n  How could the Cinderella myth not retain its validity? Everything still encourages the girl to expect fortune and happiness from a “Prince Charming” instead of attempting the difficult and uncertain conquest alone.n

I am not a true woman.

Because the majority of man that are featured in this book (and the majority of man in history) describe a true woman as “…frivolous, infantile, irresponsible, the woman subjugated to man.”

Yeah, no.

The book is not only about feminism, is a long essay about woman and its history. My history, my mother’s, my grandmother’s, every woman’s on earth.
In its 800 pages Beauvoir tries to answer the question of how women became subjugated to man, how she is not considered an autonomous being, how women are not equals to man and exactly where the difference between them lay.
She tackles these questions from a biological, mythological and social point of view, amongst others. It was truly interesting to see how through the years this views have change and how only it was in the last century that women have truly began to stand up for themselves and try to end with the crushing patriarchy.

This book is consired the bible of feminists and with good reasons; every woman should read it, and then, men too.

n  “… she harbors no desire for revolution, she would not think of eliminating herself as a sex: she simply asks that certain consequences of sexual differentiation be abolished.”n

It’s one of my greatest wishes –and after eight hundred pages I believe Beauvoir would agree- that one day the meaning of the word woman will sound less like slave, and more like equal.

n  “I wish I were a girl again, half-savage and hardy, and free.” - Emily Brontë, Wuthering Heights

“As long as she thinks of a man, nobody objects to a woman thinking.” - Virginia Woolf, Orlando

“One is not born, but rather becomes a woman.” - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sexn

(First two paragraphs are an extract of a revisited journal entry, as of 27/07/23)
As a child I refused to be a woman. I had a keen imagination that made it possible for me to be anyone I wanted, first a poet, then an adventurer from distant lands, and finally a king, but never a "woman." Although I still wore skirts and dresses up to a certain age, during my teenage years and after my first period, the thought of not wanting to be a woman not only grew stronger but altered into a form of body dysmorphism and eating disorder. When I realized that it was not possible for me to become a boy, due to a regressive family and its insistent judgmental attitude, I tried to embrace my femininity as a sort of experiment… only to fail after no more than one year: I had a voice too deep for a woman, too high-pitched for a man, a slender body devoid of shape, but too shapely to wear men's clothes; sometimes I was told I looked too much like my mom, later I became a copy of my father. This being "in the middle" and never one of the two made me the Other.

In primary school, when I was about six years old, I told one of my classmates that if I could be reborn, I would love to be a man. The latter laughed and cackled "Hear that? She wants to be a man!", to tease me in front of the other boys. Unceremoniously, I had to take it all back and my face turned red. My first period was a nightmare and since I had it as soon as I turned nine years old, it was as if I had been inflicted violence by Mother Nature. I felt deprived of my freedom and womanhood, which I contemplated on other girls but not on myself, became a challenge for me. If I am to be a woman, what kind of woman do I want to be? I grew terrified at the thought of pregnancies. In adolescence, I realized that I liked women. During the pandemic, I came out as nonbinary. These certainties, far from reassuring me, frightened me more. Teachers at school called me quiet and "different," shrewd and smart and undoubtedly creative. Creative. If there ever were words to describe me, these were never "feminine" or "masculine," but "creative."

Quite honestly, I don’t know what it means to be a woman. If it’s getting catcalled everywhere I go, then I don’t want it. Two weeks ago I got sexually assaulted in public while exiting from a concert. The same week a depraved man stopped by with his motorcycle as I was walking down the streets and kept following me for a while. Another time some grown men kept staring at me working out outside. Because of these unfortunate events, I’m terrified to leave my home all alone again. Before you say it I know it’s not “all men”, so shut the hell up. It’s more about the feeling of not knowing when occasional sexual harassment like these can become more violent and I slightly know how to defend myself in these occasions. In my journey of discovering ways to accept myself and understanding womanhood, Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex was the closest thing to therapy that I have ever had in my entire life.

n  “...her wings are cut and then she is blamed for not knowing how to fly.”n

“What is a woman?” asks Beauvoir at the very beginning of her essay. Freud argues that women act the way they do because of their anatomy. Beauvoir doesn’t agree: a woman is a social construct. This phrase alone felt like a hug to me. “The “real woman” is an artificial product that civilization produces the way eunuchs were produced in the past,” writes the activist (book two, part I, ch.4 - The lesbian). In the same volume, she explains that while men are constantly pushed to be independent in puberty, women are protected. Male’s identity is celebrated, whereas women’s is denigrated, leading them to submission. Biology alone isn’t enough to define a woman, so we shall stick to Historical Materialism. “The theory of historical materialism has brought to light some very important truths. Humanity is not an animal species: it is a historical reality. Human society is an anti-physis: it does not passively submit to the presence of nature, but rather appropriates it.” (Book one, part I, ch.3 - The Point of View of Historical Materialism).

