Re: [A-List] (Fwd) Re: Clash of Sexual Civilizations (was Re: ahma

[Gopal Kappiarath <gopalkster@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 26, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:

> I have talked with a lot of Iranians, both in Iran and in the
> diaspora, and what I stated, the idea of sexual orientations not being
> a norm in Iran, is simply a fact, not a peculiar idea of Ahmadinejad.
> Whether Iranians will create the kind of society sketched above by
> moving from where they stand now into the direction I suggested,
> rather than adopting the discourse of sexual orientations en masse and
> developing identity politics based on it, remains to be seen, and it
> is up to them, not to you or me.
> --  
> Yoshie


Sexual orientation as identity is not the norm in US as well.   
Identity politics
 is problematic, not just because they rely on categorizations that
are socially/culturally constructed ( and hence the definition  
remains open),
but also because  they can aspire to a constant ( dehistoricized)  
'victimhood' status based on identity.


In groups with people of varied backgrounds, everyone may have  a sob  
story, everyone
may feel victimized by the system, everyone may feel  that their  
voice has not been heard, everyone may feel
that their interests have been neglected, everyone may feel unwelcome/ 
unwanted/not cared for.

If identity is recognized as multiple and temporary, and as a  
construction that occurs in an encounter with
the 'other',  then neither is victimhood permanent  nor is the need  
to  be defined by that identity all the time.

(A slave is a slave in relation to his master, but can be the master  
in relation to his spouse)

Maybe all Iranians are heterosexual and comfortable with their gender/ 
sexual identities, but if there are
people who would like to be otherwise, and if the culture makes this  
restrictive,  and the state
refuses to acknowledge it, then those who would like to be different  
cannot be so, and will
remain inhibited and  may be victimized as well.

'Not up to you or me'  is not valid beyond a certain extent. We might  
believe there is only
one way of doing things until and unless we see more options. It is  
quite possible
that if we live in an  insulated  environment, we might not be aware  
of the options available to us.

The need to ban stuff ( books) because they might expose the people  
to different
viewpoints is a sign of  intolerance.

The Indian government was only too happy to ban Satanic Verses by  
Rushdie after  the Ayatollah
condemned it.

Rushdie treated the prophet with disrespect. How dare he?!

When it comes to prostrating before sacred cows, India( Indians)  are  
as  bad or worse as
any other culture-  I think so....

Gopal