Es un libro fundamental pero mira, te lo voy a decir: no hace falta que te leas 825 páginas por amor al arte, porque 825 páginas son muchas páginas, pero te cuento, que para algo he estado un año leyéndolo: La introducción es de lectura obligada y la primera parte es muy interesante. La frase que todo el mundo cita sin haber leído el libro está en la página 341 que yo entiendo que ya son muchas páginas que leer, así que os la transcribo que es una frase que si la dices a medias pareces idiota pero si la repites mucho sin entenderla lo mismo te dan un ministerio: "No se nace mujer, se llega a serlo. [Aquí es donde paran de citar, y claro] Ningún destino biológico, psíquico, económico, define la imagen que reviste en el seno de la sociedad la hembra humana; el conjunto de la civilización elabora este producto intermedio entre el macho y el castrado que se suele calificar de femenino". La conclusión me ha decepcionado porque para acabar citando a Marx no necesitábamos 825 páginas, ya estábamos de acuerdo.

700 pages of magical reality. Beauvoir is one of those handful writers, worth a name. Simone's narrative quality is so much powerful, I've never experienced before. A must read for third world.

I will be revisiting this book very soon.

This unfortunately was the short version of Simone de Beauvoir's 'The Second Sex' as I made a mistake when ordering (because of the price), so this is only extracts from the full version which hopefully will read at another time. As a passionate supporter of feminism, equality and sexual liberation for women this was an interesting and for it's time controversial take on feminist philosophy and would suit anyone who doesn't have the time on their hands to read the longer edition, but I am a little frustrated as it clearly has nowhere near the depth that obviously the full version would have. It did however send me on a trip down memory lane as a few years back with my then partner I participated in a rally/demo for women's lib which lead me to believe the only man present would be me, not true at all, there were men and women of all ages that totally blew me away!, it was a peaceful and worthy way to show my solidarity with the opposite sex. I am sure this book had a massive impact back in the late forties when first released, and opened the eyes of the repressed and those who felt chained to the kitchen sink. Well done Simone.

Un'opera monumentale, uno scritto preziosissimo e necessario. La donna viene analizzata in molteplici aspetti (biologico, storico, sociale) e vengono prese in considerazione tutte le tipologie di donne, descrivendo la complessità della condizione femminile. Dovrebbero leggerlo tutti.

Personally, I believe that de Beauvoir has never felt the effect of injustices or gender inequalities.
I think, rather, that it all started when she realized that people considered her inferior to Sartre, her lover - just because she was a woman. I think she was surprised to see that her existence was reduced to an essential fact : " I'm a woman ".

" The Second Sex" - is not only a book about the role of women in history and society, but also about " otherness " - as an archetype and philosophical category, often replaced by the concept of " the other ". These philosophical foundations make the book go beyond the status of a feminist manifesto, becoming a fascinating read.
The book is an attempt to answer the question " what woman is ? " - as an archetype as opossed to woman as individuality. The notion of " otherness " , says de Beauvoir, can be applied to any group in society that is not considered a main group.
Men do not feel the need to justify themselves objectively, but they feel superior because they are not women. )) The result is the cliché that a woman has to do twice as many things, in order to be considered equal to a man.

De Beauvoir expresses her astonishment that although men say that women are equal to them, their attitude says the opposite.
What would de Beauvoir say, however, nowadays ? In rich and free countries, many women might think that " The Second Sex " is an outdated study, that equality is for real. A lot of de Beauvoir statements can be contradicted by science, but the truth is that we are not completely undifferentiated in terms of gender, but we are born with a series of behavioral tendencies, whether we are men or women. The conditioning is real, no doubt, but it is not necessarily defining, and we cannot understand the limitations of which women are considered " guilty " , without understanding the biological differences too. The more we know about our bodies and brains, the less ground biology will gain in defining our destiny as human being.
In my humble opinion, the woman is the dream within which all other dreams are contained. Her positive and defining characteristic would be that she always inspired the man to overcome his own limits.
And that is a great thing.

This book is a long read, my friends. Forewarned is forearmed?

In college, my Soviet Studies professor once cautioned me to beware speaking ex cathedra. Simone de Beauvoir never received that advice, for The Second Sex, it appears, speaks more for Simone de Beauvoir than for the billions of women that have lived lives on this planet. She also wrote this book before we understood the consequences of The Selfish Gene. Why is this book important, then? Whether we agree with de Beauvoir’s perspective, I believe most can accept that this work served as an important dais for the voicing of women’s rights since its publishing. There is, therefore, a benefit to understanding what she did and did not say.

De Beauvoir is a polyhistor and she lets us know it; she pulls from the breadth of Western literature to support her positions, using them as validating salts for her discourse. I feel I hear her saying to her interns, “Find me a quote from Augustine, oh, and then one from Cicero. Now that I think of it, look for Kierkegaard, too.” And yet, in constructing her thesis around female enslavement, she neglects the grand realization, that we are all enslaved. Isn’t that theme central to Albert Camus’ writings, an author de Beauvoir interestingly ignores.