In philosophy, women are called the Other. While women are taught to internalize the social construct of womanhood renouncing their individuality, men, “the One”, don't need to justify their position. Women represent immanence - a term applied, in contradistinction to “transcendence,” to the fact or condition of being entirely within something (from Latin immanere, “to dwell in, remain”) ¹ - while men have always been associated with transcendence - of “climbing or going beyond” ². However, men have affirmed their transcendence through women: “No subject posits itself spontaneously and at once as the inessential from the outset; it is not the Other who, defining itself as Other, defines the One; the Other is posited as Other by the One positioning itself as One.” (Volume I - Introduction). In other words, for Sartre, every human being has the desire to become an individual. Since human beings can imagine, reject or question absolutely anything, they are characterized by freedom. The primary experience of freedom is anguish. Now, for Beauvoir, men have established their freedom through the oppression of women, creating the condition for their own illiberality. ³

Beauvoir believes, unlike Sartre, that the only way to extend one’s transcendence is through the other. To put it simply, men and women must cooperate to recognize themselves as subjects. Existentialism is an invitation to the responsibility of living. Beauvoir’s project is a synthesis of Marxism, Hegelism and Existentialism. Liberalism, in fact, largely depends on private property. From the very first moment The Second Sex was released, in 1949, it became a treatise on feminism and a work of philosophy. I believe that this work is fundamental to learning what it means to be a woman, but it is also a love letter. The Second Sex is not so often discussed nowadays, which is a pity. Feminism has benefited from it incredibly and what is even more surprising it’s the openness with which she talks about female sexuality and homosexuality. Also no, TERFs, this is not for you.

In the final chapters of The Second Sex, Beauvoir talks about how to respond to oppression. In a particular section of this last part, she talks about how certain women yearn for their childhood days, when they were not “gendered”. Narcissism is an objectification of the self: because women were not cared for for many centuries and misunderstood, they tend to focus on themselves a lot. Narcissism is seen as a way to ask for validation. At the same time, women shouldn’t seek validation in love, and not rely on men all the time in a relationship. Through this discourse, Beauvoir addresses not only women’s merits, but also women’s faults. The aim is to be as provocative as possible, creating something that stands completely out of the box and the reason why The Second Sex stayed away from feminism’s history may be also that.

n  “It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.”n

I could talk about The Second Sex for hours, but GR has word limits. There is to say that The Second Sex has been found by many scholars insufficient. It can vary from 800 to 900 pages yet it can still be hit with lots and lots of criticism. Critics bring up Beauvoir’s personal and sexual life, but here I am asking myself if this had been written by a male philosopher, would critics have brought up such skepticism nonetheless? Women are indeed more easily accused of betraying their beliefs than men are and non-fiction is probably the best case in literature to take as an example. That said, this book healed my inner-child forever. Being a woman is an experience and in my experience, it’s totally okay to deviate from the stereotypical concept of femininity.

The problem I have with feminists nowadays is not wanting to accept that feminism is a purely economic problem. It is feminism’s goal to suppress every form of patriarchy, and capitalism or mansplaining to cite another one, are great deals. Feminism is a radical movement, yet it shouldn’t go against men either. Therefore, whatever form of feminism whose aim threats gender equality isn’t feminism, period. Feminism has to be provocative and disturb people, because like every radical movement, it aims to overthrow an old social condition that suppressed not only women, but also the ones who live in poverty. Our society is still a hierarchical society, therefore women who live in wealth - the ones who define themselves “anti-feminists” - could prefer to maintain the same social condition that suppressed women for ages because they benefit from it. They know what feminism is about, that’s why they don’t want to participate in it. So, what can we do?

It would be pointless to say that we have to raise awareness and educate ourselves - you already know that. The least I can do right now is to invite you readers to read this book and maybe other essays on feminism. For me, I plan to read The Third Sex by Ines Testoni - which, I believe, hasn’t been translated into English. I found a bunch of articles that helped me to write this review and a summary of The Second Sex if you want to know more but still can’t afford to buy the book. I’ll link them below. Through The Second Sex you’ll learn more about women, but also about existence. This is how powerful this book is. Still, it’s okay to not agree on Beauvoir’s opinions and instead try to make a critique out of it, because it was Beauvoir’s purpose from the very beginning to do so. Feminism is an open discussion, just like philosophy is, and women are beings that need to be contemplated. Their complexity is unique and fascinating. I love women.

5/5

Notes
¹ Source: britannica.com
² Quote from Wikipedia
³ This part is inspired to Renate Siebert’s preface to the Italian Edition

Links
https://www.thecollector.com/simone-d...
https://www.thecollector.com/first-wa...
https://www.thecollector.com/second-w...

Who is Simone de Beauvoir? For a more in-depth-study, here: https://www.thecollector.com/simone-d...

