Instead of doing my essay, I’m reading about Helen Cixous… and thinking about who I am. Part of me looks at her ideas of “feminine writing” and feels that it’s not writing that I love, but it’s so-called “male writing”. Part of me is fine with that. I’m fine with that because that’s what I’ve been doing all my life, and it’s something that I enjoy. I’m fine with it because my job right now is to teach and tutor other students how to succeed in this “phallocentric” discourse. I like descriptive grammar and I like to learn the ins and outs of prescriptive grammar. I like critically analyzing things and giving feedback and translating ideas in to other ways of expressing ideas and helping other people learn to translate their ideas into a written academically accepted language. I’m also (apparently) very good at it… in fact, I’m convinced that my writing really is the only thing that has carried me so far through college with a 3.5something GPA.
But this other part of me thinks about this and wonders if I might be happier rejecting these ideas and embracing (or rather, creating) this more intuitive, flowing, or as-of-yet not quite understood way of writing that Cixous seems to be encouraging. I read about her and I think yes! I do have trouble translating my own thoughts into the “logic” and “clarity” that are demanded by Academia and any other respected nerd field. I think for a second that I’ve come to the very very essence of “writer’s block”.
But then my mind takes another turn… and I realize how much I dislike the ‘essentialist’ position that Cixous seems to take. She seems to be participating in the very discourse she wants to deconstruct by allowing ideas of “female” to correspond inherently with the repressed. She seems to directly connect “Woman” and women’s sexuality with all other things that are de-emphasized in our socially constructed discourse. Things like intuition, concepts of mothering, and nurturing, or poetry. I’m offended by this. I don’t believe that there is anything more than a coincidental parallel construct between most of these things. I don’t believe that anything is is inherently “Vaginal” about child-rearing except that that’s the corridor through which a baby enters the world. I agree with Cixous’s critics when they make the point that her essentialism seems to defeat the goal she seems to have: that of breaking up the oppressive writing discourses we have. In fact, she could only succeed in creating a second oppressive discourse… and even if “female writing” did become a dominant language through which our world is seen, it would still be as engendered and as incomplete as she seems to feel the current system is.
I thought a lot about what I learned from commentary on her work (since I couldn’t find her actual works online yet…) and how I feel my own world is constructed.
When reading her, I also think about how in my own emotions, I often want to take on the expressive role, and give support, or attempt to be a stable thing for someone else to recieve what I give. I know that this is what is called the “male” role. I also keep thinking about how sometimes I want to be on the recieving end in a relationship. My own lifestyle matches this kind of ambiguity/confusion in how I (and I’m sure many other women) absolutely loathe shaving, plucking, waxing… and yet I continue to do so. I do it because I feel like I deserve the effects of this practice (being seen as a woman, whatever that really means to me), even while I hate the chores I’m obligated to do in order to be seen as a woman.
I see this ambiguity/confusion in my own sexuality… in my attraction to other people, especially people who would allow me to be more expressive and “active” than I could ever be in a “traditional heterosexual” relationship. this translates to my attraction to “feminine” men, and other women. I don’t want to be expected to settle into a pattern of being the reciever, being acted upon, or approached. But it’s more than that. I would be equally unhappy (and in fact I’ve found that I always am) in relationships where I am the one always in the ‘active position’. I’m always seeking the back-and-forth. I want to be both sides, and I want to be neither one. And I don’t want to be expected to be either one. In the contemporary ‘academic’ understanding, there exists here an irreconcilable paradox. But in the language that I think Cixous is advocating the development of, there is none. (this language she’s talking about… I don’t think is a bad idea… I just don’t like the essentialist thinking that seems to have begun it, or the engendered discourse that it could only lead to).
It seems like what I’m wishing for is for the entire “gender” discourse to just dissapear. The entire discourse including what it has done to writing, thinking, language, and thus the way we percieve the world… I wish that it would never have been developed… and we could all simply be human beings. And things like sex would not have double meanings for people. (for men it’s essential to have or risk social alienation. for women it’s essential to not really want it, or risk a completely different kind of social alienation… “sluttiness”.)
It all comes down to this conflict between me wanting to be comfortable and accepted in this society, and wanting to just be me without the meaningless obligations that come with not having a penis.
That… and my confusion about how I feel about the writing discourses… and academia… and my desire to be respected and such, and my disatisfaction with the path I must take in order to become respected.
