Late night thoughts on civil debate, Kamalji's thread on the Mumbai rape and Zenanas

Following the imposition of ‘higher standards’ for men, I decided to desist from posting on IL, mostly because the tenor of that discussion, the expulsion of discordant voices and the underlying unexamined assumptions made me rather uncomfortable. I morphed from participant to lurker, only looking in periodically to see what my favorite and not-so-favorite posters had to say. Kamalji’s recent thread on the Mumbai rape has provoked me to step out of the shadows.
See: Kamalji on the Mumbai Rape
Since that thread is now closed, I write this as a separate post, to make a few simple points that bear repeating. SGBV did an outstanding job in dissecting the issue, so I confine myself to the loose ends.

(1) Regarding the notion of child rape being a ‘private matter’: Although the high dudgeon response has now been removed, since a seed was planted accusing Kamalji of base motives, some clarification is in order, even at the risk of my speaking on his behalf. First, Kamalji said nothing of the sort. He tried to draw a qualitative distinction between the case under discussion where the rape happened in a more-or-less public place and crimes which occur within the more private sphere of the family, shielded from public ‘view’. His point was to encourage caution and prudent avoidance of dangerous neighborhoods. One cannot very well advice anyone, even less a child, realistically, to avoid the home. Nowhere did Kamalji imply that the rape that occurs in the private space of the family is permissible or understandable in any sense of the word. He was simply pointing out that although the crimes are related, and rape is rape, the dynamics are qualitatively different, calling for different solutions. His post #14 is quite clear. To pretend otherwise is a willful misreading and an abdication of reason.

(2) Civil debate: In any debate, before adopting a tone of outrage, it is best to seek clarification – unless one is out to score points, as might be the case in contests or political theater, where strategic distortion may be simple gamesmanship. “Kamal, surely you don’t mean to say ….?” Or even a straight “what do you mean by …?” would go a long way toward ensuring a civil debate. Idiots will eagerly hang themselves given a longer rope, while more thoughtful people will be grateful for an opportunity to explain themselves.

(3) On the term ‘incest’: In this thread, more than one person interpreted ‘incest’ to automatically imply ‘rape’. The words are not synonymous. ‘Incest’ means sex between close relatives. It may or may not be rape. For example, in Ptolemaic dynasties, incestuous marriages were a traditional and socially approved way of preserving power. The more recent conviction of the Columbia professor David Epstein on incest charges is another case in point. This is incest, but not rape. I hasten to add that I am pointing this out only to encourage precision in the use of language, no more.

(4) IL as a safe-neighborhood for women: There are at least two possible visions for IL. The first is as a safe-haven for women, a refuge from our still male-dominated society. The second is a competing vison, as an arena for the empowered Indian woman, willing and able to engage with men and the world on their own terms . I am disappointed to find that IL appears to favor the former Zenana option, often with the support of the stakeholders themselves. One can only wish it were otherwise.

 

Re: Late night thoughts on civil debate, Kamalji's thread on the Mumbai rape and Zena

My aim is not to defend Kamlaji. He is vocal and can speak for himself. I only want to discourage tendentious distortion by taking it on when I am so inclined. Re: sexual violence within the family, he did not say anything close to what was attributed to him.

Kolaveri is not my style. If I feel one coming on, I know I need a time-out!
That post was about civilized debate & indignation as theatre.

 

Re: Late night thoughts on civil debate, Kamalji's thread on the Mumbai rape and Zena

No it's not, but precision in language aids precision in thought, which is a prerequisite for any productive discussion - of social change or anything else for that matter.
At least that is my endless hope!

Kamal's views are not the issue. He's been taken on by many members & he can deal with that as it suits him. Attributing to him or to anyone views which they did not express is. Willful distortion is a barrier to thoughtful debate.

 

Re: Late night thoughts on civil debate, Kamalji's thread on the Mumbai rape and Zena

ana onnume puriyala(Can read but not understand) -> Yes, that's because the relevant post has been deleted.