Yo, tú, nosotras

by Luce Irigaray

Una conocida voz del feminismo reflexiona en esta obra sobre la diferencia de sexos, desde la infelicidad que causa en las mujeres y en los hombres la apreciación injusta que la sociedad hace de los valores femeninos. El desequilibrio en los valores sexuales es analizado desde el deseo de procurar un equilibrio más justo para las mujeres, dado que éstas no podrán disfrutar de plenos derechos hasta que no se reconozca, ante la ley y la sociedad, la valía de ser mujeres y no únicamente madres.

Genres: Philosophy, Feminism, Academic, Gender, Womens, Nonfiction, France

136 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published December 1, 1990

About the author

Luce Irigaray is a Belgian-born French feminist, philosopher, linguist, psycholinguist, psychoanalyst and cultural theorist. She is best known for her works Speculum of the Other Woman and This Sex Which Is Not One. Presently, she is active in the Women's Movements in both France and Italy.

Reviews

[melis · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5

“cinsel fark”ı vurgulamak adına annelik mefhumuna yaslanmanın gerekli olduğunu düşünmüyorum. bunun yerine, “eşitliğin” ve “eşit hak” taleplerinin yetersiz olması, cinsel farkın tanınması ve ona dikkat ederek hareket edilmesi gerektiğine dair bölümlere yoğunlaşılmış olmasını dilerdim.

cinsel farkın ne olduğuna dair ne söylüyor ya da ne kadar söylüyor kısmına da tatmin edici bir cevap veremiyorum. diğer metinlerine öncelik vermem gerekiyordu muhtemelen.

söylediği bazı şeylere de inanamadım. bunu söylemiş olamaz diye tekrar tekrar okuduğum yerler oldu. sevişmeyen, temizlik yapmayan, çocuk doğurmayan kadının, cinsiyetlerin nötrleşmesi adı altında, erkekleştiğinden bahsettiği kısım gibi (80). hâlâ inanamıyorum.

aşırı dil odaklılık ve dilin öncelenmesi de oldukça kısıtlı bir görüş sunuyor, içim almıyor artık bunları.

bunun dışında, metnin geneline dair konulabilecek dipnotlara ek olarak (ne yazık ki onlar da yoktu), fransızca düşünmekten ileri gelen veya fransızcanın çözümlendiği kısımlarda çok daha fazla çevirmen notu olmasını beklerdim. hatta bir önsöz. eksikliği kesinlikle hissediliyor.

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book in high school when I took a philosophy class and the syllabus was EXCLUSIVELY men (curses upon that teacher, if I ever run into him again I hope I have the courage to confront him!!!). For my final project, I made a point to find a female philosopher. I was a girl obsessed with her own virginity and learning French in the hyper-patriarchal institution of a private Catholic school, so Luce Irigaray really spoke to me. For years and years, I've called her my favorite female philosopher (but that title now belongs to Mariame Kaba).

Reading her work again and more thoroughly over a decade later, I'm still impressed by her critique of the Romance languages and her devotion to a spiritual female identity. But her obsession with the gender binary (some call it her "heteronormative bias") is embarrassing in 2022!!! Granted, she wrote this text about the "two sexes" in 1989 and I don't know her personally, so maybe her beliefs today are more nuanced than they appear in her writing......but the gender binary is a patriarchal, colonial weapon and I believe the more advanced culture of which Luce dreams would reject such an oversimplification. There is serious merit to expressing the need to develop a truly female identity, but I believe it can be done in relation to the broad spectrum of gender identity.

[Willa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I thoroughly disagree on several fundamental issues, I enjoyed reading this book and admire Irigaray's spunky sense of independence in sorting through the many sticky aspects of being a woman. Her spirit of investigation is an example for all of us, agree or disagree, as she's genuinely trying to uncover Woman from under the blanket of thousands of years of conditioning.
That being said, I think many of her fundamental ideas our now outmoded and problematically postmodern ("the problem is difference, therefore the solution must be difference as well"). But in the spirit of her investigation what we need to do is find the way forward into true transformation (not trying to eulogize women's "difference" or finding some imaginary lost paradise in mother-daughter relationships).

[Alana · Rating 4 out of 5]

a brief introduction to baddie behaviour. i hear bad bitches deserve separate laws and rights but when exactly will the state and its institutions finally put this into practice??????

