Would I merely continue to stay gender-confused
French feminist thinkers like Helène Cixous, Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray have talked about feminine writing, which is fluid, all the time changing, something opposite to fixed, stagnant male writing. Female writing for these theoreticians is full of “la jouissance” – delight – and it is always becoming something. How can writing that is always becoming something have gender-spesific traits?
The most recent one of the feminist thinkers on gender, Judith Butler, who is greatly influenced by analytic philosophy, especially Michel Foucault, says that all the gender-spesific traits are constantly produced by social practices – mainly discourses – that surround us. What is the role of a poet then, in between this heteronormative matrice around us? Is there any escaping from their effects? Yes, there is, that escape is parody, suggests
What would this parody then mean in writing? Of course there can be many answers. Maybe it would mean Lorcalike, romantic symbols taken to the other extreme – roses redder than roses, jealousy that is more serious than life, enforcing the prevailing gender roles – of Flarf-like Google-poetry that mixes together all types of ways of speaking from teenagers´ everyday speech to the most scientific discourses, or bureaucratic languages. Would bringing together this large mixture of different discourses in poetry then help us understand both the way that our gender roles are socially constructed (especially through media and education), or how our way of using languages is socially determined? More concretely: would it make me understand better, why I remind more of T. S. Eliot than Lorca? Or would I merely continue to stay confused, gender-mixed?