Her writing voice, at least the voice I imagine, changes like a temperamental wispy breeze. I found myself in long stretches where she lost me, then, of a sudden, I heard her vividly. Her chapter, The Married Woman, contains some important thoughts regarding the marriage myth. Sure, it’s a bit dated; we’ve moved on from the environment she examined, at least in the West, yet much is here, the stuff, the human experiences embedded in great literature, the histories, the humanities and social sciences.

De Beauvoir has a view of what freedom means for women:

To emancipate woman is to refuse to enclose her in the relations she sustains with man, but not to deny them; while she posits herself for herself, she will nonetheless continue to exist for him as well: recognizing each other as subject, each will remain an other for the other; reciprocity in their relations will not do away with the miracles that the division of human beings into two separate categories engenders: desire, possession, love, dreams, adventure; and the words that move us: “to give,” “to conquer,” and “to unite” will keep their meaning; on the contrary, it is when the slavery of half of humanity is abolished and with it the whole hypocritical system it implies that the “division” of humanity will reveal its authentic meaning and the human couple will discover its true form.

She also has a vision for this new environment:

A world where men and women would be equal is easy to imagine because it is exactly the one the Soviet revolution promised: women raised and educated exactly like men would work under the same conditions and for the same salaries; erotic freedom would be accepted by custom, but the sexual act would no longer be considered a remunerable “service”; women would be obliged to provide another livelihood for themselves; marriage would be based on a free engagement that the spouses could break when they wanted to; motherhood would be freely chosen—that is, birth control and abortion would be allowed—and in return all mothers and their children would be given the same rights; maternity leave would be paid for by the society that would have responsibility for the children, which does not mean that they would be taken from their parents but that they would not be abandoned to them.

Are we that far from realizing her dream in the West?

While I am an unquestioning advocate of equality for all, I’m not entirely pleased about the route our society has taken toward that objective. I believe de Beauvoir bears responsibility; she furthered the perception of a contest waged by women against men, where many women joyfully raised the banner. I’m reminded of my disastrous first marriage. I once said, “I feel emasculated.” My not-so-charming, JD/MBA-credentialed, ex-wife cannoned back, “I feel emasculated, too!” Is this the world de Beauvoir had in mind?

Video Review
2020: Hopefully I won't be burnt at the stake for making an unfavourable review about this.

-----2017 Review------
This isn't light reading, and in retrospect, I wouldn't recommend you read it unless your university or lover forces you to do so.

This was a painful and frustrating read for me as reflected in the names I gave it I soldiered through it:
"Being second, sucks"
"Why Kurt Vonnegut hated the semi-colon"
"The most masochistic thing I ever did"
"Comprehensively diabolical"
"Two legs bad, four legs good"
"Acrimonious Marriage Simulator"
"Disempowering pregnancy"
"How Men Disgust Me"
"Having and Eating Your Cake"

This book could be structured as:
Vol.1.Pt.1.: Simone pretends to be an authority on biological psychiatry, psychoanalysis and history.
Vol.1.Pt.2: Simone notes innumerable instances, as if it were not somehow already apparent, that history has always kept woman in a subordinate socioeconomic position within the family.
Vol.1.Pt.3.: Simone uses fiction to support her views on how real women feel in real situations.
Vol.2.Pt.1-3: Simone uses psychiatric case studies and anecdotes to describe the psychological development of girls as they grow up. Best part of the book.
Vol.2.Pt.4: She states that she thinks that a woman's identity should be independent of her relation to man.

In this review I'm going to omit my personal feelings and experiences and try and argue that this book receives more attention than it deserves and is most likely not worth your full attention (you can skim-read it, sure).

a. Genre issues
I believe the book is a polemic. To me this not a work of ethical philosophy, sociocultural theory, psychoanalytic theory or history, because it posed no constructive system of behaviour, no original insight to dystopian or utopian ideals regarding gender, no original explanation of instinctive drives behind behaviours, and no extensively cited or statistically weighted accounts of previous standards of civilization. A strong polemic to me requires a clear goal, structure and discarding of counterarguments, which I think were undeniably absent from Volume One, and anticlimactically emerged at the end of Volume Two.

b. Excessive & Unconstructive Quotations
First, it is no exaggeration that at least a third of the book are direct quotes other books. Even if she wrote the remaining two thirds brilliantly, the majority of it should be based on interpreting the work of others and so this text should be seen as a critique/review/meta-analysis of other feminist works before it. This is the main reason I think this book is highly rated generally: readers appreciate someone bringing citations of works classed as feminist together that they will never have to read so they can sample the best of them and perhaps recognize their names in the future perhaps so as to sound progressive.

Second, school teaches us PQD: make a point, cite evidence perhaps in the form of a quotation, and then develop what this means to the specific question. This book is almost entirely PQPQPQ ad nauseam. Evidence of this comes from the fact that when you ask people to tell you what is exceptional about this book they will blindly repeat "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". I'd like to tell you that she was the first to insinuate this, or to say that she develops this any further, but I simply can't.