*Pause*
I’m also feeling obligated to apologize for the disconnectedness of this entry… because this entry doesn’t adhere to the academic, ‘analytical’ patterns that would normally give an intellectual exploration like this a more “serious” readership/audience, I feel like I need to make some kind of excuse for it, and “claim” that I really am a “smart person” and that my thoughts here shouldn’t just be discounted as ramblings, or rantings… that this “paper” really was well thought out, and that it is (I guess) really structured in a way so that I can try to exercise my own ideas of what I think could be a new, more fluid “dance” between what Cixous calls “feminine writing” and what she thinks is the current logical masculine writing.
like she even says, the new discourse won’t make sense to the current contemporary systems. I think that in and of itself is evidence that what I’m doing here is a kind of play between those systems… because I really do come from the “contemporary” discourse, (and other reasons) I could never hope to create or contribute to “essentially feminine” writing. In principle, i wouldn’t want to. I want a language through which I could express more directly my thoughts and feelings.
I think that’s what I’ve tried here… and so, it would be expected that most everyone reading this (unless you are from venus. haha) will think that it is sloppy, poorly written etc etc.
pixelshim | 18-Jul-04 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
I have always thought that gender expression is not black/white or either/or, but rather a spectrum.
Perhaps even a two-dimensional description is inadequate.
autarchex | 19-Jul-04 at 12:29 am | Permalink
I have never heard of this masculine/feminine division of writing styles. It seems fairly synthetic to me, like “black writing” or “mexican writing.”
Is ‘feminine’ writing supposed to be more like stream writing? Though I guess that wouldn’t be it, since you said that this post was both planned and an example of feminine writing style, and stream writing normally isn’t planned at all.
I am awfully glad I am not an English major. I would have a lot of headaches.
kidorhi | 19-Jul-04 at 12:45 am | Permalink
I’m always curious what people have to say about gender and sex and communication and relating to the world through all those lenses. I didn’t think this was poorly written or disjointed. It made me think about how I think of sex (the act) for myself, considering that I haven’t had it yet and that I’m female yet pretty solid in my masculinity.
I mean, I was fortunate enough to grow up in the hippie-ish branch of the family tree, and wasn’t especially pressured to conform to gender roles, so it’s interesting to feel that I can take a few words from everywhere and create my own script as I go. And not only that I CAN do this, but I HAVE to, because there isn’t a widely disseminated course of action for gender expressions such as mine.
I struggle not to feel apologetic about my complexity as I get older. Heh, I remember thinking to myself sometime during elementary school that I wasn’t a girl, and I was closer to a boy, but better than either. LOL I also thought I’d grow up to be a great boyfriend. Carry the heavy stuff, tell my girlfriend she was pretty, hold her hand, let her cut in the lunch line ;) A kind of chivalry (frequently associated with men) that could be also considered nurturing.
Anyhow, to me, this was as much a given as waking up to see the sun in the morning at that age, and even now, below the clamor of trying on of various hats and the playing around, I’m still that kid. So I’m taking increasing care to find people who understand and love this about me, and know that I’m not “trying to be a guy” or whatever. I’m no less worthy/valid a bearer of masculinity just because I wasn’t born with a penis, you know?
Heck, this comment may not even be relevant to the post anymore, but maybe it’ll be some kind of helpful or interesting or something…
And, finally getting to what I originally came here to say, I’m leaving Japan as of early next month, so, unfortunately, no hanging out.
starladear6 | 19-Jul-04 at 1:52 am | Permalink
That’s the thing. She thinks there should be a new kind of writing that comes from women (specifically being born through women’s sexuality). This kind of writing doesn’t exist now, or so she claims… except in the few women writers who have been sufficiently oppressed to be on the “outskirts” of the writing discourse for so long that they have the right kind of point of view to create a writing discourse that is both from them, and unlike currently preferred writing styles (like logical, argumentative… the distance between narrator, reader and character, etc. take any writing class, or just come visit the writing center, and that’s what they teach.)
I agree with her in principle, and think that there is a potential for other kinds of writing styles that are not so permanently anchored in definition, framework and structure, and I think that it is simply a social construction that makes that style prefered over the “other”. But I dissagree about where and how I think it should (or will) be created. I don’t think it should come from women because men and all other genders in between are just as capable of exhibiting the human qualities she associates with women’s “essence”.