Knocked Up
Preggers
Up the Spout
A Bun in the Oven

* * *

The word “pregnant” is pregnant with connotation. And for women—often viewed in more bodily terms than men—nothing foregrounds a woman's body more than pregnancy. It’s interesting to consider what Simone de Beauvoir, dubbed the "mother" of modern feminism, thought about motherhood itself. Given what she writes in The Second Sex, Beauvoir would probably concur with my friend’s attitude…

...A number of years ago, a friend of mine spoke to me of her desire to have a baby. She felt—being in her early thirties—she should get on with it but would not consider being pregnant while she was still in graduate school. When I asked her why, she responded that pregnancy made you into such a “body,” and in the environment of graduate school, she would feel like “a body among minds.”

Her fear encapsulates a number of assumptions: A mother is a body. A body does not think. Intellectuals—graduate students, faculty, writers—think. Mothers do not think. A woman—as a graduate student or a professor—writes, talks, produces, thinks from the position of a daughter, that is, from the position of a female body still unencumbered enough to think.

Pregnancy or maternity, besides being a position traditionally at odds with intellect (consider the old caveat: “the baby or the book”), also represents loss of control and a resultant discomfort with the body (somatophobia). Marianne Hirsch, in The Mother/Daughter Plot, isolates both lack of control and somatophobia as two areas “of avoidance and discomfort with the maternal” (165) often apparent in feminist rhetoric. In The Women’s Room, one of Marilyn French’s characters sums up pregnancy as a time when a woman loses control of her body (and, by extension, her mind) as well as her identity:

Pregnancy is a long waiting in which you learn what it means completely to lose control over your life. There are no coffee breaks; no days off in which you regain your normal shape and self, and can return refreshed to your labors. You can’t wish away even for an hour the thing that is swelling you up, stretching your stomach until the skin feels as if it will burst, kicking you from the inside until you are black and blue. You can’t even hit back without hurting yourself. The condition and you are identical: you are no longer a person, but a pregnancy. (69)

With pregnancy, you are “no longer a person,” you are no longer “you.” Logically, the next question is, “Will you still be you when you become a mother?”

For Simone de Beauvoir the answer would be “No”: pregnancy and motherhood rob a woman of her identity and her intellect. Over and over again, in her interviews and in her books, Beauvoir refers to mothers as slaves reduced to bodies and cut off from intellectual pursuits. Beauvoir’s description of pregnancy, from her influential book, The Second Sex (1949), sounds very much like the description quoted above from The Women’s Room. While French’s character emphasizes how much pregnancy overtakes a woman’s identity, Beauvoir goes further and depicts pregnancy more like a disease that ultimately annihilates awoman:

[the fetus is:] an enrichment and an injury; the fetus is a part of her body, and it is a parasite that feeds on it; she possesses it, and she is possessed by it; it represents the future and, carrying it, she feels herself vast as the world; but this very opulence annihilates her, she feels that she herself is no longer anything. (emphasis added, 495)

In this theorization, a woman not only loses her former identity in the process of pregnancy, but actually loses her mind, as Beauvoir illustrates when she describes the pregnant woman in less than human terms:

. . . but in the mother-to-be the antithesis of subject and object ceases to exist; she and the child with which she is swollen make up together an equivocal pair overwhelmed by life. Ensnared by nature, the pregnant woman is plant and animal, a stock-pile of colloids, an incubator, an egg; she scares children proud of their young, straight bodies and makes young people titter contemptuously because she is a human being, a conscious and free individual who has become life’s passive instrument. (495)

Beauvoir’s perspective in the above quotation attracts comment. Though The Second Sex ostensibly is presented as an objective critique there is no attempt at objectivity here. In what often amounts to an emotional tirade, Beauvoir relentlessly focuses on the pregnant woman’s body, equating it with an “animal” or a “stockpile of colloids” and then—rather gratuitously—states that a pregnant woman “scares children” and makes them “titter contemptuously.” Beauvoir’s descriptions of pregnancy illustrate her attitudes about the pregnant body and the resultant disintegration of the mind and identity she sees occurring with maternity.

Beauvoir’s attack on motherhood is surprising unless you've read Beauvoir’s autobiographical works. There, you can see how Beauvoir systematically rejects the body—particularly a woman’s body—in favor of the life of the “mind.” And Beauvoir’s research on motherhood proves less than scientific. While she presents her findings in The Second Sex as though they are objective and backed by evidence from broad samplings, her viewpoints on motherhood rest largely on her observations of a few friends, quotes from novels, and her own personal life. Beauvoir, for instance, posits that the nausea women suffer in pregnancy demonstrates that pregnancy is not a natural state for human women given that nausea is “unknown for other mammals” (498). In evidence for this conclusion, Beauvoir preemptively cites herself, referring the reader to an earlier point in her own text!