Third, I think her quoted sources provide greater insight and constructive views, I just find that Wollstonecraft's Vindication may be dated but had a clearer goal, Woolf's A Room With A View was more honest and unifying for heterosexuals, and Plath's works have more detailed and realistic representations of heterosexual bitterness and disgust.

c. Playing Teacher
One of the general issues I have with the book is that her haughtiness is more than obnoxious—it obfuscates deficiencies of evidence. While I surprisingly commend her criticisms of Freud on female psychology (better than some I saw in Horney's work), I think she is being dishonest in trying to make counterarguments in these fields in which she is clearly not specialized. The semi-colons don't come across as logical affirmations, but as passive aggressive backhands. She assumes with the authority of a psychiatrist that the female psychiatric patient anecdotes (which make up most of her evidence) are accurate, and in no way involve misguidedly or disproportionately projecting female suffering onto man. This book demonstrates that citing more sources and adding more pages does not add weight to your argument if you are not using them appropriately, even if you insist this is the case. She rambles for points which add nothing to her argument and weakly dismisses highly relevant counterarguments, such as suicide gender ratios in economically developed countries.

d. Pseudo-separatism
I just don't see how this book can benefit societal relations, when it promotes only resentment, and between socioeconomic/class heterosexual subgroups: careerist women vs. family women, careerist women vs. men, women vs. feminist men. I'm more forgiving and perhaps empathizing of explicitly separatist feminism, because this book seems to be on the fence about what it concretely wants from and to do with men. I'm also a bit disappointed that she seems to try to distance the book from feminist agenda in the introduction, while clearly being 'a greatest hits for first-wave feminism' if there ever was one.

------
No irony intended but I don't think this book was written for me and so my review is probably not all that helpful to those I think it was intended for—hopefully you won't find it as tedious to read as I did.

كان هذا العالم دائما عالم الرجال وكل الأسباب المعللة لذلك بدت لنا غير كافية على أننا سنتمكن أن نفهم كيف تشكل التمايز بين الجنسين ,على ضوء الفلسفة الوجودية , ومن ذلك تنطلق الكاتبة النسوية الوجودية سيمون دي فورا بعدد تردد كما ذكرت أن الكتابة عن المرأة أمر مثير ولكن ليس بالشيء الجديد .



إذا كانت الأنوثة وحدها لا تكفي لتعريف المرأة , و ينبغي أن نسلم ولو بصورة مؤقتة أن هناك نساء على الأرض فعلينا حينئذ أن نتساءل ما هي المرأة ؟

ففي عهد القديس توماس كانت المرأة تبدو كجوهر تحدد خصائصه كما تحدد خصائص ومزايا نبات الخشخاش. الا ان هذا المذهب الفكري فقد من نفوذه لأن العلوم البيلوجية والأجتماعية لم تعد تقر بوجود جوهر ثابت يحدد نماذج معينة كالمرأة واليهودي والزنجي.


أن موقف التحدي الذي تقفه النساء الأمريكيات يثبت أن شعور الأنوثة يطغي عليهن , والحقيقة أنه يكفي إلقاء نظرة للتأكد من أن الإنسانية تنقسم الى فئتين تتمايزان باللباس والوجه والجسم والابتسامة والمشية والاهتمام والمشاغل تمايزا واضحا وقد تكون هذه الفوارق سطحية وسائرة إلى الزوال . أنما الأكيد أنها موجودة في الوقت الحالي بكل وضوح .


السؤال الذي يفرض نفسه هنا هو : كيف تمكن أحد الجنسين فقط من فرض نفسه كجوهر وحيد منكراً وجود كل نسبية تربطه بالجنس الآخر, معرفاً إياه بأنه الآخر الصرف .ومن أين اتى للمرأة هذا الرضوخ ؟!

هناك حالات اخرى ترينا تمكن فئة من التحكم بفئة أخرى خلال فترة من الزمن وكان هذا الامتياز ناجما في الغالب عن تمايز العدد فتفرض الأكثرية قانونها على الأقلية وتضطهدها إلا إن النساء لسن أقلية فضلاً عن أن هذا التسلط له
مهما أوغلنا في تتبع التاريخ , نرى النساء مُلحقات بالرجال وهذه التبعية نتيجة حادث تاريخي وليست الأمر الطارئ فقط الذي يجعل من المرأة الجنس الآخر بصورة مطلقة .

كما ترى سيمون أن نضال المرأة لم يكن قط إلا نضالاً رمزيا ولم تفز إلا بما أراد الرجل التنازل عنه ولم تأخذ شيئا أبدا بل تسلمت ما أعطي إليها
فلا تستطيع المرأة حتى في الحلم إزالة الذكور فالعلاقة التي تربطها بمضطهديها , لا مثيل لها ذلك أن انقسام الجنس هو في الواقع شيء عضوي محسوس وليس مرحلة من تاريخ البشر .

*

قد يخيل لنا إن هذه العلاقة المتبادلة قد ساعدت على تحرير المرأة والحقيقة أن الحاجة البيولوجية التي تجعل الذكر مقيداً بالأنثى لم تحرر المرأة اجتماعياً , وإذا كان إلحاح الحاجة متساويا عند الطرفين فانه يتدخل دائما في صالح المضطهدين ضد المضطهدين .




