Comments on Out came a thought and then another...: "Women Writers" - shoo, you label

I guess I'm speaking out of turn, but here' what I...

2006-04-08T15:21:00.000+05:30

I guess I'm speaking out of turn, but here' what I have to really say:

Nice and taut stories with a intelligent plots, and ingenious plot devices are far more interesting to read (and I guess will be remembered on the longer run) than say, a "straight from the heart" story.

@All: Let me elaborate on the point I was trying t...

2006-04-08T12:33:00.000+05:30

@All: Let me elaborate on the point I was trying to make in that post

a)Labeling a writing as "woman" + "heart" AND "man" + "head" does not seem fair because it is a sweeping generalization.

b)As far as writers (the whole category irrespective of gender) are concerned, each one of them brings in a very unique perspective. There are similarities among them but no one is identical to another unless we talk about conscious carbon-copying.

c) There is neither the upholding of the superiority of rationality here nor the superiority of a head approach. The purpose of the post is to indicate that sweeeping categorizations are unfair and irrelevant.

Now to respond to your comments...

@krithiga: Well, The God of Small Things is a very different book. I wouldn't say I liked it but I was definitely very affected by it.

@resolution: I agree that knowing the author's gender colours the reader's perception of context. Just the way knowing about someone before talking to them colours one's perception of that person. However, the unique experiences that each author tries to capture need not be restricted by or unduly coloured by their gender because, I think, writers have the gift of observing from an objective standpoint and then presenting their observations in whatever voice is appropriate.

@lioness: milady, Ayn Rand is hovering above the monitor as I write this :) Can't help that when one talks about rationality I guess. I am not one of those people who uphold rationality as the supreme tool of human existence. But I do believe that rationality serves a useful purpose within its inherent limitations.
What I want to ask you is this: why do you think the internalization of head > heart is solely patriarchal? And I am interested in hearing your take on why "irrationality" seems unacceptable.

You might want to read this.. on my blog!

The very point you guys are arguing about on whether women have a "heart" or a "head" springs from a patriarchal internalization that the "head" is superior to the "heart"...besides calling it "irrational" is also a patriarchal way of arguing...

What is rationality? Think of the epistemology of rationality.
What is condemned as "irrational" and why? Why is "irrationality" unacceptable? These are some questions we have to ask ourselves.

Knowing the author's gender however does add colou...

2006-04-06T10:18:00.000+05:30

Knowing the author's gender however does add colour and could change the interpretation / perception of context in the mind of a reader. But then again it’ll probably be only for those readers who are trying to interpret more than the context of the book.

As a tangent, I suggest you read this

"Women have a 'heart' rather than a 'head' approac...

2006-04-05T19:13:00.000+05:30

"Women have a 'heart' rather than a 'head' approach, a decidedly female sensitivity."

That is a generalization, and like most generalizations, it is irrational. I see there was never a king of crime, but there was a "Queen of Crime".

"The God of Small Things" *Shudders* Was it just me, or the book really is boring? Couldn't really go beyond a few pages.