1975.

Discussing Cixous' essay, my roomate and I mulled over her overtly sexual language. My roomate, a film major, brought up the fact that Hollywood was going through a sexual revolution as an organization and within the entertainment industry as a whole. One such film that tried to challenge or address the issue of feminism is "The Stepford Wives". This movie reveals a masculine obsession with dominance and the protection of their "manhood" and masculinity. The main character who tries to figure out this process ends up running into opposition and finds the mechanical ways in which these "women" are controlled. These themes had not been discussed quite so frankly as when women's issues became a forefront of the cultural and entertainment spectrum.
If on eis offended by her sexual lingo and analogies, remeber the time period surrounding the essay is one of breaking out and breaking free.

Freud.

After looking at Cixous' essay, her references to Freud intrigued me as I have studied psychoanalysis in a few classes here at Messiah. Freud developed his theory of sexuality and psychology using such proposals as women having "penis envy" and men having a fear of castration. When Cixous encourages women to write and to write what they don't know in order to form their identity she calls them to rebuke this "penis envy". Unfortunately, I didn't realize the extent of the mind and self esteem barrier that women faced...to be told from the beginning of psychological discoveries and schools of though that you as a woman subconsciously wanted to become a man to the extent that she felt incomplete without make genitalia creates a void and chasm between the sexes that creeps deeper and deeper with every pen stroke and publication. Men simply fear the removal of their "manhood", thus viewing the envy as a threat. The threat turns into the enemy and the two are never seen in harmony.
Another similar theory that prevents the female from "branching out" and forging her own path in the world is because she sees that she has the same anatomy as her mother and clings to this familiarity, while the man sees that he is different and leaves the home. This crude and incomplete picture of this theory nonetheless represents another problem for women writers...they are encouraged to not go because it is not proper. Their mothers and matriarchs in the family were good Christian women, who labored in love and married into an unequal partnership. Women writers should be able to chose their mediums and techniques. It is their right as human beings, who are glorious in their own sexuality to explode their way into the world and surrounding culture.
I am sympathetic towards Cixous' overtly sexual writing because in order to "explode" onto the scene women must make it known that they are in fact able to make the effort and have the ability to remain in this sphere of literary criticism and writing. She is not intimidated by "the big dick" and she is not the "woman of yesterday".

A Modest Response.

Powers' proposal caused flashbacks of a young girl going through a Christian private school and the weight that the fundamental voices present had on her life and worldview. That young girl would be me and the teachers and administration that ascribed to a similar perspective towards literature and Christian faith.
The first question I had, surrounds the idea of "Christian Imagination". What is the Christian Imagination exactly? The first principle states that this imagination is revealed through Christian writers and texts. This imagination, from what I can glean from the text, is defined by its separation and its "rightness" with God. I believe in a universal imagination that is potentially shaped by environment and beliefs....wouldn't it be impossible for anyone to have a Christian imagination? If belief in a fallen humanity does not include this, then that seems silly. If similar to our bodies we were to make it a slave to what is "right", wouldn't that be minimal if no imagination at all? The reason I say this is when we view our bodies in this way (Biblical) our imagination is seen as an enemy and something to be shunned or persevered through. With the imagination, it is a good thing. Used for much enjoyment and creation. It can be used for horrible deeds such as murder or oppression, but these cases are extreme and few compared to the good and progresion made through the imagination. Much like starving our creativity. As Christians, becoming eclusive to a certain types of literature we are "short changing" ourselves as writers. As writers we must know people and the characters and roles they play. With Christian litarature comes the escape from reality that many books present and present well.
The concept of "in the world, but not of it" is not a new concept to me, because I have heard that growing up. However, this confuses me somewhat due to this mantra's absence from the Scriptural texts. If Messiah College implemented these principles onto the English students, they would be encouraging a separation that excludes whole people groups and whole ideologies. As Christians if we were to do such a thing would make our interaction with others strained or simply opportunities to witness. Spending time on a "service learning" trip would not create a "better way to understand the ways in which the imagination must always work in service of others" make sus unapproachable because we are there to teach, not learn. We become even more distant because we understand what is right and beneficial...everyone else should follow our lead and ascribe to these beliefs of literature.

