Summation of my points, today's discussion

In reference to the argument that the feminist approach is not unique, necessarily, I offer a few points (and some I probably didn't) I mentioned in class. Ecriture feministe:

• Offers an opportunity for a female writer to not only write her experience as an extension and affirmation of the body but experience her writing experience as a rediscovery of the body through writing
• Writes about women for women, to do for other women what they cannot for themselves (emancipatory function of writing)
• Acknowledges the existence of "male" impregnable forces (such as the 'genius') and resist these (as dis or counter-logos) yet do not affirm their power by participating in their activity (writing to a 'male' power or validating these powers through writing serves as a creation of woman for her own 'containment')
• Replaces the concept of a universal "state of being" to a relative "being," the experience of the writer and her writing
• Serves a larger emancipatory function in not only freeing other women, but after breaking the male impregnable, refuses the sheer existence of male forces, leading to silencing of stratifying and exclusionary forces

As I mentioned in my thought paper, what makes feminist concepts of authorship different is the aim. Instead of internalizing the muses, waiting for inspiration from above, feminist is very present, at once of what she knows and also of what other women know to be experiential. Further, this differs from other concepts of authoring "what one knows," (the presence of the author as solitary in his creative genius) in its unselfishness. Instead of writing to the purpose of "this is," an aggressive transposition of the world's state, ecriture feminine does not concern itself with truth, correctness, or reliability of the information (whether or not she correctly embodied the 1920s flapper). It offers the ability to just be without anticipation of critique against an impenetrable genius standard.

I relate to this distinction myself. The place where Cixous mentions the female experience of writing in secret, writing only in part, not fully, in anticipation of fault, inefficiency, or lack of creativity. When held against a higher standard, we (in my mind, men and women) fall at the feet of genius. We resist writing in full force, as the looming male power (in this sense, publishing companies or educational institutions) may deem our writing (if we put all our effort into it) inappropriate or inconsequential. Instead of risk not only our writing but ourselves, we write half-heartedly or choose not to write at all, further perpetuating our female experience.

These seemingly unique feminist tenets strike a chord with me. Do they with you? Where are the limitations in this feminist interpretation?