من المفهوم الشائع أن يتحول ازدواج الجنس" كأي ازدواج إلى نزاع
ومن المعروف انه إذا نجح احد الطرفين في فرض تفوقه فإن هذا التفوق يميل الى تأكيد نفسه تأكيداً مطلقاً ولكن ينبغى لنا أن نستفسر لماذا كان الرجل الرابح في البداية ؟ ولماذا كان هذا العالم دائماً تابعاً لرجال ولماذا لم تأخذ الأشياء في التبدل إلا في هذه الأيام فقط ؟ وهل هذا التبدل شيء حسن ؟ وهل سيقسم العالم تقسيماً عادلاً بين الرجال والنساء ؟

هذه الأسئلة ليست بالجديدة ولقد لقيت أجوبة عديدة , إلا أن مجرد اعتبار المرأة " الجنس الآخر" يخرج كل التبريرات التي يقدمها الرجال لأنها كانت مستوحاة من مصالحهم
فكل ما كتب عن المرأة من قبل الرجال يجب أن يثير الشبهات لأنهم خصوم وحكام في الوقت ذاته , وقد سخروا اللاهوت والفلسفة والقوانين لخدمة مصالحهم

ترى سيمون دي فورا :

أن الفئة المهيمنة تحاول أن تبقي المرأة في المكان التي تخصصه لها وتستقي الحجج من الوضع الذي خلقته هذه الفئة نفسها وهذا يذكرنا بقول برنارد شو , في الزنوج " إن الأمريكي الأبيض يهبط بالزنجي إلى مستوى ماسح الأحذية ليستنتج من ذلك أم الزنجي ليس صالحاً سوى لمسح الأحذية " نعم أن النساء هن غالباً في يومنا هذا أقل مكانة من الرجال بمعنى أن وضعهم لا يفسح لهن إلا مجالات أضيق والمسألة هي أن نعرف فيما إذا كانت هذه الحالة ستدوم ؟

بعض الرجال يخشون منافسة المرأة والمصالح الاقتصادية ليست وحدها في الميدان لإن من محاسن وضع المضطهدين إن أبسطهم يظن نفسه بطلا وهو يقارن نفسه مع نساء ( اختارهن هو نفسه ) من أن يقارن نفسه وهو يأخذ دوره كرجل .

وهاهو يكتب " كلود مورياك بخصوص النساء " نحن نصغي بلامبالاة مهذبة لأذكى النساء ونحن نعلم جيدا أن فكرها يعكس بصورة متمايزة الوضوح الأفكار التي تصدر عنا نحن معشر الرجال " على كل حال أن المرأة التي يتحدث عنها لا تعكس أفكاره لأنه معروف بنضوب فكره ولعله يحتاج الى أن يعكس هو نفسه أفكاره لأنه معروف بنضوب فكره ولعله يحتاج أن يعكس هو نفسه أكفار كبار الفلاسفة وهو يتحدث .!


أن المسألة النسائية استحالت إلى نزاع وخصام نتيجة لوقاحة الرجال والإنسان حين يتخاصم يفقد ملكة المحاكمة وإذا أردنا حقاً أن نسلط النور على المسألة فينبغي لنا أن نطرح كل المفاهيم المبهمة كالتفوق والمساواة والنقص وأن تنطلق من جديد .

لكن كيف تطرح المسألة إذن ؟ بل من نحن حتى نطرحها ؟ فالرجال هم خصوم وحكام فأين نجد ملاكا يقوم بمهمة القضاء على التفوق والمساواة والعدالة؟ إنني أظن مع ذلك إن بعض النساء هن أحسن من يستطيع توضيح وضع المرأة فلقد حظيت نساء كثيرات في يؤمن هذا بالتمتع بمزايا الكائن الإنساني مما يجعلهن غير مغرضات والواقع إن عدم التحيز هذا يشكل حاجة بالنسبة إلى النساء ونحن النساء نعرف خيرا من الرجال عالم المرأة لأننا مرتبطات الجذور به , ونحن اقدر على إدراك كمعنى أن يكون الكائن الإنساني : امرأة"

ما يلفت النظر أن مجموعة الكتابات النسويات مفعمة في هذه الأيام بجهد للتوضيح أكثر من الرغبة في المطالبة وهكذا يجب أن يعتبر هذا الكتاب محاوله .


ليس بوسع البيولوجيا الإجابة على السؤال الذي يشغل بالنا : لماذا تكون المرأة " الجنس الآخر " ؟

ينبغي لنا أن نعرف ما فعلته الإنسانية بالأنثى البشرية .



تقسيم العمل بين الجنسين .

أما لدى المرأة فيتخذ مركب النقص شكل الرفض المخجل لأنوثتها : قد تكون المرأة عاجزة عن تحريك أداة ثقيلة فيبدو عجزها واضحا بالنسبة إلى الرجل إلا أن التطور الفني قد يلغى الفارق العضلي الذي يميز الرجل عن المرأة وتصبح معادلة له في العمل .

