Feminism

Reading the three essays by Cixous, Irigaray, and Butler, one can only come to the conclusion that with what we have also discussed in class, and through these readings that the only actual way to eliminate patriarchal society would be to eradicate the thought that women are different except naturally in only the physical sense. So, with that being said, would a feminist read the beginning of my passage and wonder why I left out the women's first names? By only using their last names it gives the appearance of being masculine and perhaps dominant. Why is that? Because we have all grown up in this society that is from the patriarchal perspective and it is all ingrained in us whether we like to admit it or not, especially since I am a woman myself.

Cixous says, "In philosophy, woman is always on the side of passivity...Either the woman is passive; or she doesn't exist." (230) We, as a society, need to break through this idea entirely or else the feministic movement won't really grow. This thought coincides with Luce Irigaray's idea that, "To arrive at the constitution of an ethics of sexual difference, we must at least return to what is for Descartes the first passion: wonder. This passion is not opposed to, or in conflict with, anything else, and exists always as though for the first time." (238) This idea in theory seems to be wonderful. We can actually stop people from thinking that there is a difference between us, man and woman, as long as when we meet each other we are enthralled with wonder of how amazingly wonderful we are, and share an attraction, however that is where it stops. We are both exactly the same. The only difference, or at least these women theorists would argue, is our physique. Obviously these theories are superb in thought, but how could we change the entire general public's view of man and woman? Especially to this idea that we should only be filled with wonder upon meeting.

I do agree that there needs to be some sort of change in how women are treated and our equality towards men, however I do not agree in theory that we are exactly the same. Why do we have to be exactly the same just to be equal? I think this is the underline message of these essays. It almost seems as if when reading them, there is a sense of such sarcasm bouncing off the pages.