Whatever groundbreaking work Beauvoir accomplishes in The Second Sex needs to be balanced against Beauvoir’s privileging of the mind over the body as well as her evident distaste for women’s bodily processes and pregnancy in particular. Furthermore, Beauvoir’s desire to erase the body doesn’t work. Ironically, as Jane Flax points out, the search for truth in the world of pure mind ultimately leads right back to the body:

The self, which is constituted by thought and created by an act of thought, by the separation of mind and body, is driven to master nature, because the self cannot ultimately deny its material character or dependence on nature. Despite Descartes’ claim, the body reasserts itself, at least at the moment of death. (28)

And, can one really separate the mind from the body? Jean-François Lyotard provocatively explores this question in his essay, “Can Thought Go On without a Body?” Lyotard considers whether technology could create machines “to make thinking materially possible” after our bodies are destroyed (77). Lyotard concludes that not only is thought impossibly entwined with the body but that the body actually creates thought: “Thinking and suffering overlap” (82). Thought, Lyotard posits, attempts to create endings, to once and for all silence the discomfort of the unthought:

The unthought hurts. It’s uncomfortable because we’re comfortable in what’s already thought. And thinking, which is accepting this discomfort, is also, to put it bluntly, an attempt to have done with it. That’s the hope sustaining all writing (painting, etc.): that at the end, things will be better. As there is no end, this hope is illusory. (84)

The impasse of artificial intelligence thus hinges on desire: thought without body has no impetus. Indeed, Lyotard questions why machines designed to mimic human minds would ever start thinking without the discomfort of the unthought making “their memory suffer” (85). We need, he continues, “machines that suffer from the burden of their memory” (85), i.e., machines with bodies.

But it is precisely this burden, the burden of memory, the burden of the body, Beauvoir hopes to silence as she fashions her life into a trajectory of pure intellect. Increasingly, Beauvoir identifies herself with the life of the mind she associates with the male sphere while simultaneously excising all that connects her to her female body. Though Beauvoir points out many of women’s inequities in A Second Sex and argues that women have often been viewed as the lesser or “other” sex, ironically, it is a sex that Beauvoir seems to reject as well.



adapted from a prior publication

متن سنگین، سرعت پیشرفت کتاب در حد لاک پشت ولی آدم چکار مهمتری غیر از خوندن و فهمیدن این نویسنده میتونه داشته باشه. این کتاب را سخت میشه یکبار خوند و فهمید.

Ένα βιβλίο που διαμόρφωσε την παγκόσμια σκέψη.Αν και γραμμενο το 1949 διαθέτει επικαιρικότητα που αφοπλίζει.Θεωρώ πως είναι υπεράνω κριτικής.

Thus, man today represents the positive and the neuter —that is, the male and the human being— while woman represents the negative, the female.
Every time she behaves like a human being, she is declared to be identifying with the male. Her sports, her political and intellectual activities, and her desire for other women are interpreted as “masculine protest”; there is a refusal to take into account the values toward which she is transcending, which inevitably leads to the belief that she is making the inauthentic choice of a subjective attitude.
The great misunderstanding upon which this system of interpretation rests is to hold that it is natural for the human female to make a feminine woman of herself: being a heterosexual or even a mother is not enough to realize this ideal; the “real woman” is an artificial product that civilization produces the way eunuchs were produced in the past...

I’m not a fan of most non-fiction it tends to be a bit of a trudge to get through. This one, i’m assuming some of the psychological stuff is probably out of date, its also probably longer than it needs to be and uses too many examples. Especially the literary ones, i actually skimmed quite a lot of those.

Theses are very minor complaints however. The length and depth gives this a very comprehensive feel.
There were only two non-fiction books i feel had a major outlook on my comprehension of the world. The Martyrdom of Man, from which i stole my user name, and one of those Introducing books on Evolutionary PsychologyEvolutionary Psychology.
This work is now the 3rd to be added to that. A lot of the information here feels obvious but in the same way evolution or other ideas often feel obvious once people point them out.
Its also not just about women. Because its impossible to talk about one group without putting them in context of other groups it also reveals a lot about men and other oppressed groups.

Highly recommended. Very clear, very complete, very impactful (, oh! and very depressing).

(aplausos)

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”

Incredibly interesting and eye-opening essay that describes the oppression of women throughout the years. Beauvoir analyses the historical, biological and socio-economic conditions that have led females to become the second sex and tries to define a path for them to overcome that disadvantages and fulfill their destiny. One of the best passages was the chapter where Beauvoir depicted the circumstances that led woman to be left behind in art:

Men we call great are those who—in one way or another—take the weight of the world on their shoulders; they have done more or less well, they have succeeded in re-creating it or they have failed; but they took on this enormous burden in the first place. This is what no woman has ever done, what no woman has ever been able to do. It takes belonging to the privileged caste to view the universe as one’s own, to consider oneself as guilty of its faults and take pride in its progress; those alone who are at the controls have the opportunity to justify it by changing, thinking, and revealing it; only they can identify with it and try to leave their imprint on it. Until now it has only been possible for Man to be incarnated in the man, not the woman. Moreover, individuals who appear exceptional to us, the ones we honor with the name of genius, are those who tried to work out the fate of all humanity in their particular lives. No woman has thought herself authorized to do that. How could van Gogh have been born woman?