My entry here wasn’t an attempt at using “women’s writing” because that doesn’t exist, and I’m frankly offended by the idea.
It’s totally different from so called “ethnic writing” (which I have a problem pointing out because that kind of label further ‘labels’ and separates it from the accepted ‘conventional’ styles of writing also… )
autarchex | 19-Jul-04 at 6:30 am | Permalink
“women’s writing” because that doesn’t exist
Nushu Chinese: “women’s writing”
I know what you meant; I just provided the link because the phrase “women’s writing” reminded me of this, and I figured you might find it interesting.
Because everything on ancientscripts.com is interesting.
starladear6 | 19-Jul-04 at 11:12 am | Permalink
no it’s totally relevant. And really, it’s great to know that there are other people out there who know what I’m talking about. I love the part about “letting her cut in the lunch line” ha ha. so perfect. :)
We’ve got a lot in common I think, in how we imagine ourselves in relationships. when I picture myself in a relationship, I want to do those kinds of ‘chivalrous’ things part of the time, and I want them to be accepted. It’s easier to imagine it with a girl than with a guy… because well, there are so few guys out there who show the side of them that would be receptive to those kinds of expressions of love.
anyway, i’m glad you know where I’m coming from…
So, you’re going back to Hawaii? or where are you going? maybe my airplane will pass your airplane. :) I promise to wave.
One of these days, we’ll either both be in hawaii or both be in japan, and I can buy you dinner or something. :) I want to go back to hawaii next year sometime… maybe winter… who knows. :)
lacunaend | 19-Jul-04 at 11:15 am | Permalink
Your long and/or ranty type posts are always interesting. o.o
Shquit that ill out of nowhere find myself thinking about in week.
Anyway - I think humans have a bizzare desire to try to make order of chaos. We want a woman to be a woman so that we know what to call her, and we want a man to be a man.
we (apparantly) have male writing style - and we want a femenine one.. or perhaps we just want a new one, and feminine is the easiest way to classify it - because we must classify it - because we must maintain order.
everything must be neat!.. and in the same vain - we have seem to have this desire to fix things (people) that arnt neat, and orderly.
I personally believe there is order to everything - I dont believe absolute chaos exists ( - that is, I dont believe anything happens at random. I guess some people do) - I think chaos is essentially a lack of understanding. And in that sence - Im a pretty big believer in it (chaos).
Im a big believer in nature - where things just happen.
There is no good or bad, or black or white, or feminen or masculine, or gay or strait, or right or wrong. - things just happen. There is a why, and a how, but its not particularly important - except to us humans, who must make order. One great big obsessive compulsive species. o.O
As far as writing “styles” /things being poorly written/ traditional struct etc. etc. etc. I think I may have mentioned this before on my LJ quacking with you - I think “Art” Is the science of communication. - That is poetry, music, film, paintings, books - anything thats purpose is to communicate. That being said any text is art - whenever your trying to get a point accross.
I mean - “#$^!$^!$^!^&**”
starladear6 | 19-Jul-04 at 11:43 am | Permalink
I think I’ve decided that I really like it when people are responding and reacting to something I’m talking about. I remember last time we talked in here, I mostly became frustrated because it wasn’t a conversation “on topic” with what I was talking about… that frustration came in because I was trying to address an idea that was very very specific and also a pretty tiny minute detail in social criticisim etc…
but yeah. you’re wondering if your comment is ‘related’? hell yeah. and I think what you’re talking about when you refer to “standards” is exactly what I was talking about when I talk about conventions or current social constructs etc.
You were talking about how you think that it’s kind of human nature to want to make sense of our world… find an order to everything etc. I actually think that this itself is part of the so-called “male-centered discourse” that our writing discourse comes from… not to say that I think it’s “wrong” or whatever. I just think we shouldn’t get stuck on the idea that that is all that there is.
also, in reaction to somethings you said… i am not sure what I think about the idea of ‘order’ and chaos… i don’t think I’m really qualified to know that. I think I could find patterns in everything I look at, but that has more to do with cognition and the discursive lenses we all see the world through. I really don’t think any of us could ever have direct access to “outside ourselves” and truly “know” the nature of the world. We don’t have an objective perspective no matter what we do… so we can’t realy know if what we see are actually patterns written into the fabric of the universe, or if they are only patterns because we choose to see patterns.
