Feminist Criticism Is Juvenile At Best, Part 2

To continue from the first part, we will now look at french feminists and how they do criticism. When I do this, I will be going from paragraph to paragraph, notating what the author and editor is saying, and how it is being said. You’ll find yourself a bit surprised by some of the things within.

To start with the first paragraph, french feminists look at language. They look at the words and the meanings that they have. When this was done, the author notes that they [the french feminists] have determined that language is decidedly male. What does that mean? Why, it means that man made language, and made the languages we use today. This, in turn, shows that women should indeed shut the fuck up. Men made language, and women are unable to use it correctly.

Now, to continue with the first paragraph, it mentions that language has a binary logic. That is to say [and I quote] “active/passive, masculine/feminine, sun/moon, father/mother, head/heart, son/daughter, intelligent/sensitive, brother/sister, form/matter, phallus/vagina, reason/emotion.” If you look, these feminists have noted to be true what we’ve been saying for many many years: men are active, intelligent, use their head, and have reason; while women use their sensitive emotions to try and do things. Seems like proof in the pudding to me.

The paragraph goes on to say that language is a masculine thing that gives men privilege and makes women a fantasy fulfillment because men have a lack of emotion due to separation from their mother. Well, that being one of the few common regurgitated insults that women generally spew out of their trashcan mouths when confronted with a logical argument against whatever the subject may be, it is not a surprise at all. It clearly shows that women have no originality also, which places it to being originality/repetition according to the above.

The next paragraph is relatively small, the first sentence rehashing immediately that language is formed from a separation of the mother [because remember, men are language since we made language]. Then it says that women are forced to choose between either A. talking like a man [since they don’t have a female language to spew out] or B. they can be “the invisible and unheard sex.” I.e. they can shut up. This seems to be simple and easy, and really requires nothing more be said.

The next paragraph says, you guessed it, women should develop a feminine language. Women have said that the feminine language is “semiotic” and not “symbolic.” For those who don’t want to spend time looking up what semiotic means, here is the definition, straight out of a dictionary: The theory and study of signs and symbols, especially as elements of language or other systems of communication, and comprising semantics, syntactics, and pragmatics. In other words, it uses symbolism, i.e. is symbolic, which means that they contradict themselves in that they say it’s not symbolic, when semiotic is, indeed, symbolism at its finest. But that’s not all. The paragraph continues with saying that by semiotic, they mean chaotic. Allow me to once more quote the book. “Rather than rigidly opposing and ranking elements of reality, rather than symbolizing one thing but not another in terms of a third, feminine language is rhythmic and unifying. If from the male perspective it seems fluid to the point of being chaotic, that is a fault of the male perspective.” In other words, the feminine language is not even realistic, but rather a mass of chaotic bullshit that means even less than a Dr. Seuss book [because Dr. Seuss was a man, and his books were geared towards children].

Continuing on, the next paragraph goes into explaining that feminine language comes from the period of fusion between mother and child. Let’s face it, if there was to be fusion between the mothers of today and their children, they would have a lot of what society seems to produce now: spoiled princess syndrome and pussified boys that’ll be scared of women and be sissies. This paragraph also states that feminine language is a threat to our “patriarchal culture” and a medium for women to be creative in new and different ways. How an admittedly chaotic language is a threat to culture as it is right now makes absolutely no sense. It’s like saying that a parapelegic autist will be able to run the military by shouting in some cthonic language while banging his head against the wall. Eventually he’ll pass out from the pain, or he’ll run out of steam and get hungry. Something will stop it from happening. But I digress. It also notes that feminist innovation [two words that never belong together in the same sentence, unless it’s a joke] in all fields requires an understanding between maternity and feminine creation. But then it says that if feminist language refuses to participate in masculine “discourse” [what discourse?] that it risks being marginalized by men. In other words, it risks being removed and placed outside of what makes sense. Makes sense to me. Fuck them.

The next part says that one feminist, Kristeva, associated feminine writing with the female body. How is writing like a body? That’s the same as asking how a raven is like a writing desk. Who the hell knows, let alone cares? Other feminists also believe this statement to be true. One said that sexual pleasure has been denied and should be written out. In other words, women, go and write romance novels. You certainly need the stimulation since you’re so frigid. It’s either that, or women really don’t know their bodies that well [I frankly believe the latter, as women don’t even know the difference between a clutch and a door] and need to go and get some anatomy lessons. If they feel so stunted and frustrated, then they need to do something about it, as it’s no one else’s fault but their own. Also in this paragraph, it says that women have sex organs everywhere, whereas men only have sex organs where their penis is. Obviously a vindictive penis joke, but hey, this is a scholarly point of view, right?

The final paragraph of the french feminist views of criticism and writing say that those who equated the female language as their body is wrong. It says that it reduces the feminine to a biological essence, or places it above, yet retains binary categories. In other words, the female language is either somehow biological [???] or retains male and female categories [which with all the above arguments and points makes the feminine language actually a male language, which still means that women are wrong]. It continues on to say that the language will not challenge male domination and that “the boys will still make the toys, and decide who gets to use them.” These feminists try to remove the sexual connotations that the above placed within feminine language.

To sum this all up, women don’t even know what the hell they’re doing when they’re trying to invent an impossible-to-invent language that they cannot even agree on, which if it is even finished describes the female body, yet it doesn’t because it’s still made by men, in which case the female language is nothing but one big vagina and bleeds everywhere.

Stay tuned for part 3, when I discuss the American Women’s point in regards to feminist criticism. Hooray!