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Je, Tu, Nous, Irigaray delivers a convincing critique of the notion of formal equality in favour of substantive equality, one which takes account of the differences between the male and female sexes - not a particularly revolutionary stance in itself, but one which she expands from its common application (toward the workplace, design, health etc) to language itself, and the means by which female subjectivity is expressed. Rather than seeking to neutralise sex, she seeks to create a space for women’s recognition and expression as subjects, promoting sexual difference rather than urging women to contort themselves to fit into male structures and models.

Some of Irigaray’s ideas feel dated, particularly the emphasis on a pre-patriarchal time where women’s identities as women - rather than merely their function as mothers, objectified into objects of exchange by men - was revered, as well as her calls to restore a notion of female divinity, and her frequent spiritual essentialising on the notion of women’s experiences often rang flat. However, I did find some of her tangents into other topics insightful - such as the notion of suffering in women’s experiences - its centrality and yet the taboo around its discussion, and how this necessarily manifests in the art produced by women - as well as her longing for women to develop and put forward our ideas of artistic beauty.

What I generally appreciated with the book was Irigaray’s conscious effort to put forth positive suggestions. Whether I find them realistic or not, I think it is easy to - for example - point out the ways in which the law disfavours women - and where I respect Irigaray most is in her suggestions for how a female-centric subjectivity - extending to law, language, medicine, etc - can be concretely manifested.

[Leah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Irigaray finally brings her philosophy to the ground. This is an excellent introduction to her more difficult theories.

[Doug Rice · Rating 5 out of 5]

deeply beautiful. written with an intimate care and attention to seeing in new ways and for understanding difference in ways that are transformative

[Abigail · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read the book because it was placed next to Judith Butler's Gender Trouble in the library, and as it turned out, Irigaray is completely different from Butler, and that's probably why I don't agree with many (if not most) of the ideas presented in this book. I can understand that Irigaray wanted to create a female genealogy along with female subjectivity which is central to it. Some chapters are inspiring, and I like the one about aging. (I only wish there could be more chapters concerning language, since I was first attracted by its title...) But still it seems to me that the female myth still exists (as it is so often associated with Nature), and one cannot support sexual difference without giving the female (or male) sex some predestined values and (as a result) overlooking the differences within the female sex. A distrust in modern technology and medicine is also disturbing.
I also wonder if the differentiation of sex and gender is incompatible in radical feminism? This book seems to suggest so...

[Eyelash · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vrlo čitko napisana knjiga, prošla je u jednom sjedenju. Međutim kad Irigaray i objasni čemu zamjena roda i spola, nikako da pohvatam foru, što mi možda sugerira da ovu inače jednostavno napisanu knjigu uzmem ponovo koji drugi put i pročitam je u nekoliko sjedenja.
Nisam sigurna da fotografije majki i sinova utječu na uspjeh patrijarhalnog poreTka i na njegu odnosa majki i kćeri, ali moguće je (ako je to jedina vrsta fotografije koju dijete ima mogućnost vidjeti). U knjizi se nalazi tekst Pisati kao žena u kojem je intervjuira Alice Jardine. U više navrata u pitanjima tog teksta Irigaray poprilično ciničnim tonom iznese nekoliko pretpostavKi o Jardineinome znanju, što me čudi jer kao čitateljica sam u potpunosti izvan konteksta intervjua i nije mi jasno čemu komentar npr. zna li Jardine kako postoji više jezika na svijetu, ne samo jedan. (Taj je još jedan od blažih.) Također zbunjuje me odlomak o seksualnome odgoju koji bi se, prema mišljenju autorice, trebao odvijati pisanjem pisama zaručniku ili zaručnici.
Ne znam. Možda mi drugi put bude jasnije, možda drugog puta ne bude.

[Karen Alonso · Rating 3 out of 5]

PeGRiloso, muy pegrilosooo.

Me invade de curiosidad la formación o el camino que gesta el eco teórico en la comunidad. Cómo es que llega a resonar de la manera en que lo hace, en qué momento, desde qué voces, por qué ciertas ideas resuenan con mayor intensidad que otras, cuál es el proceso (contemplando la diversidad tan amplia de contextos). Esa reflexión me dejó leerlo.