More Woolf.

Do men and women write differently?

In response to this equestion I would pull from quotes and ideas. From a bio-psychological standpoint, I would say that the differences between male and female hormones and parts of the brain are very much there. So, we cancel the factual side. Could the writer be writing about something on a deeper level? Probably. A male writer taking on the voice of a woman (vice versa) lends no explanantion biologically. This would begin the debate over "the mind-body problem".
Instead, Virginia Woolf (as a writer) describes this dichotamy in a way that makes further sense when she states, "...it was delightful to read a man's writing again. It was so direct, so staightforward after the writing of women. It indicated such freedom of mind, such liberty of person, such confidence in himself" (p.1026)
According to the great feminist thinker, there was a difference between the two types of author. However, in class I was thinking about the question stated above and continued to read onto the last line when I realized that my group in class' discussion was not accurate at all. Having concentrated on the line stating "straightforward", we missed a large part of what Virginia Woolf was saying.
Ulitmately, women suppressed are not to be trifled with. Men's dominance in the arts and life in general forced women for the most part 9as described by feminists) to remain introspective and confined. Males are/were celebrated. Women are/were married and confined to a box. In this box there is no room for creative and original thinking to become actual, because as Woolf explains in "Androgynous" man sweeps into the scene and ravages the female intellect with its straightforward opinion on the world today and she is left with no voice and no say...or atleast nothing the male figure believes is interesting.
As for writing, this comes out on the page and like Virginia's quote, man's writing is straightforward and full of confidence. When hampered and suppressed by a predominantly male, anti-sexual section of the brain wouldn't your work lack the confidence that a man's voice would? If this is what Va. Woolf was getting at, then I agree. However, if this is not what she is writing then I must be confused with why contemporary feminists disagree with this sentiment adn why it is such a controversial claim.

Feminism separated from the Literary.

Reading an article on JSTOR about Virginia Woolf's political importance and her significant writing contribution I am struck by the sentiments of Perry Meisel, who desires to separate the political from the "literary history". Furthermore, critics fail to use feminist authors before Virginia Woolf (specifically, "A Room of One's Own")...thus interpreting all of women's literature through a 19th-20th century lense. Whether or not this is the sole case, Woolf's contribution to feminist literature is both controversial and much discussed.

First of, was Woolf a "butterfly" or a "rebel"? (see "Guerrillas in Petticoats..."). Let me explain, Virginia Woolf began as someone feminist critics and literary theorists reserved as a true example of what a female writer is capable of doing, according to outside research. Almost a hero of sorts. Essays approximately twenty years ago pegged her as a "revolutionary", "rebel" figure in the trenches and at war. This is a very political definiton. Her transformation creates the problem of redefining what "feminism" is. As feminists try to combat the definition of feminist literary theory and institutionalization as well, Woolf's writings do not ascribe to these current ideas of feminism. This proves critical because she is the "center" of all feminist thought.

The question I would like to pose is does the reshaping of feminist thought in a postmodern world negate Woolf's political importance to the cause of femist thought/action? (Has the feminist movement removed itself so far from literature?) I believe the political definition is incorrect because it is no longer relative. The reshaping of feminist thought does place Woolf in a position to only have power in her essays that sparked the movement itself. Today, feminism has begun to comply with different cultures and ideas of feminism. The new term today would be "feminisms" and there is no solid definitions according to author Linda Hutcheon. Each culture deals with its own set of issues and types of scenarios/problems. Based on this very general description, Woolf has lost her strong political voice. Understanding her to be a literary powerhouse, cited Woolf as a key witness and judge of current feminist situations is faulty and refutable. Is this saying that Woolf is outdate. Perhaps in some levels. Should she still be studied? Yes, she broke the mold further, allowing women to write and gain more respect as they use different techniques and theories about characters and style of plot. Thus, she should be separate from the political figure entirely when studied in a class-such as Lit Crit.