The conventional nature of school-sponsored writing, in which writing becomes a formal operant within the closed space of classroom signifying practices, is one in which the feminine mode of expression often announces it cannot play. While the masculine style of peer-response to student writing is largely aggressive, the feminine is conceptually different in its social, feel-good acknowledgement of the writer's effort. While the masculine demands or orders exactly what should be done, the feminine reflects self-consciousness and self-correction. Furthermore, masculine insult and vulgarity contrast with feminine politeness strategies. Strong stylistic and epistemological differences cast doubt on the possibility of "translation" between the genders. It has been observed that when confronted with masculine argumentation, the historical role of women is mimicry. The feminine style of less task-serious play and emotion ruptures the structure of the writing classroom. Only when education goes out of the bounds of the classroom is it possible to speak with the grammar of its shaping ideology, insisting on the legitimacy and variety of ways of being, speaking, and knowing that traditional education proscribes. In the meantime, a dismantling of masculinist pedagogy could begin with the notion of the evaluative criteria guiding peer-response sessions which turn discussing into judging, narrowing the focus of writing to the text as replicable model to be done right, rather than expanding it into the speculative, imaginative realms of discourse, for which there are no checklists. (Seventeen references are attached.) (SG)