Every woman should read this.

4.5

Her wings are cut and then she is blamed for not knowing how to fly.

The Second Sex is not a feminist manifesto but a comprehensive study of women’s position throughout history and the psychological reasons why women were and still are considered weaker than men and unequal to them (sometimes by women themselves, but by men in general).

Every time she acts like a human being, she is said to be imitating the male.

In this well-researched, fact-filled philosophical/historical book we come to know about the evolution of woman’s status all through the history and in addition, we examine some of the great authors’ works and how they have portrayed and perceived their women characters.

When he describes woman, each writer discloses his general ethics and the special idea he has of himself; and in her he often betrays also the gap between his world view and his egotistical dreams.

Reseña: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIz1b...

Valoración 2.5/5

Empecé a leer este ensayo sobre feminismo con la idea de aprender qué es el feminismo, de dónde viene, cómo surge, cómo estaba en el momento de escribirse este ensayo, las dificultades de la igualdad, hacia donde iban las mujeres, problemas y soluciones, creía que iba a poder distinguir conductas machistas que se dan ahora para poder corregirlas, creía que me iba a enseñar a corregir mi propio comportamiento y comentarios, creía que me iba a enseñar a reeducarme en la igualdad y a educar a futuras generaciones. Y nada más lejos de la realidad.
Es un ensayo muy bien estructurado en los inicios pero caótico en el fondo, repetitivo, influenciado por la filosofía y política de los ámbitos en los que la escritora se movió, un ensayo visto desde la élite para la élite, sin tener en cuenta a minorías, a otras clases sociales inferiores, otras culturas, continentes o razas.
A pesar de entender que está publicado en 1949, situándome en esa época, ni entiendo ni comparto el pensamiento de esta filósofa, en gran parte de este ensayo, no en todo.
De este ensayo de 830 páginas, al que le sobran la mitad por repetitivo y porque muchos datos que se dan no son de ella, ni siquiera su opinión, me quedo con la deconstrucción que hace la mujer, el análisis tan completo y complejo que hace de ella y con la reflexión a la que me ha llevado al finalizar su lectura sobre el feminismo: El feminismo es la igualdad de géneros, los hombres necesitan a las mujeres y viceversa, nadie es más que nadie por pertenecer una religión, sexo, país, raza, estatus social o cultural, y solo lo alcanzaremos cuando entendamos que estamos todos juntos en este barco y que por supuesto nadie debe apropiarse del feminismo en su provecho, es un movimiento que debe ser independiente de cualquier corriente filosófica e ideología política.

It might be owing to our short-term memory loss as masses but humanity is generally a very thankless species. The negative criticism that feminism receives, especially from women, seem, to be the result of this ingratitude. If you don't think we are all thankless folks, then tell me who invented condoms?

Times are changing fast and things one generation fought so hard for could be taken for granted by the next one - and to this new generation, the struggles of the previous generation might seem comical. People had grown to dislike her while she was still alive. The negative reviews of Simone De Beviour's thesis seem to spring from this lack of understanding.

I am not a feminist myself (assuming men can be that) as it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. I can't ever be sure what a particular person means when he or she say that they are feminist. If the belief in the fact that women are worse off in society be the definition of feminism might be used as defining characteristic, than one runs the risk of calling people with patronizing ways toward women feminists - most religions have such patronizing ways. A lot of people in India would want women to stay indoors after dusk 'for their own safety' - sometimes they are genuinely concerned but the point is most feminists I like reading from won't agree - I don't either.


.... Or it might mean to others, stronger women. The worst of it is Indian School girls being taught karate so that they might be able to defend themselves. An example I have seen commonly among western people is to shame weak female characters. Any weak female characters especially one weakened by love for a man is a 'spineless' character. Two examples of fictional characters that are criticized for this are Bella from Twilight (which I have not read) and Tonks from Harry Potter series (Tonks btw was the only character in series I had a crush on). From saying that 'it is the duty of every woman to be strong' you are just one step away from saying 'whatever happens to a weak is deserved by her because of her weakness'. I think it a great precept of Feminism that every woman should have a source of her own income, but not all of them can or they might not find work best suited to their abilities and to some people - both men and women, even having breakfast is an act of anguish.

