Reply to comment

The first thing that struck me upon finishing the Cixous reading was the note at the end indicating the two translators of the essay, presumably male and female based on their names. It reminded me right away of the Allen essay ("Kochinnenako in Academe...") and her point about the role translation can play on a text. Agreeing with Allen as she demonstrated quite well the cultural influence a translator can consiously or unconsciously bring to the text they're translating, I wondered how much of this occurred with this essay.

I agree with many of the comments made above that Cixous' essay seemed and felt very "floaty" and "free" to me. Like many others, I too yearned for more order and structure in this essay. How much of that comes from the arguably male-dominated academic structrues already in place (as argued by Sonoski and Scweickart) that informs how we think and read as students-male or female and how much of that comes from my own personal need for familiarity and routine-for structure and order, I do not know.

Ultimately, I couldn't quite grasp the point of Cixous' essay precisely because I couldn't follow the free-wheelings style of writing. And quite honestly, I couldn't take it that seriously either-which may again go back to that point that I've been cultured and taught in such a way that I can't take anything seriously or consider anything "intellectual" if they do not fit the male standards of intelligence. The overarching question Cixous' essay foregrounded for me is if we're ready to break out of the "masculine" writing quite yet. Have feminists and feminist scholars reached a point where they can write in the way Cixous does? I personally do not think so, but I don't consider myself a good example of a "feminist" (although at this point, I'm not sure what is).