انجر يسرد تاريخ المرأة في كتابه " أصل الأسرة " ويظهر أن تاريخ المرأة مرتبط إرتباط اساسي بتاريخ التكنيك : أي إنها في عصر الزراعيين , لما كانت الأرض مشاعا بين أفراد القبيلة كانت قوة المرأة كافية للعمل في البساتين وكان هناك تقسيم متساو للأعمال بين الرجل والمرأة , الرجل يصطاد والمرأة تقوم بأعمال الإنتاجية كالنسيج والبستنة وبالتالي كان لها دور كبير في الحياة الاقتصادية .


فلما اكتشفت المعادن واخترع المحراث واتسع نطاق الاستثمار الزراعي ازدادت صعوبته ظهرت الملكية الفرية فصار بإمكان الرجل إن يصبح سيداً للعبيد والأرض وأصبح أيضا مالكا للمرأة .

والإنكسار التاريخي الكبير للجنس النسائي يفسر بالثورة التي طرأت على تقسيم العمل نتيجة لاختراع وسائل جديدة في الإنتاج والاستغنا�� عن مشاركة المرأة في الوضع الاقتصادي وبالتالي سيطرة واستعباد ها من قبل الرجل

فكرة التملك الفردي لا تكتسب معنى إلا اعتبارا من الوضع الأصلي للكائن وكيفما تظهر يجب أن يكون في الشخص ميل إلى فرض نفسه في فرديته الجذرية ونزعة إلى تأكيد وجوده المستقبل المنفصل .

أن عظمة العمل لم يتلقفها شخص سلبي بل أن الإنسان بنى نفسه بسيطرتة على الأرض , وأن تأكيد الذات لا يكفي لتفسير الملكية ففي التحدي والنضال والمعركة يحاول اكتساب شعور الارتقاء إلى السيادة .

من المستحيل أيضا أن نستنتج اضطهاد المرأة هو وليد الملكية الفردية للرجل اقتصادياً , الاستعباد هو نتيجة لجبروت الشعور الإنساني الذي يبحث عن تحقيق سيادته بصورة فعلية ولو لم يكن في المرأة صفة الجنس الثانوي الآخر

انجلر حاول أن يعزو التعارض بين الجنسين إلى خلاف طبقي , وصحيح أن تقسيم العمل على إساس الجنس والاضطهاد ينجم عنه ما ذكر بتقسيم العمل!! لكن لا يوجد أي أساس بيلوجي في التقسيم الطبقي ذلك لأن العبد يشعر أثناء العمل بالعداء للسيد والبروليتاريا الشاعرة بوضعها تشكل تهيديا لمستشعريها وتهدف الى القضاء هلى نفسها كطبقة

أن وضع المراة لايمكننا اعتبار المرأة كعاملة فقط دون أن نكون مغر
أن وظيفتنا في التوالد مهمة مثل طاقتها الانتاجية سواء في الاقتصاد الاجتماعي أو في الحياة الفردية وهناك فترات يجدي اكثار الذرية أكثر من العمل بالمحراث

فالمرأة لاتحشر في العلمية الجنسية وفي الأمومة زمنا وقوة بل قيماً جوهرية
القانون والأعراف تجبرها على الزواج ويمكن منع الوسائل المستعملة ضد الحمل كما يمكن منع الطلاق

في احد الخطب في الإتحاد السوفيتي طُلب من المرأة أن تعنى بزينتها لتستهوي زوجها . ويرى من ذلك أن من المستحيل اعتبار المرأة قوة مولدة فقط أنها بالنسبة إلى الرجل شريكة ومولودة ومتاع للشهوة أنها الطرف الجنسي الآخر ومن خلالها يبحث الرجل عن ذاته .

العلاقة الجنسية التي تربط المرأة بالرجل ليست مثل العلاقة التي تربط الرجل بالمرأة والعلاقةالتى تربط المرأة بالطفل ليس لها أي شبيه

*
طبيعي أن يكون للرجل إرادة التحكم في المرأة ولكن ما الإمتياز الذي أتاح له تحقيق هذه الإرادة ؟

لم تكن هناك نُظم تؤكد عدم التساوي بين الجنسين لان الملكية والوراثة والحقوق كانت مجهولة أما الدين فكان محايدا والإله المعبود لا جنس لهُ

ملخص للكتاب الذي أصبح أنطلاقة للفكر النسوي .

Lucky me I read this book in French! But if you read it, please don't read it in its first translation by Howard Madison Parshley. It seems that when the book came out in 1949, he made the worst possible translation by making counter-sense and large cuts.
This said: READ IT! ... please.

The problem with this review is that I put post-it notes on almost every page. Everything is important, everything is interesting. The history of women since the dawn of time, how and why men found themself in a position to command the woman, why and how they submitted. It's fascinating!
Next, Simone de Beauvoir dissects the different behaviours of contemporary women in 1949.
This book was not originally a feminist plea, because she was not a feminist. But it was while writing her essay on this "second sex" that the author realized the extent of the problem and that she later became a feminist.
So the study is interesting because the author really and sincerely analyzed her subject in a completely unbiased way, with the objectivity of a researcher.
And... yes, women needed this study, this solidarity. And the proof: it sold millions of copies, it was translated into several languages including Persian and Tamil!

