Hélène Cixous, in “Laugh of the Medusa,” equates a feminist voice to a feminine voice. This a difficult claim to make, because not all feminist voices are feminine, and not all feminine voices are feminist. Let us look also at Monsieur Venus by Rachilde to further explore Cixous’ argument. What does it mean to have a feminist voice? Is it different than having a feminine voice? To me, feminine writing need not be feminist, but also should not be defined more deeply than the fact it was written by a woman.
To begin, let us define our terms. Feminine writing, according to Cixous, is “impossible to define” (883). However, she claims that it does in fact exist, but that we as yet have been unable to find it because there have been too few examples …show more content…
In Chapter 7, the author breaks free from her traditional narrative voice to speak in half-guised detail about the female orgasm: “. . . brutal manifestations idealize the flesh, the action of the senses extends to the intellectual domain, the imagination awakens to limitless aspirations” (90). This type of language, this type of writing, is exactly what Cixous deems feminine. It is never outwardly graphic but instead communicates the experience of a woman as she “prostitutes herself to conceptions of paradise” (Rachilde 91). By refusing to talk directly about the physical experience and choosing to focus more generally on the intellectual and emotional experience, Rachilde achieves a voice that is unique to the feminine perspective. She seems to fulfill Cixous’ request for true feminine …show more content…
This is evident in Cixous’ text because even though she argues for the advancement of women, she still places them in a binary, pitted against men. In the same way, Rachilde’s novel, though it was very ahead of its time in terms of gender politics, still conforms strictly to normative gender roles. In the patriarchal state of the world, this subversion does nothing for the advancement of women. Instead, what is necessary is to restructure the entire system. Instead of encouraging women to write as women, why not encourage all people to write their individual
To begin, let us define our terms. Feminine writing, according to Cixous, is “impossible to define” (883). However, she claims that it does in fact exist, but that we as yet have been unable to find it because there have been too few examples …show more content…
In Chapter 7, the author breaks free from her traditional narrative voice to speak in half-guised detail about the female orgasm: “. . . brutal manifestations idealize the flesh, the action of the senses extends to the intellectual domain, the imagination awakens to limitless aspirations” (90). This type of language, this type of writing, is exactly what Cixous deems feminine. It is never outwardly graphic but instead communicates the experience of a woman as she “prostitutes herself to conceptions of paradise” (Rachilde 91). By refusing to talk directly about the physical experience and choosing to focus more generally on the intellectual and emotional experience, Rachilde achieves a voice that is unique to the feminine perspective. She seems to fulfill Cixous’ request for true feminine …show more content…
This is evident in Cixous’ text because even though she argues for the advancement of women, she still places them in a binary, pitted against men. In the same way, Rachilde’s novel, though it was very ahead of its time in terms of gender politics, still conforms strictly to normative gender roles. In the patriarchal state of the world, this subversion does nothing for the advancement of women. Instead, what is necessary is to restructure the entire system. Instead of encouraging women to write as women, why not encourage all people to write their individual