One of the questions in this book that I found interesting was "How can one be a woman, and an analyst, and a professor, for example? How can one engage in speaking as a woman when some people do the talking and others listen."

To this Irigaray replies, "the form of your question is interesting in and of itself. It means something like this: how can one be a 'woman' and be 'in the street.' That is, be out in public - be public, and still more tellingly, do so in the form of speech. We come back to the question of the family: why isn't the woman, who belongs to the private sphere, always locked up in the house?"

I think Irigaray's response was a little harsh for what seems to be a sincere question. The rhetorical rebuke doesn't do much to answer the question, though it may have put the questioner off, and it's a question that I think merits an explanation.

Irigaray, as speaker, is playing what I would consider a traditionally masculine role. Throughout her book women are portrayed as those without a voice; the disenfranchised. As a professor, analyst and speaker it seems clear that she has transcended that role. The original question in this light seems to make sense. Is Irigaray speaking as a woman, or is she merely playing out a masculine role? If it is the former, how does she reconcile the fact that she is speaking as a woman in a traditionally masculine role. If there is no need for reconciliation, does that mean that the feminine has already entered a traditionally masculine sphere? I think these question are deeper than they seem, and I feel as though that sentiment is validated by the fact that these questions were discussed to an extent in class. I feel as though she should not have dismissed them in the way that she did.