So I asked Simone de Beauvoir to help me for my review. I'm kidding... almost!
So, if you follow the link below, you'll find, in short and digestible episodes (yet only the first two episodes), a transcript of a 1975 interview with Simone de Beauvoir. I can't guarantee the beauty of the English, the translation is mine, but the sense is good. You will also find the video with subtitles.
Simone de Beauvoir, Why I am a Feminist

PS: If you're on Instagram you can see the pic of my book with the post-it notes!

PPS: Take care, breathe carefully, read recklessly!

هذه النجوم الخمسة للكاتبة وليست للكتاب
-
من سطور هذا الكتاب
"
يظهر لنا خطأ اعتقادين شائعين :
الأول أن الأمومة تكفي لإرضاء المرأة
والثاني أن الطفل يجد سعادة أكيدة بين ذراعي أمه
-
إن سلوك المرأة لا تفرضه عليها هرموناتها ولا تكوين دماغها بل هو نتيجة لوضعها
"
يبدو أن طريق الحرية سيكون مؤلماً وباهظ التكاليف
سنتوه كثيراً , ونحزنُ كثيراً

Това е една от най-важните книги, които някога ще прочетете.

Живеем в условията на толкова много кризи едновременно – здравна, климатична, икономическа, че изглежда сякаш темата за половото равноправие не е толкова на дневен ред. А и няма какво да се лъжем, жените днес разполагаме с безпрецедентно много свобода, право на избор и възможности. Можем да пътуваме до другия край на света сами, да отложим момента, в който да станем майки или въобще да не станем, да живеем с партньор преди да сключим брак или въобще да не сключим, да учим в най-реномираните университети, да заемаме престижни длъжности, да имаме свободата, статуса, парите, с които дори предното поколение жени не са разполагали.

Но нещата, които днес приемаме за даденост, са извоювани с тежки битки, упорити протести, походи към парламенти, молби, петиции, дори затвор. Всеобщото избирателно право, равният достъп до образование и кариера са доста новички достижения. Нашите прапосестрими са живели под неумолима бащинска, а после и съпружеска власт, не са могли да наследявят, да имат, както казваме днес, собствен “проект”, начинание, да не говорим за професия. Дори жените от привилегировните класи са живеели в скука и безделие, без да могат да изследват смело света, да разширят личните си и физически граници, да творят съдбата си. През по-голямата част от човешката история жените на практика са били недееспособни. Разводът или извънбрачното дете за много от тях е означавал краят на света.

“Вторият пол” разглежда подробно историческите етапи, през които е преминала еволюцията на жената, схващана като положение в обществото, така и в нейната статичност – особеностите на нейната ��иология, често имащи травматично изражение. “Вторият пол” е философски трактат, историческо изследване, есе, дълъг разказ, описание на положението на жената такова, каквото е от незапомнени времена до съвременността – положение фактическо, юридическо, икономическо, социално.

Годината на издаване – 1949 г., не бива да отблъсква днешния читател, който търси нещо по-познато и съвременно. Животът, който днес жените живеем, е скорошно достояние, а го живеем така, защото цели поколения жени и мъже са водили неравна борба с остарели нрави, предразсъдъци и дори с антихуманни постулати. А и доста дилеми на жените от 2020 година продължават не губят актуалност – кариера или семейство, брак или безбрачие, майчинство или не. Това, че имаме избора между едното и другото, не отменя вътрешната драма.

Едно важно уточнене, “Вторият пол” не е “анти-мъжка” книга, която развива идеи за женско господство, за превъзходството на единия пол над другия. Бовоар не проповядва яростен феминизъм, а предлага един комплексен разказ за това как жената бива схващана от гледна точка на биологията, психологията, обществото; нейното тяло и душа през всички фази от детството, през пубертета, зрелостта, менопаузата и старостта. Разгледани са въпросите за половия живот, майчинството, отношенията в семейството, хомосексуалността, контрацепцията и аборта.

Бовоар предлага един чисто нов (за онова време) поглед към жената – схващана не като, или не само като, пол в биологичния смисъл на думата, а и като социален конструкт. И че доколкото жената е такава или онакава, доколкото й липсва едно или друго, или излишък на трето, то е защото не биологията й го обуславя, а социалните условия, средата, нравите и устройството на обществото определят нейното поведение и съдба. Едно от постиженията на “Вторият пол” е, че представя точно тази комплексност и двойнственост в природата на жената, която задава тона на целия й живот и отношенията й с околните.

Бовоар проследява историята на жената най-вече през призмата на френския опит, не само защото него тя познава най-добре, но и защото е сходен на този в други западни страни. Интересното е, че в Европа борбата за равноправие на жената е била поставена в контекста на борбата на работническата класа, а в САЩ се е преплитала с кампаниите за граждански права на чернокожите. Накратко, историята на жената е преди всичко история на забрани и ограничения, юридически и фактически, явни и скрити. Освобождаването й е свързано не само с външни промени (промени в законодателствата), а и промяна в нравите и в устойчивите представи за мястото на двата пола в обществото и у дома.