I hope you get why I don't like calling myself a feminist. But I do have an outsider's admiration for certain feminists - Charlotte Bronte, Henrik Ibsen, Woolf and now Beauviour. Like most writers who are too rhetorical, she is open to misinterpretation at times - especially if you only read the book in parts. But if you ignore follies of her language, she means by feminism what every such egalitarian philosophy should mean - that we are all individuals. That not all girls (or humans) want to learn or care for self-defense techniques. What would be the purpose of laws and police if such assumptions are encouraged? That some women (and men too) can be emotionally weak at times, get depressed, for no good reason or because they are abandoned by ones they love - and that is no reason to guilt trip them. (Sometimes it is even a sign of strength or quality. Tonks was strong enough to be an Aurora but loved putting smiles on faces of others, it makes sense she should get depressed to know that someone as good a person as Lupin should give up on all hope of ever being happy).

That at least seems to be a general message though Behaviour's language actually seems to encourage the opposite idea - that she is trying to talk in stereotypes. She uses the words like 'woman' and 'she' which seems to invite prejudice; but what she really means most of those times are 'some woman' and 'some of them'.

She s a novelist and it shows in how she presents her arguments - many of which could make very good fictional short stories.

I think Eastern Feminists can gain a lot more from the book. A lot of anti-feminist arguments she had to answer are not raised in the west anymore but might still be common in East - women have smaller brains or are less of humans, why housewife will not have a fulfilling life) or shaming based on mensuration or the arguments raised because of biological reasons. It can be a good starting book for one studying feminism at least in India.


There are things though from which whole world can look - the heavy focus given to looks when we take character estimates of women (men are udged for far more qualities - their brains, physical strength, kindness, wealth etc all come into consideration but such qualities are not as valued as much among women; women are less likely to be complimented for such things); about how women are more likely to 'respect' men or make sacrifices for them (which sits at root of women giving up their careers for their husbands, a lot of D/s - but not all relationships; especially ones that turn into abuse. Respect is always a bad thing - a distancing quality and often cruel to people you worship as well as a way of lowering yourself; true for lovers friends, parent-student relationship too and true even if it is men that are supposed to respect women as the Indian version of feminists say men should - give each other a human dignity, anything more is to give them too much power for good of both parties. And sacrifices for your lover is equally cruel to both you and the lover), why women are more likely to be physically weak (less likely to be encouraged to do strength exercises in the gym, mostly they are in there to get thinner).

The book though won't always stand the test of times. For example, the writer is too judgemental of actresses for example.

There are a couple of more points I should like to make in case someone cares to read these boring reviews might be interested. I have recently seen feminism criticized for things that didn't result from it. One of them is the rising inequality of incomes. Some women from the USA who are quite intelligent and my friends have claim that now both man and woman have to earn when a few decades ago, one person's income was enough to maintain the household. Well, it is the fault of capitalism and not feminism - or lack of it, US government is failing to tax the rich corporations and is more willing to tax middle-class workers, so it is the fault of US government. In India too, much of inequality of income is owed to lack of proper laws and their implementation.

Another related criticism is that children feel abandoned when both parents are working. It too is owed to capitalism. If incomes of middle and lower classes were to rise with GDP, that would have made the two parents to work lesser and avail them more time to spend with their children.

Update 10/6/22 continued reading, will write a comprehensive review from these notes upon completion
Getting near the end, and I am enjoying to see her arguments starting to come to a head. I've been thinking about Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own a lot in these past few chapters as much of Beauvoir's goal is to show how the counter to objectification and subjugation will be found in attaining equal footing in work and financial mobility, basically being able to have space for one's own. A lot of criticisms I've read on second-wave feminism by those who came after make a lot more sense reading these chapters, as there isn't much attention to the idea that there are many intersections of identity (race, sexual orientation, etc) that provide further barriers to equality in work/economic opportunity and there is a lot to be said that this aim just makes one complicit in a system that profits from oppression instead of full liberation for all. So there is that to consider.

'all human existence is transcendence and immanence at the same time'

Anyways, the next few chapters look at social roles of women, particularly as a mother or married woman, and Beauvoir argues how the roles and institutions themselves are constricting in and of themselves. Marriage, for instance, is so socially couched in ideas of being the property of a husband and subservient to care for the household that she calls it being cut off mid-life from the mainstream of life. In society, she says men are seen as the producers and wives are seen as accessories and therefor the role itself becomes demeaning. Similarly in the chapter on mothers, social roles have enforced that in motherhood the 'new existence is going to manifest itself and justify her existence,' as if a woman needs an external justification of her existence at all. Much of society is centered around treating women as if their life's worth hinges on this biological function and distributes shame if they do not 'fulfill' it, teaching her that she is merely the 'plaything of obscure forces' do remove any sense of self-agency. This gets into early conversations about contraceptives and fertility treatments, showing that political legislation over them is entirely for the purpose of bodily control and is another aspect of society that culminates in beating down women into feeling their own bodies are not theirs but the property of men.

