Our debate began with the word “only” in the above quote. My friend’s argument was that even in countries where women are said to have more sexual freedom than in India, there are distinctions like race and colour. Even in those countries, women, in general(as a normal practice) do not break away from the race/creed to which they belong. And therefore, sexual freedom alone will not lead to blurring of caste lines.

The point is, because of the certain identities to which they belong, sometimes women also will have certain premium as compared to those people belonging to other identities. Therefore even women in higher castes may not choose to blur those lines for fear of losing out on the premium that the ‘higher identity’ offers.

We have to understand the intersections between the different identiies and gender.Unless we understand that, we may not be able explore completely what are the gender related issues in conjuction with that identity.
Loved the post!

It seems to me that standing outside the various intersection points that you describe here is the absolute, self-evident thing of equality of men and women that speaks for itself, wouldn’t you agree?

This self-evident equality I don’t believe should be determined by any category or group or economic background to which a woman belongs. A woman is a woman, just as a man is a man and a woman is equal to a man because they are both species of human being (I know I am preaching to the choir here).

If we want to discuss the context in which the gender – man or a woman or any other LGBT group etc. – plays, and is played around for, a role, then such a discussion should first require/fight for the gender equality first as an unconditional given, and then predicate this power play on the power and powerlessness, not of the gender, but of the specific group/community.

Having said what I said, I believe what you wrote reflects reality as we experience today. But I wonder if this reality has anything useful to offer (such as gender equality, for example). Ideal provides the pull for forward movement. I get the impression that when you say, “So we need to understand gender in conjunction with other identities that are important in the daily lives of women,” you are setting yourself for a failure. These intersection points, conjunctions etc., are too many and it is easy to lose oneself, if the basic equality is not there to begin with.

Regards,
Crazyfinger