И до днес важи идеята, че материалната независимост е абсолютно условие за вътрешната свобода на жената. Това е едно от посланията и на книгата, и мое убеждение след дълга и мъчителна лична еволюция - че една жена трябва сама да може да си осигури приличен стандарт на живот. Само тогава може да влиза свободно и безкористно във връзки, както и също толкова свободно да си тръгва от тях, когато не я удовлетворяват.

Като стана дума за връзки и брак, и днес нещата стоят така, че дори и много успешни жени не се считат за такива (нито от себе си, нито от обществото), ако не са омъжени и нямат деца. Наличието на партньор и най-вече бракът дават на жената необходимата социална легитимация, сам по себе си той е вид социален успех, особено ако е придружен и с материални облаги. Дилемата кариера-семейство никога не е била по-актуална и, както разсъждва Бовоар, на жената й е необходима много нравствена сила, за да избегне капана на “трофейната съпруга”, “държанката”, животът в сладко безделие.

Бовоар отделя и специално място на домакинската работа, участ, трудна за избягване, независимо колко заета е жената в професията си. Доколкото днес се наблюдава обратния феномен обаче – умора от офисния труд и корпоративно прегаряне, много жени (пре)откриват радостта от домашните занимания, които даже са на мода.

Бовоар е хаплива, духовита, пряма, рязка, не спестява неприятни за преглъщане истини. Но тя е най-вече екзистенциалистка. В тази философия идеята за автентичност, истинност и свобода са върховният човешки проект. Екзистенциализмът е просмукан в тъканта на “Вторият пол”, но той не само че не пречи, а дори е в съзвучие с темата за женската свобода, като част от свободата на индивида въобще.

Всеки, който прочете “Вторият пол”, ще разбере защо е предизвикала такива реакции и е вдъхновила многобройни феминистки движения. Извън кресливия феминизъм, попкултурния призив “гърл пауър” и “me too” движението, трудът на Симон дьо Бовоар не се изчерпва с нито едно от тези течения, не може да се опрости и сведе до едно-единствено послание. Нито пък има общо с псевдокнижките за “тайните на женската сила”, “как да открием жената в себе си”, “как да го направиш твой”. Това е монументално произведение, обзорно, изчерпателно, сериозно, задълбочено, иронично и духовито. За разлика от много съвременни модерни книги за феминизма, в които авторките се сърдят на света, мразят мъжете, търсят си виновни, Бовоар констатира, обяснява, прави паралели, препраща към митове, философски трактати, научни постулати, исторически факти, психологически изследвания. Доколкото има есеизъм, той не е произволна измислица, а плод на разсъжденията на красив (женски) ум.

I have good news! No one ever needs to read this book again.

Simone de Beauvoir’s thoughts on womanhood have long been considered fundamental to modern feminism. Now that I’ve read them I can happily say that the information here falls into two brackets: wrong or outdated. Therefore, let us all join hands and agree that The Second Sex is a thing of the past and we should stop telling each other to read it.

Reading the Second Sex was like reading a description of women written by an alien race that has never met a woman and had to draw conclusions from a collection of shitty dime novels and Tolstoy. These are the long-winded opinions of a woman who has been groomed by men her whole life. Despite her dismay that woman has been othered she repeatedly does the same, allowing men always to be the standard of humanity. Most of her beliefs about women are derived from male intellectuals –and we all know they’ve never had an agenda. SDB can talk about transcendence and immanence until she’s blue in the face, but it doesn’t matter. Her view of women is dim and pessimistic; women are always an other, a ‘they’, never an ‘us’, which leaves me wondering if she believes these things are true of herself as well. Does she think she’s a narcissist, as well? An obsessive, controlling, mediocre creator? Or does she rank herself among the men? I don’t know. But regardless. IF the things SDB says about women were ever accurate, they are no longer. The woman she’s describing doesn’t exist today, so no woman need ever read this book again. It is a thing of the past.

Now for my own sake, I’ll be doing a quick bit on each section so that I can remember why I never need to read it again. This isn’t me summarizing the book; it’s a collection of my favorite takeaways, the most memorable and occasionally correct of all SDB’s bizarre sayings.

Volume I: Facts and Myths
Part One: Destiny
Biological Data: SDB opens the section by asking ‘what is a woman?’ and then never answers the question because she got caught up talking about the sex lives of preying mantises and other creatures. Reading this is a waste of time.
The Psychoanalytical Point of View: SDB believes that all men want to sleep with their mothers and all women want to sleep with their fathers AND their mothers. That’s what the male intellectuals told her, anyway. Too bad I have no faith in any of that.
The Point of View of Historical Materialism: SDB discusses Freud and Engels and then dismisses both of them in 10 pages.