Leer a Luce Irigaray me resonó, por supuesto que lo hizo y la seducción de las ideas me generó miedo y un poco de incomodidad porque he visto las consecuencias del eco fuerte, enojado y violento mal dirigido. Agradezco la lectura y me quedo meditando profundamente las ideas propuestas y sus implicaciones.

Una chulada las reflexiones sobre el lenguaje. ✨💖

[Samaritasilee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dice factos pero es bastante esencialista, me he quedado dormida con tanta refería a la cualidad reproductora de la mujer como si fuera su único áspero a considerar. Sin embargo, es entendible teniendo en cuenta la época ('80), tomándola con una percepción bastante crítica se puede revisar desde la óptica actual y sacar algunas cosas para aplicarla a un discurso contemporáneo feminismo. De todas formas, si quieres iniciarte en el feminismo no es una idea esta obra pues reduce bastante el signo mujer a su cualidad biológica.

[saml · Rating 2 out of 5]

kind of bad honestly, which is really sad from irigaray who's generally great. treats sexual difference in terms of its (contextual) content, rather than progressing to consider its bare structural necessity. the text also occasionally rings with religiosity and contempt for science, for which i have no tolerance. though, there is reference to a madonna holding a female jesus which i thought was really beautiful

[Emrys · Rating 2 out of 5]

What's good in this book is already there in Irigaray's earlier work, often better thought. Outside of that, it's disappointing to see her writing move from its earlier openness, fluidity, multiplicity, speaking through the gaps in traditional discourse, to the kind of staid prescriptivism in Je, Tu, Nous.

[Sam Bolton · Rating 3 out of 5]

whereas Speculum and This Sex which is not One radically proffer a strategy of escape qua Cixous that mistakes their limit for their sought after elsewhere position, Je Tu Nous does little more than reify biologism unsubstantially. Irigaray's earlier works hold so much radical potentia; they agitate, corrode, excite. This text however remains interminably tepid.

[Rylie · Rating 5 out of 5]

ily luce

[Madelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Je suis née femme mais que je dois devenir l’esprit ou l’âme de ce corps que je suis”

[Matt Price · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book 14/14, right at the buzzer. I liked this! Like Butler but completely different, even if it’s clearly very French (and niche)

[Alba · Rating 1 out of 5]

muy cancelable la verdad

[Laura Puyalto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muy buen libro, muy mal editado.

[Julie Gardner · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was interesting to read this nearly forty years after it was written because while some of it seemed very dated, some things seemed incredibly relevant to today - and other parts quite prophetic.

[Izan Contamina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sinceramente, muy meh y sin mas

[Caleb · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a little book of concise musings on a variety of issues, mostly spent applying Irigaray’s guiding views about sexual difference to various areas of life rather than explaining those views or developing them in relation to plausible alternatives. Her antagonists are pure equality feminists who deny difference, a breed of thought that has moved out of the academy in recent decades, even as it has taken over the business world in the form of Lean In, etc.

As such, this book is more polemic than argument...this is evident in the discussions of gendered language, which come across as a bit parochial, and the engagements with artificial insemination and reproductive technologies. The latter should be read alongside Maggie Nelson’s The Argonauts for expansive perspective of how it could be thought otherwise. Irigaray’s thought needs a queer critique, but fortunately there are many queer theorists who adopt and engage with her tools (Elizabeth Grosz, Lynne Huffer, Judith Butler).

There are two things that bother me going on here. First is her condescending view towards other women who may disagree with her...she doesn’t seem to acknowledge the possibility that an alternative feminist critique of the phenomena she discusses might also merit consideration. Instead she leaps to dismissals of other views as being subconsciously motivated by denial of difference or masculinization of women. This is especially problematic in light of the second problem: the assumptions of whitemiddle class bourgeois culture (what is today scathingly termed “white feminism”) that sneak into some of her arguments, especially about the right to work, the dehumanization attendant to technology, and the need for a reclamation by women of the value of virginity. Here Gloria Anzaldúa would provide a really powerful and resonant counterpoint, since in Borderlands she embarks on the development of spirituality while at the same time critiquing the purity ideals of virginity and engaging directly with the fact that, for many working class women, society’s normative reduction of a woman to a mother-servant is enforced through a complementary notion that to not comply makes her a whore. La Malinche is missing from Irigaray’s critique.

