Masculine-Feminine

Some time back I came across a discussion on Aishwarya's blog about feminism and literature. Can't find the post now but I remember she was replying to some meme about nice things that feminist movement had done to her life and she mentioned as one of the points that it had made possible for women to write about their experiences, find their true voices and become writers. I commented saying that women writers, specially those who are self-consciously feminist, somehow don't interest me much because they are always so obsessed with gender. It is as if feminism has increased the role that gender plays in their consciousness or formation of self-identity whereas it should have been actually the opposite -- the complete banishment of gender from self-identity. I did mention that i have not read enough women writers and I am not even familiar with all strains of feminist movement (which is actually quite complex) but my reaction was based merely on my total disinterest in the subject of gender.

Now Aishwarya sends me a link to this blogpost which has a wonderful (and hilarious) summary of How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ:

Pollution of Agency.
Okay, she wrote it, but she totally shouldn't have! A woman doesn't know enough about life to write about it well, unless she's a slut. She doesn't know enough about life, so she writes about irrelevant things like menstruation or rape or childbirth--"confessional" stories. Sure she wrote it, but she's such a bitch/so pretty you can't take her work seriously. Only abnormal women write books; look at how many of them commit suicide/go mad/can't find a husband.

The Double Standard of Content.
This is when certain topics are considered more important than others, based on an idea of how "universal" they are, and therefore art about them is innately more valuable. But this idea of the universal is skewed to what is part of the "public" or "male" sphere of experience. For instance, sport is more important than buying clothes [unless it's high fashion, perhaps]; business is more important than housework; war is more important than bedroom politics; male suffering is more important than female suffering. The double standard also means that books can be misread due to assumptions about the author, so for instance, before Wuthering Heights was known to be written by a woman, it was considered by critics to be about the nature of evil, and afterwards, it was considered a romance.

Hmmm. Now I know I was doing exactly these two things in my comments, though in a less extreme and less funny manner.

It is not difficult to understand, and it is indeed quite justified, why gender figures so prominently in the consciousness of women writers. It is a part of their experience, they face discrimination just because they are of a particular gender. Even if they believe in some gender-free ideal they can't outgrow it when they are actually fighting the discrimination. It is same as the case with someone who suddenly become conscious of his national or religious identity when he finds himself in an alien culture which discriminates against him or even doesn't welcome him. Just like it is happening in most western societies. All the talk of universal brotherhood and secularism notwithstanding.

Keeping this in mind I do feel good about more women writing about their experiences and thoughts even when everything is ultimately filtered through the prism of gender. Just that at a personal level this kind of writing doesn't interest me all that much. It is not just in reading, but in real life too macho men and feminine women, both bore me to tears. (I am with Proust, I like "masculine virtues" in women and "feminine charm" in men :) (from the Proust Questionnaire)). Now I am sure there are many women writers who are inclined towards this androgyny and gender-neutral approach too. I plan to look for and read more of their writings. (I did read a novel by Jeanette Winterson which didn't excite me much.)

I should also mention the Austrian writer Ingeborg Bachmann who I read recently and who I found very interesting. In fact when I started Malina I groaned at the initial chapter. Though it is written in a very unusual style, I thought, no, not another woman writing about her boyfriend troubles! But then soon I was totally taken aback by the extremity of her depiction of violence and depths of extreme despair. Her voice is unmistakably that of a woman (in fact that's one of the central subjects of her novels) but she really takes it to extremes, where other writers don't generally go. Elfriede Jelinek, her fellow Austrian, shares her temperament too if not her artistry. Again she didn't interest me much. I also haven't read much of Virginia Woolf. I plan to read more of her writings soon too.

Talking about gender also reminds me why many mainstream American writers like Philip Roth, Updike, Mailer, Bellow or Amis (he is British but anyway) leave me cold, what with their rampant (and shallow) heterosexuality and their misogynist, macho characters. I understand that it is a part of their point, that it is supposed to be a critique of masculinity but be that as it may, I am not interested. (I have actually read very little of these writers. I know, there is more to them than this specially Bellow I think but may be when I get more time. They are very low on my list right now.)

My current favourite The Man Without Qualities (I am still reading it, three months after I started it) has what I think is truly progressive ideas about Gender and Sexuality. It is a little too complex for my small brain but it is brilliant. I just wish there were few more Musils out there, little less ambitious and complex and easier to read. Alas! I don't think anybody is there. I am still trying to understand it, will write about it sometime later.