Part 2: History
Chapters 1-5: SDB gives an overview of women’s history through the ages. While this is one of the more enjoyable bits, and has more basis in fact than the rest of the book, SDB’s perspective is limited and pessimistic. She speaks of women’s limited opportunities but doesn’t really want to talk about their contributions. I firmly believe that all women through history have been oppressed on the basis of sex, but that is not all our history is made of, and to pretend otherwise is the let our oppressors win in othering us. We were never just housewives.

Part 3: Myths
Chapters 1-3: Here we talk more about how men view women. Claudel, Breton, Lawrence, and more: here are men’s opinions, as if I needed more of that in my life. If SDB had spent less time locked in her ivory tower listening to men talk, she might never have written this book and I’d get several hours of my life back. Alas.

Volume II: Lived Experience
Part 1: Formative Years
Childhood: I know that some man (probably Freud) is responsible for SDB’s insistence that girls just want to have penises and sleep with their fathers. And again, this is why we shouldn’t let men define the limits of our universe and ourselves. SDB put a lot of faith in men of her era, but that was 70 years ago, and most of those men have been debunked, taking her down with them.
The Girl: SDB is correct that girls should be raised not to make boys the center of their lives, but that’s about it. She frowns disapprovingly at just about everything girls do. Giggling? Bad. Then she moves on to tell stories about how gross girls are. I don’t know what kind of girls she knows, but neither I nor any of my sisters or girlfriends ever indulged in excessive giggling or eating dirt to cope with our lack of transcendent penis. Where are you getting your intel, Simone? Who have you been talking to?
Sexual Initiation: Some interesting thoughts here about the difficulties of sexuality for women.
The Lesbian: Again, I have no idea where SDB is getting her information. She thinks there are a lot more lesbians than there are. According to her virtually all of us were molested by another girl at some point. This whole chapter is an exercise in cringe.

Part 2: Situation
The Married Woman: Favorite takeaway of this chapter is that women who don’t clean their houses are that way because they are bitter at society and specifically their husbands, and women who do clean their houses are all sadomasochists. Meanwhile, I haven’t cleaned my house lately because I was wasting my time reading this fucking book.
The Mother: SDB never had a child, so where she gets her information I don’t know, but her confidence in stating blatantly wrong information is cute. According to her, morning sickness is acted out by women because they secretly hate the unborn and are trying to reject the pregnancy. Also she thinks that all mothers enjoy playing with and touching their infant son’s genitalia. I don’t even know what to say about that.
Social Life: Discussion of dressing and party planning, two topics I’m not qualified to debate her on. Favorite takeaway is that women always betray their female friends for the male because we’re all just naturally catty that way.
Prostitutes and Hetaeras: A cursory discussion of how women may get trapped in and suffer under the sex industry. No strong negative takeaways.
From Maturity to Old Age: As with the rest of the book, there is some truth here, but SDB’s arguments are outdated and silly. Nine out of ten erotomaniacs are women, and most of them are in their forties? If you say so, Simone.
Woman’s Situation and Character: SDB opens by reminding us that what is said of women’s character is only true because of her situation, and she’s right: female socialization is a hell of a drug no matter when and where you’re raised. But as usual, the author’s description of woman’s life is outdated. 70 years on, western women are not living the same lives, so this chapter, though somewhat correct, is unnecessary for an understanding of modern feminism.

Part 3: Justifications
The Narcissist: SDB never says all women, but she almost never says ‘some women’ either, leading me to assume that yes, this is how she views all women, or women in general. She thinks all of us (and perhaps herself as well) are flaming narcissistic monsters, and she uses the flimsiest possible evidence. According to her, playing with dolls and enjoying fiction are both proofs of narcissism. Also, one time she saw a girl kiss her reflection in a mirror, and that means all women are narcissists, you see?
The Woman in Love: I can’t speak for all womankind any better than the author, but her portrayal of women in relationships as clinging, evil, conniving, controlling, needy psychotics is just gross. I’ve never met a women who acted this way. I’ve read enough feminist lit to know that they exist and some of them like to write books, but I’ve never met one in real life.
The Mystic: SDB opens this section by telling us that there are some men who fall prey to mysticism, but they’re all very intellectual types. Then she goes on to portray women mystics as nutjobs who just need to get laid. Hooray feminism.

Part 4: Toward Liberation
The Independent Woman: At one point, SDB claims that no woman has ever possessed genius. Because of their circumstances, of course. I disagree, and I disagreed more when I turned the page and saw that SDB was backing her argument up by saying that no woman has ever written anything as profound as Moby Dick or, even better, Ulysses.



I’ve read Ulysses, and I know that true enlightenment is knowing that it’s a steaming pile of garbage. Moreover, it irks me that SDB wrote 700 pages about how woman is othered by mankind, and then wraps up by othering our achievements because they don’t match up to men’s standards. Why do men get to decide what makes profound literature? Why do their experiences and emotions remain the standard? Moby Dick is named a work of genius because it expresses men's feelings, but Jane Eyre, which does the same for women, is dismissed out of hand.



Why did I read this far when I knew I was going to end up here? Probably for the same reason I read Ulysses: so I could say I did, so I could spend a hefty amount of time sorting through nonsense just to walk away with a few tidbits of knowledge and the right to say "I did the thing."

What a ripoff.