Talk:Luce Irigaray

message: I moved this tag from the main page! Please put WikiProject tags in talk pages in future :) VivaEmilyDavies 22:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What, nothing in here about Irigaray's assertion that E=mc^2 is phallocentric? Nor her related claim that science cannot formulate an accurate model of turbulence because it refuses to acknowledge the Awesome Power of the Vagina? 85.64.246.205 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede on this article needs to point out that she's even more batshit insane than Dworkin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7E02:5D25:54BA:BCE3:CEDA:2A2B (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexed equations and bombastic utterances 

message: Like many people, I've never been able to find evidence of Luce Irigaray on the CNRS website or documents. Does anyone have a citation from CNRS to corroborate the claim that she's affiliated?
I'm adding mentions of universities at which she's recently taught. Shom02 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This person is apparently not affiliated with CNRS (directory search). She might have been in the past, though; the maximum retirement age in France at CNRS is 65. The referenced biographies all seem to be older than 2008. Camcom (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNRS and other affiliations 

message: there is nothing here about Freud? He was one of the biggest influences of Irigaray!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.104.23 (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about Freud? 

message: this bibliography is lacking most of her works.  What's going on?  Just a few that are missing (not nearly all, and I'm just referring to her books, not her many articles): Je, Tu, Nous ce sexe qui n'est pas un parler n'est jamais neutre L'ethique de la difference sexuelle "le Corps-a-corps avec la mere"  This entire article honestly needs to be reworked by someone who knows Irigaray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.210.90.180 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibliography 

message: The article describes Antoinette Fouque as a feminist leader. I'm not sure that Fouque considers herself a feminist (Theodore Zeldin says in An Intimate History of Humanity that she rejects the label), so possibly this should be changed. 
The description of Hélène Cixous as a feminist is also open to question. 
Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antoinette Fouque 

message: Note: For some reason User:JCDenton2052 removed this from his talk page with the WP:CIVIL violating edit comment "rvv".  I guess I'll have to put it here instead:
I don't know why you are sticking in wrong words in Luce Irigaray.  
Well, I think I do actually, but it's a completely silly reason.  For some reason, as you've stated elsewhere, you want discussion to follow neat parallels where every word that has a morphological parallel has an identical distinction in meaning.  So you took out Irigaray's own use of "masculinist" because she doesn't use it as the opposite of "feminist".  And just some moments ago you changed her use of "feminine" to "feminist" (the latter a word I think Irigaray has never used in writing), I suppose because you think it would make a nice bookend to the word "masculinist" elsewhere in the article.
You just can't do this! Some silly word game puts meanings into Irigaray's mouth that she simply never had.  In describing her books, we have to actually pay attention to what they say, not what we might wish they said.  Where possible, we should use the same terms she does; but even where we aren't that literal, there are forms of language that don't involve antanaclasis nor antimetabole. LotLE×talk 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destructive Irigaray edits 

message: Does anybody understand the final sentence in the section "Contributions to feminist theory"?
Aboctok (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntactics 

message: Right now, Irigarays claim/hypothesis that E=mc² is a "sexed equation" is being marked as "citation needed". I just came across this article which tracks down the original reference in great detail: https://zetetical.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-hunt-for-sexed-equation.html
I think it would be nice to include this knowledge somehow, especially as Sokal&Bricmont are sometimes accused of fabricating this quote. 2003:D5:3F26:E304:2B96:283:C552:A04 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for the "sexed equation"