avoid many fundamental questions of identity vis a vis politics ,exactly in the manner as we often encounter in our commonplace experience elsewhere. Anyway, I agree that a future researcher could take the content of my post even as a piece of homophobic writing. Well, I need not be afraid, because the people whom I was addressing knew the temporal factors and the whole context. My points were these: 1.As to the connection made out by Rafeeq between Payyanur, Dalit and homosexual. I would maintain that it is not similar to the other references made by him .The others are comparatively generic, when he refers to (Malayalee, Kottayam Nasrani and Pathanamthitta Muslim )homosexuals, though I would like to condemn these as well for the derogatory sense they convey in toto in a discussion about same sex love. Did he mean only a little (bad) joke? 2. If you (Mr. Rafeeq) don't have the need to talk of, say,Malayalee, Kottayam Nasrani or Pathanamthitta Muslim *hetero-sexual*, there is equally no need to refer to these brands of homosexuals. You were purposely brandishing with words taken from the homophobic lexican; otherwise you could have used some universal expression like LGBT or simply Gay. Your invention of Malayalee, Nasrani, Kottayam , Muslim , Dalit and Payyanur brands of homosexuals didn't really serve a purpose in this discussion. I was simply shell shocked at the prospect of "homosexuals"living at the mercy of smarter people, the hetero-sexuals like Rafeeq. Again, Dileep and perhaps many others too, find my response just another product of clash of irreconcilable identities from within!! Imagination, or reality whatever be this , is disturbing enough, I think. Not only just personally for me but also to everybody concerned with the hetero-normative power relations around. 3.The generic references mentioned above might have been used for the purpose of sounding the whole thing benign, while the specific reference to some imaginary opponent sitting somewhere, unaware of this kind of motivated innuendos to sexual orientation is the thing I want to object, and to protest primarily. 4. This is contrary to all ethics when you make unwarranted and out of context references to sexual orientation. Here is a clear case of it .( you may think that this is too judgemental). But I can't help expressing my thought that way. Esp when Rafeeq apparently has nothing to add to the discussion other than posing himself as a smarter hetero-sexual, brandishing homophobic references toward others with or without any purpose other than equivocally defending the ideology of heteronormativeness . 5. If the points I wanted to make here and the earlier posting still elude being focused in further discussions of this topic , I can't help it any more. Regards, K.M.Venugopalan, Payyanur.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is interesting. > > Venugopal came out as a 'leftist' earlier in this column. > Now as bisexual, nondalit and payyannurkkaran. > > I can see from the emotion that he is sicerely hurt [ though I never > suspected any personal reference while reading Ahmed Rafeek's take]. But > suppose > a future researcher reading this text without considering the whole > context > and temporal factors . > This could prove out to be an instance of homophobic writing, I fear!! > > Consider this reinforcement in his latest mail > "Payyanur as a place and dalit as a community is particularly NOT > known for homosexuals" > > What does this imply? > Kottayam or kozhikkode and Mappila/ Nasrani are known for homosexuals? > > "I must say that referring to one's sexual orientation irresponsibly > and obviously with a conscious or unconscious motivation to lower your > imaginary opponent's esteem in the eyes of a community like this forum > is bad enough." > > Will this community take "Payyannur Dalit Homosexual" as derogatory? > [even if that interpellates nobody in reality] > > which is derogatory, Payyannurkkaran, Dalit or Homosexual? > > Anyway, I am happy to see idenity being complicated further. > More happy to see Venugopal complaining about generic tabs like > "Malayalee" > > hope this discussion will become more and more personal > [ which issue can be more political than personal? Anyway, personal is > theoretical too] > > > > > > > > > > -- > Dileep R I thuravoor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