Largely, these chapters argue that economic opportunity and accumulation of capital in equal footing with men would have a 'purifying role; it abolishes the war of the sexes.' While this feels admittedly short sighted, it is interesting to consider as a necessary step in order to even be at the table for further discussion on dismantling patriarchal oppression. She also argues that it is necessary to remove the knee-jerk response of men against any statements towards equality or rights for women in that so many arguments are dismissed before they are even heard, so gaining a voice at all is needed.
More to come!

--------------
Update 9/23/22 continued reading, will update as I go and compile into a reworked review when finished.
After the section on myths, which was a great analysis of literary works and how the Othering of women is embedded in cultural narratives and religious stories, de Beauvoir turns her attention to the lived experiences of women in society and how the social norms become oppressive emotionally, psychologically and physically.
There is a sharp analysis on how women are socialized from an early age to become passive, even as simple and early on as the nature of gendered toys. Studies have detected that toys 'for girls' tend to focus on ideas of domesticity, nurturing and physical beauty, whereas toys 'for boys' are more active and focus on physical activity, aggression and labor. If found reading this section I was often reminded of Dear Ijeawele, or a Feminist Manifesto in Fifteen Suggestions by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in which she points out ' baby girls are given less room and more rules and baby boys more room and fewer rules,' as well as that 'Many cultures and religions control women’s bodies in one way or another...the reason is not about women, but about men,' and that many ideas of 'respectibility 'reduces women to mere props used to manage the appetites of men.'

There is also the aspect that girls are brought into household chores and caretaking responsibility earlier and to higher degrees of labor than boys and socialized into believing caretaking is part of their identity whereas boys enjoy the fruit of the unpaid and under appreciated labor. In Dr. Kate Manne's collection Entitled: How Male Privilege Hurts Women has a chapter on men's entitlement to domestic labor from women, citing a study that showed '46% of fathers reported being coequal parents,' and of those 'only 32% of mothers concurred with their assessment.' Not only do a majority of fathers not view coequal parenting as part of their duty, but the ones who think they are often are not actually coequal, the message being that women's domestic labor is so engrained as normal in society as much of it becomes invisible. This sort of thing is what Simone is getting at: to be a woman is to be undervalued which further's the Othering.

'woman has a more authentic experience of herself.'

Most interesting here was de Beauvoir's rebuttal on Freud's idea of 'penis envy'. She points out that men are able to focus their sexual ideas into one body organ whereas for a woman their focus of sexuality is on their entire body, which shapes them into seeing themselves entirely as a sexual object that moves through the world. As they are taught at a young age that sex is something a woman should feel shame over (as well as a dirty idea), they are therefor taught to feel shame for their own bodies which becomes psychologically emphasized as they develop in puberty. She argues that man's 'anatomical destiny' is different from women's 'from the biological, social, and psychological points of view,' and sexual initiation is not only received but perceived differently based on gender roles. We have a man being congratulated for being sexually active whereas a woman is shamed, for example. She also points out that for every sexual act there is the fear of pregnancy: sex is understood entirely inside the body whereas for a man it is outside of themselves and something they can walk away from.

With regard to the idea that a woman is socialized into feeling shame for the body as a sexual object where men are not, it is interesting to see the double standards. First there is that women are shamed by society for sexual activity whereas society high-fives men, but with regard to the body society also looks at ideas of self-improvement of one’s body differently. Take gym culture for example. Men shaping their body into ideas of strength and attraction is coded in language as self-improvement and also used in a hierarchy of masculinity. If used for attracting a woman it is less about themselves and more “look at how much better I am compared to the bodies of other men,” and “winning” an attractive woman is centered on having her as an accessory, an object to display like a trophy of ego they can show off to friends as a mark of pride. Interestingly enough it is often with aims for the male gaze (Shoutout to my friend Hope for having an amazing discussion about this with me, their ideas are represented in these paragraphs as we dug into the theories).

It is something they are given space to feel pride in, whereas a woman’s focus on the body is seen as being full of oneself. And much of gym culture involves what Beauvoir notes is socialized as feminine gender roles, from positioning the whole body as a sexual object to shaving legs, framing clothing that emphasizes the sexual attraction etc. The language around it in marketing products for men is that it is for strength, self-improvement and confidence but for women products are sold as “beauty products”. For men it is socialized as a positive and ego-boosting, for women it is seen as something they should improve and “fix” about their image: the dichotomy of self-improvement between increasing confidence (for men) versus reducing shame (for women).

The chapter on lesbian activity is quite unfortunate and rather outdated. de Beauvoir makes assumptions that being a lesbian is a choice, one made out of social context instead of 'sexual destiny', which is a bad take that assumes one can simply decide to not be queer. She views heterosexuality and homosexuality as equal, though claims that a woman chooses to become a lesbian out of resentment for the limitations of femininity. Ugh, this chapter is a bit frustrating and was critqued often later on.

More to come as I keep on, next chapter is on Mothers and should be interesting in light of what she wrote about mothers in Inseparable.

