How To Suppress Women's Writing

[coalescent]

Because of the circumstances under which it was initially recommended to me, I very nearly never read this book. That would have been a shame. And in the end, to be perfectly honest, one of the reasons I read it at all was simply so that I would be able to say that I had. Moreover, I was more than half-minded not to write about it, based on the

Comments

[wychwood]

This is an interesting review. I like Joanna Russ' writing, I find her challenging and difficult, and she really makes me think. The Female Man was something that blew me away when I first read it - I have all kinds of problems with some of her points, and some parts of what she is talking about have actually gone now, or at least altered beyond recognition, but nevertheless, she makes some really important points about the way we are accustomed to think

[coalescent]

Insofar as she makes us reconsider the way we think and act, I think she's still an important writer.

Yes, I think that's what I was trying to get at, and I've noticed the same things about discussions of her writing. Even the conclusions I think don't stand I have to think about, question my views, make sure. That can't hurt.

(There is a whole other post to be written sometime about how she defends her style, which is as I said passionate and argumentative, and how and why that influences whether it's seen as 'scholarly'. But another day, I think.)

The Female Man is one I've been meaning to read for a while. 2006, hopefully.

PS I believe it's enmity, not emnity, from "enemy".

Ah. Hmm. How embarrassing! Thank you.

[surliminal]

I just lost a onger commnet on thsi to you, sigh..

I haven't read this since the 80s and would have to fully engage here I think. But I loved every word of this book and more than anything, I loved Russ's righteous anger in her writing style. Why SHOULD the oppressed, the minimised , the marginalised always have to meekly adopt the most reasonable tone tolerated by the superior cast to get even the smallest of hearings? I loved her roar, her bitterness, her fury. It burnt in my veins and did much for my general feminist awakening in the 80s. The oppressed as well as everything else need usually first to stop being ASHAMED of being oppressed (after as zero'th, they have recognised they are,of course...)

Another world, I know, from the glorious Noughties you've come to adulthood in, where "I'm not a feminist but", where everything is solved on paper, except, actually, equal pay, equal opportunities, equal voice, equal representation in politics, the arts, business etc.

I'm a feminist and. I may put that on a badge.

[coalescent]

Why SHOULD the oppressed, the minimised , the marginalised always have to meekly adopt the most reasonable tone tolerated by the superior cast to get even the smallest of hearings?

I don't think I said, or even implied, that they should. I'm just on the fence about whether it's the most effective way to present an argument; at the very least I think it depends on who you're trying to convince.

If you wanted to set out to mobilise the troops, as it were, I think How to Suppress Women's Writing is exactly the book you'd write. That is what righteous anger is good for, firing up the blood of people who were just waiting to be convinced. You write this book if you want to make noise and scare the other side. That's an important reason for writing; I'm not trivialising it

[pigeonhed]

I certainly don't believe I have nothing valid to say about writing by women, but I do sometimes hesitate to say it for fear of seeming patronising, sexist or just stupid. (All of which i am quite capable of being, I'm sure.)

What I do believe is that there is a casual assumption in the term 'Women's writing' which suggests that all women share the same concerns. Does Russ adress this?

Reading Gilbert & Gubar's The Madowman In The Attic I found a passage early on citing various authors assertion that imagination is inherently masculine. The trouble I then have is that one of the examples is from Coleridge who whilst stating that "imagination... echoes the eternal act of creation in the infinite I AM" also believed that "a great mind is androgynous". My understanding of the first quote is that it has no gender component, but in order to add weight to a point already made Gilbert & Gubar make an unsubstantiated claim that Coleridge's 'androgyny' didn't actually mean 'man-womanly' in the way Virginia Wooolf meant it. This enables

[fjm]

Russ addresses the heterogeneity of women's concerns in the later book, To Write Like a Woman,.

[badgerbag]

Russ addresses it in even more detail and with a ton-of-reasonable-logic in "What Are We Fighting For? Sex, Race, Class, and the Future of Feminism" - a great book!

[ninebelow]

I left my Christmas present copy in Bradford. Gutted. Expect comments to this post in three months time.

[coalescent]

You could always nominate it for instant_fanzine. (I think I'm going to put The Female Man up at some point.)

[ninebelow]

I've got a copy of The Two Of Them with me so I might nominate that.

Everyone is stupidly full of beans this morning, don't they now what day it is?

[secritcrush]

oh that will be fun. Remind me to point it out to whileaway.

[buymeaclue]

I read your first paragraph here and had to open another browser window and scamper off to your user info to see if you might have had the same read-this-book! experience that I had. Heh.

[coalescent]

I'd say there's a decent chance that I did, yes ... :)

Here from the link in whileaway

[spiralsheep]

I sometimes read your lj but I've never commented before. I was tempted not to do so this time because I'm not really interested in discussing the same old same old for the trillionth time but... I do have three points which nitpick your nitpicks, if y'know what I mean, so I'm gonna post the first one and, if you think it's interesting and you think you can cope with me possibly driving you ever-so-slightly nuts, then you can decide if you want to see the other two and I'll decide if I'm still prepared to post them, ok? I've decided to include a substantial chunk of the context so you'll mebbe have a better idea what I'm trying to say (I apologize if that seems unnecessarily repetitive).

1. Russ (as quoted by coalescent): (There is a third theory, in which each supposed case of sexism, racism or class disadvantage becomes a matter of personal enmity here or chance there or some other motive somewhere else. Such a theory is part of the problem, not its explanation. It amounts simply to the denial that there is a problem.)

coalescent: Yes, but

Re: Here from the link in whileaway

[coalescent]

[holding comment]

I do mean to reply to this, but I need to find time to think about it properly. Bear with me--and feel free to post your other comments as well. I'll try not to make my responses too boneheaded ... :)

Re: Here from the link in whileaway

[spiralsheep]

If you want to reply, and that ain't necessary, then take as much time as you need. It's a busy discussion and no-one can give thoughtful responses to a whole crowd simultaneously.

Re: Here from the link in whileaway

[coalescent]

It is both an individual case and part of a pattern, and while--as Russ correctly points out--to concentrate only on individual details is to miss the forest for the trees, to consider only the forest seems to me equally problematic.

It's not equally problematic, which is the point, it's unequally problematic because a privileged group can impose their point of view on any less privileged group while the less privileged group can only suggest their point of view to any more privileged group.

Sure. But (I think) my argument is that you can't argue effectively only from individual examples, otherwise the privileged are going to turn around and say 'but those are just isolated instances'. You have to win both arguments; you have to make the pattern clear. But to do that, you have to understand how the individual examples fit into the pattern, and to do that--I suggest--you have to acknowledge their individual nature, and, sometimes, account for it.