[June · Rating 2 out of 5]

Irigaray is French. I usually like the French-- especially French feminists--but Irigaray is a pompous jenny. I would call her a pompous ass, but she does make some excellent points about sexed language. In French, the "masculine" is always dominate when speaking of a man and a woman--"ils s'aiment" (they love each other), "ils sont beaux" (they are beautiful), but only when women are among themselves is the feminine allowed. "Elles s'aiment" (they love each other). In French (and other Romance languages) women are forced to speak about their world in terms of "male" objects--"un fauteuil" (a sofa), "un avion" (a plane), "le soleil" (the sun). What if I don't want my sofa or plane to be a man? When Irigaray (jenny) writes about linguistics, it's compelling. When she answers questions about her work, she's condescending and rude. This is her response to a question posed by a woman from Harvard conducting research for a study on women's writing:

Alice Jardine: Are you as convinced as you were in 1974, when Speculum was published, that the introduction of the female body into the male corpus is an essential strategy?

Pompous jenny: It makes me wonder how Speculum was translated in America for me to hear such misunderstandings of this book. Of course, it is a difficult book, as it defines a new horizon of thought...

And she answers every single question this way--beginning with an insult. In her introduction, she laments that Simone de Beauvoir never wanted to be her friend...maybe it's because you are a pompous jenny!

[Christian Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's a lot of good stuff buried in this short collection of essays.

I think there are a few problems, though. Irigaray's focus on sexual difference leads her to ignore anyone outside binary definitions of gender/sex - which feels problematic. The idea that language demonstrates sexual inequality relies on romance languages and can't be seen as universal. I suspect it also fails a principle of falsification, as she seems to be cherry-picking the comparisons between feminine nouns and masculine nouns to suit her point.

But I think she dodges (maybe unintentionally and subtly) charges of essentialism to her ideas of sexual difference. The suggestion that equal pay campaigns miss the point that work is organised on male lines is fascinating.

As a writer, I picked up this book for ideas about 'white ink' and found some very useful ideas in it. Also, the suggestions (in 'The Culture of Difference') for better ways of raising children really resonated with me.

Elsewhere she could seem vague in her proposed actions, or dismissed pragmatics steps in favour of less realisable goals (like neutering Romance languages). Irigaray is perhaps at her best when she's making concrete suggestions for change.

[Michiyo 'jia' Fujiwara · Rating 3 out of 5]

*unfinished*
Seperti biasa baca disini.
Kesan pertama baca karya mademoiselle Irigaray..hmm..ini sejenis buku ekstrimis feminis ya?? Pas baca beberapa halamannya. Ternyata isinya kalem-kalem saja..(.sepertinya)..mungkin karena belum baca seluruh isi buku ini :D

Jadi belum bisa cerita banyak.. :)

[Tina. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Three stars would probably be more fair, as this book serves as a good introduction to Irigaray's thinking for those who are not familiar with her work. But I'm getting a bit tired of reading Irigaray (I'm taking a seminar on her), since I feel she's mainly repeating herself and not adding much new to her arguments. She's definitely an important feminist thinker, just not my favorite one. Thus, this book gets "it was okay" two stars only.

[Reka maharani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Irigaray, the one of feminists I love most.
Irigaray bukan seorang feminist radikal, ya, dia seorang feminist kontemporer yang tetap menyatakan "sebagai wanita, didunia kita masih butuh seorang lelaki, man empowering."
tapi sayang, bukunya yang ini terjemahannya sangat buruk. but I like her thought

[Kaplumbağa Felsefecisi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Biz'in yaratımı, ben ve sen üzerindeki doğru oynamalarla gerçekleşecektir. Kimse kendisinden memnun olmadığında biz için yatırım yapmış olacaktır. Çok azını bildiğimiz ve çok çok daha fazlasını bilmemiz gereken ben ve senler...

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is alright... it helps to be familiar with Irigaray's thought. In this book she begins to outline a feminist politic that rests on the "I," "me," and "we/us."

[Dylan · Rating 2 out of 5]

A couple good essays about sex and grammar. Everything else is less fun.