-----------
Endeavouring through Simone de Beauvoir’s seminal work, The Second Sex, with my bookclub and I’ve decided to review it piece by piece as a place to organize my thoughts and discuss with goodreads friends as we page through the book. This work, with famous lines such as ‘one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,’ became a cornerstone for feminism when it appeared in 1949, a groundbreaking treatise that would spark second-wave feminism and become a major work of 21st century philosophy. What stands out most notably so far is how much this is an extremely intelligent mind at work and how much the framing of the writing is important to its message, with book one covering a lot of territory and establishing a framework for her to make arguments within from a place where reactionary rebuttals have already been preempted and nullified. It’s important, I feel, to consider the context of when this was written and I’m attempting to approach it on its terms, though I am interested in reading more modern feminist critiques on the work (particularly with regard to race and queer identities) because nothing fascinates me more than seeing ideas reshaped and building upon each other across time. On that note, this is an important work in terms of academic canonization as, with academia, much work is building upon what came before and women have been largely underrepresented through history. I am enjoying this so far and will be reshaping this review as I progress.

I am reading the unabridged version translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. Interestingly, The Second Sex was very quickly translated into English upon its initial publication, arriving in English just three years later in 1952. The translation was notably poor, with many deletions and mistranslations of key terms, as well as breaking the text up into smaller paragraphs thought to suit a more American reader style. Personally I like seeing it as being confronted by a big wall of text, adding to the overall impression that this is a towering and powerful work that would not be silenced and demanded to be listened to. It is also interesting to consider that the first translation was by zoologist Howard M. Parshley, and that a man was reframing De Beauvoir’s arguments on gender into English might raise an eyebrow or two.

Book I

‘Thus humanity is male and man defines woman not in herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being.’

The main argument in The Second Sex is that men fundementally oppress women by relegating them to the status of “Other” and defining them in opposition to men. Men, she argues, seek to transcend themselves (‘its project is not stagnation: it seeks to surpass itself’) and consider themselves to be the center of Self, with women an outside player. ‘The world has always belonged to males,’ she states, ‘and none of the reasons given for this have ever seemed sufficient.’ In order to define how this came to be, De Beauvoir looks at biology, psychoanalysis and historical materialism to establish a framework to understand how women came to be Othered and how the ‘eternal feminine’ has been reinforced by constructs. A major function of the opening few chapters is to impress upon the reader that much of social norms and operations are constructs and detangling how they came to be helps to understand how oppression and ‘Othering’ of women is for the purpose of dominance over them and not any factual reality.

‘What is a woman’ De Beauvoir asks in the introduction and reminds us that binaries of man/woman only exist as a linguistic construct. She argues that man considers themselves the Subject and women as a reproductive body. In the first chapter, De Beauvoir asks ‘what does the female represent in the animal kingdom? And what unique kind of female is realized in woman?’ and examines how a woman’s ‘body is not enough to define her…biology alone cannot provide an answer to the question….why is woman the Other?’ She shows countless examples of how division into binary sexes is not universal. She also examines how menstruation and pregnancy is when a woman ‘feels most acutely that her body is an alienated opaque thing,’ something she argues is not present in any other mammal to the level of subjugation and alienation felt by human women. She argues it is social constructs aligning to make women feel their body is ‘something other than her.’

In the chapter on psychoanalysis, De Beauvoir refutes Freud’s notion that women consider themselves merely ‘damaged men’ and posits that his assumption of women is based entirely on ‘masculine destiny’ with women outside it. She rejects sexuality as the entire basis for personality. Similarly, in the chapter on historic materialism, she rejects the idea that oppression of women and them being “Othered” is entirely economical struggles, though her she does say it is one part of the reasoning.

De Beauvoir looks at the historical context of how this came to be. Examining social roles of women as opposed to men, arguing that men doing the warring and physical defense while women maintained daily life chores brought about an impression of women as something lesser and an object to protect instead of an equal. This was furthered, she says, when men began obtaining property, considering women as just another aspect of property. She argues that women such as sex workers are more free than married women, though acknowledges there is a trade-off of financial independence and security and social independence.

The aspects that have most grabbed me are the aspects on how storytelling reinforces constructs and systemic oppression. Myths become a way to deliver social values, as well as religion and De Beauvoir looks at how much religion has been used to enforce the binary and Othering of women (milage may vary based on religion, she shows). This is interesting to consider in modern context when we talk about who is being centered and what stories are being given space, much in the way Edward W. Said wrote about how storytelling can be an agent of colonialism. The reflections on religious stories being used to subjugate women (ie De Beauvoir discusses Genesis as placing woman as coming from man and also initiating eating of the forbidden fruit) have enforced a patriarchial church structure rampant with misogyny: think how witch hunts historically were violent reactions against behavior such as women owning property, not having children or any other activity that could be said to be 'immoral'.

More to come as I read on! If anyone has some great article, I would LOVE to read them and share with my book club!