venugopal, if you can easily label any X or Y in discursive terms like hetero-sexual by justifying it with the normative meanings in force, what is the point in political activism?
if there are discursive practices forcing us to assume that everybody is 'naturally' hetero-sexual, do u just need to be part of it by calling others so? pl. apologize to ahmed :) On 2/25/08, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dear Rafeeq and other friends, > Let me just make two points why you cannot expect me to apologize: > 1. Your response came in immediately after my post which also equally > wanted to take part in a dicscussion on the malayalam blog related to > same-sex love in the context of the generally homophobic literary and > cultural environment. > > 2. Your reference to the generic categories of different identities > such as Muslim, Nasrani, kottayam, Pathanamthitta linked to the > homosexual subjectivities seemed to me ill matching to the last one , > which seems specific. It was your innuendo "Dalit- Payyanur - > homosexual" that followed immediately my post, (which in turn wanted > to highlight the typical homophobia existing here in the contemporary > cultural and literary fronts of Keralam), that prompted by subsequent > ones. > If your post, as you claim didn't contain any such purposeful innendos > against any individual and if others also feel that way, I would > happily withdraw the contents of my subsequent posts. > > lastly, > About calling yourself or any one else a hetero-sexual: > This is a ficticious and frivolous charge. Because, > Yourself, me, and every other are already defined as hetero-sexuals; > that is precisely the question.. which the blogger, Aryan and myself > apparently tried to focus. You subverted the discussion in the first > place, and myself only reacted to your subversion.. which also caused > such distraction. > What can we do ? > > > On Feb 25, 1:08 am, "ahmed rafeek j" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear members of the group, > > > > In my response to the post by [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wrote some > > observations about the blog by 'krishnathrishna'. > > My thre points were limited to the blog and the literary tradition of > > Kerala. But the discussions following the post demands my response and > > I am obliged to do that to the group. > > > > First of all, let me clarify that I am least interested in any > > memebers sexual or gender identity, unless they make a claim/ > > assertion on it. As far my last post was concerned I was talking to > > the list, and was not aware of VenuGopal's claim on his region and > > sexuality. > > > > >Who is demonising, > > >who is immortalizing, > > >and what kind of impossibility > > >were you talking about? > > > > Demonisation meant the 'demon' of the homosexual in 'Badha' and in > > Padma Rajan's 'Ningalude Thavalangal Ningalku'. In both cases the > > homosexual character is dead and haunts the hero. These characters are > > impossible as they are dead, but their demons are haunting the hero > > and therefore they are immortalised. This was referred to the literary > > tradition of Kerala of portraying homosexual as the other/ dead > > subject. By locating it to Muslim/Dalit/ Nasrani and > > Kottayam/PTA/Payyannoor I was pointing that homosexual is not an other > > without any attributes of religion or caste or regionality. > > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > The discussion thread was on homosexuality and Chullikkadu's poem. It > > was not on heterosexuality. > > > > > 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. > > > > I don't know what makes VenuGopal to declare that I am a heterosexual. > > I am really intrigued to know, how you came to a conclusion on my > > sexuality. Is it a conclusion based on some empirical evidence? Then > > you are mistaken me for some other Ahmed Rafeek. Also your declaration > > of my sexuality may be a referral point for others, and that will > > affect my reputation. > > > > > 4. This is contrary to all ethics when you make unwarranted and out > of... > > > > VenuGopal can use the group to declare his sexual orientation, I have > > no opposition to that. But I expect him to have the decency to > > apologise to me for calling me as a 'heterosexual' un wantingly and > > also for deviating my response to the content of the 'blog' to his own > > personal agenda. As his writing is evident of homophobia, I am not > > going to analyse it further. Also I am not interested in his polemical > > terms where he declares his sexuality in the group and where I may > > have to declare as well to balance the game. But I refuse to that, and > > refuse his categorisations on my sexuality. > > > > The criticism I made on the content of the blog remains the same, and > > I am more than happy to discuss on that with the group, but not in > > reference to VenuGopal's or my sexual preferences or practises. > > > > Thank you > > > > AhmedRafeek > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
