hello, i have written a somewhat large e-mail text regarding the
usage of gender and writing in the usage of understanding
the public writer/reades and also a private writer/reader.
the intention was to analyse a usage of translating words
in terms of gender/sex, and see if this equalization does
allow for some equality for the readers and writer in the
interpretation of ideas. basically, the phenomena of the
words such as he, male, man, were matched with s, fe, wo,
as follows..
she said s/he he said
female said fe/male male said
woman said wo/man woman said
and the middle category was looked at in terms of allowing
an unbiased and equal interpretation of the text and ideas.
somehow in this translation an anomoly appeared and it was
the case of being of both sexes, or neither, hermaphrodite.
i tried thinking this through, as well as i could, and now
have concluded the hermaphrodite would not find a basis in
being any more wo/man, rather between plant, animal, human.
such that, if an idea were to be of the gender perspective
the hermaphrodite (also the fe/male) would have no grounds
for equality in terms of being anymore a man/woman than as
a plant/animal/human. thus, in terms of equality, i found
reason to believe this gender-vantage private, and unequal
and for the hermaphrodite to be equal in questioning ideas
would need to write/read from terms of being a human being.
this then became cause for looking at public writer/reader
in non-gender based terms and how this writing might start
from differentiating between the public and the private he.
it is a start to a longer look at the same idea, regarding
ways of using language to write in a unbiased way for many,
in terms of being a public human. it has been some of the
first writing in any formal sense, and it is more as being
a struggle with writing/reading itself which this might be
but it is a start to an idea i hope to rationalize on list,
the other ideas rest on this public/private difference and
so, i hoped to get some feedback on the piece and see what
more i should consider before getting into the larger idea,
so, if anyone has interest in reviewing the text i will be
happy to send it, and if there is some interest in it as a
public discussion, i could be set up a discussion list, as
personco might not be suitable for the discussion of texts.
anyhow, thank you for reading, any feedback is appreciated,
brian carroll
to: carr0023@gold.tc.umn.edu
sub: rebis
i will reply to requests after 1 day from sending, so that
the e-mail is sent at one time on a temporary, mockup-list
peace
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 23:22:10 PST