I think the only thing I can really believe in, when it comes to the “true nature” of the universe or the world is the idea of ‘motion’… that’s an idea that is deeper than just that word is… reading derrida taught me it and it has become almost a religious philosophy for me… more about that later if you want. :)
doubleyou | 19-Jul-04 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
I think it’s annoying and sad how the culture we’re born into forces us into gender roles, and expectations. Take a really simple example: I hate sports. I’ve gotten flack for this all my life, and it somehow makes me “less masculine”. I’m also less assertive than men are expected to be. In the same vein, it seems that women are penalized (no pun intended) for being more assertive. I tend to be drawn towards that sort of woman, since it complements my less assertive nature. Though I’m not in any way advocating a total role-reversal either. It would be unfair of me to expect to never have to be assertive, and only rely on women to be so.
Yet the standards are so arbitrary too - they differer from one culture to another. What’s considered masculine in one culture is femininine in another. Assertive behaviour is considered a female quality in some cultures. And increasing our scope a bit, for some animals, it’s the female that’s the more promiscuous one, commanding a harem of males - a characteristic traditionally considered to be male, at least in humans (though this “conventional” wisdom is getting challenged lately).
On a slightly different, but not unrelated note: I’ve always found nudity to be an odd thing. Or rather, attitudes towards nudity. We usually associate nudity with sex, and clothed-ness with the lack of sex. However, it’s possible for the sight of a naked person (who’s otherwise attractive) to cause no sort of arousal, and for the sight of a fully-clothed person to be highly tittilating (sp?). The body language of the naked person could denote complete lack of interest in sex, or the clothing could strategically emphasize certain things about the form of the body. Yeah, I guess it’s all about the context in each case, but I still have trouble wrapping my brain around it.
And the other thing that bugs me about that is this prevailing notion that the female body is inherently beautiful, while the male body is a thing to be shunned. And I can’t claim to be exempt from this sort of conditioning, because I generally don’t like the sight of a naked male body, even my own to some degree.
Anyway, I’m not sure how to cap this off, so I’ll leave it at that. Just a bunch of random thoughts you spurred-on… ;-)
lacunaend | 19-Jul-04 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
I typed a big old responce then realized it had little if anything to do with your initial entry - so I posted it in my LJ and you can respond to any part of it if youd like.
o.O
and you thought your entry was rambling and speratic. hee.
kidorhi | 21-Jul-04 at 4:16 am | Permalink
I’m still navigating these waters in a remote kind of way, since I’ve never had an out-and-out relationship. I still have yet to even go on a date or kiss anyone. But, like you, I know what types of interactions make me light up and what I can see myself doing easily and joyfully.
I’m not attracted to masculinity. I admire the way others wear it, maybe borrow from their versions, but it doesn’t get me hot. And I’m pretty out of the loop when it comes to more traditional boy-meets-girl stuff. Sure, there’s a bit of that in the butch-femme dynamic I’m coming to be very comfortable with, but it’s not the same.
I’m expecting that my future girlfriend will appreciate this chivalry. I also gather that to a certain degree, she may demand a basic level of it, as a femme with a butch. That’s fine with me. I don’t have any good outlets for it right now, but I practice things when I can. Walking on the curb side of the sidewalk, opening doors, taking at least the heaviest bags if there are multiple ones, walking women to their cars at night, etc.
Chivalry with a guy can probably be done, but that’s where our paths of interest separate =)
I’m going back to CA. Only time I ever lived in HI was when I was born, but that’s my twin brother’s permanent duty station, I think, and I’d like to go visit him sometime.
LOL I’ve already got one mainly-internet friend who is all over the globe. He and I may finally be in one place long-term, and possibly get an apartment together. We’re not sure the world won’t end if we do actually manage to show up in the same city at the same time =)
So, you, me, dinner, whenever. Cool ;) I’ll wave back when our planes pass…
millimon | 31-Jul-04 at 4:48 am | Permalink
I love that term, Phallocentric. I’ve often wondered IS IT sexist, just because men have done it in the past, and women have not often participated? Is all writing really masculinist UNLESS written by a woman? Your Essay is humorous, insightful, and points out some of the problems in our society, for no matter how advanced we consider ourselves, we still attack the outsiders. Only now, the outsider is male. That’s not equality.
I really appreciated and enjoyed your post. Thank you. I would love to read a follow-up, a tongue-not-so-in-cheek essay on HOW to write ‘phallocentrically.’ I’d probably injure myself laughing. ^_+
Mil