one the best books i have read in a long time. 731 pages on women. some of the points raised are extremely compelling. simone de beauvoire came second in philosophy at the Sorbonne to JP Satre (who she also dated apparantly) i wouldnt even know where to begin to describe this book. i think this is a must read not only for men but a must must must read for women .... written in the late 1940s but still very very very pertinant today i think anyway. STUNNING BOOK.

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

Thank you Simone

دوست دارم بگویم, تمام زنان و مردان باید این کتاب را بخوانند اما, خواندن این کتاب کار اسانی نیست. جنس دوم را نمی شود خواند و بعد کنار گذاشت. جملات کتاب پس از اتمام در موقعیتهای گوناگون شما را رها نخواهد کرد. فکر میکنم طول عمر انسانهایی مثل سیمون دوبووار باید دو برابر میبود. این انسانها در طول زندگی پیش میروند و رشد میکنند و از تغییر مواضع نمی ترسند. دوست داشتم دوبووار 150 ساله را میخواندم و کیف میکردم. اگر قرار این است که زن را بشناسیم که لازمه رشد و ترقی ما هم هست, باید بدانیم چه در درون و بیرون ما میگذرد. نقص ها و محدودیت ها را باید شناخت, از تعاریف زن مادر زمین و الهه باروری باید رد شد و زن را به واقع دید. جنس دوم در این راه به ما کمک میکند.

El análisis que hace Beauvoir desde la historia, de cómo las mujeres han ido adoptando ese papel. Tiene sus raíces en las convicciones marxistas, su pertenencia al partido comunista durante muchos años influencia de manera decisiva su obra ya que el análisis del materialismo histórico se queda corto para poder explicar, su historia se centra en una historia económica. ¿No s movemos los seres humanos por el modelo económico variante en nuestra sociedad? Hay quien piensa así (Antropología cultural de Marvin Harris). Pero también hay análisis que dan algunas visiones de la realidad más ricas. Análisis de tipo sociológico (Ulrich Beck y Elisabeth Beth-Gernsheim) o más psicológicos (Robin Norwood, "Las mujeres que aman demasiado").
Dan cuenta de realidades que parecen distintas por estar tratando la misma en distintos niveles.
Su discurso aún hoy sigue vivo y pocas veces es superado.

El segundo sexo es un complejo ensayo sobre el significado de ser

اول از همه خیلی ناراحتم که چرا این کتاب رو تازه در ۳۳ سالگی مطالعه کردم، ای کاش اول در ۱۳سالگی و دوباره در ۱۵سالگی و سه باره در ۱۸سالگی و چهارمین بار در ۲۰سالگی و بار پنجم در ۲۵ سالگی میخوندمش. برای اولین بار در زندگی دلم میخواست که وزیر آموزشی پرورش بودم و تدریس این دو جلدی رو در مدارس راهنمایی (که میشه ششم هفتم هشتم الان ) اجباری میکردم. دستور میدا‌دم سه بخشش کنند و یک روانکاو برای بچه ها تدریس کنه تا بحران بلوغ رو راحت پشت سر بگذارند و دیگه براشون تجربه ی بحرانی نباشه! تا روان های سالمتر و تجربه های جنسی بهتری داشته باشند! تا هزار جور گرفتاری روانی که ما تو دوران بلوغ پشت سر گذاشتیم رو راحت تر هضم کنند! و جنس مخالف رو بهتر درک کنند.
البته کوتاه بگم که من در صد در صد مطالب با سیمون جون هم عقیده و موافق نیستم، اما آنقدر این کتاب درخشان هست که اختلاف نظر های کوچیک اصلا اهمیتی ندارند! به نظرم هر نوجوانی باید چند دور این کتاب رو بخونه چون زیر ساخت های فکری رو میتونه تغییر بده و به نوعی بهتر بسازه. حتی ذهن نوجوان هارو تحلیل گر بکنه و بهشون باد بده که از زوایای مختلفی به زندگی نگاه کنند. از اون کتاب هاست که میشه برای هر فصلش ریویو نوشت و تمام کتاب رو هایلایت کرد.عاشقشم همین و بس!

It pains me to bail on this. Nevertheless, I have started to skip pages and then whole chapters and just dreaded to pick it back up. In my opinion, this is too dry, too repetitive and just plain outdated. I don’t need 800 pages to be shown with evidence out of history and literature that a women is a second class human in a patriarchal society. I guess that’s one of the big accomplishments of feminism that we are aware. I am more interested at this point to get pointers on how to slay the dragon.

i can't imagine ever being smart enough to read this, but it's nice to pretend

The Second Sex is one of those dense old feminist classics I was embarrassed not to have read. When I finally started it last month, it was almost impossible to put it down (though I did take a break in order to read William Vollmann's new magnum opus.) Simone de Beauvoir theorizes, hypothesizes, and generalizes about every phase of a woman's life, from infancy to old age, and the events marking each phase, such as menarche, sexual initiation, childbirth, and menopause. While Nick's review makes some very inarguable points about the over-generalizations and untestable hypotheses that are offered throughout the text, most of the ideas proffered are fascinating and recognizable to probably any woman who reads it.

Bearing in mind that this book was published in 1949 and translated (poorly, according to many scholars) into English in 1953, it's worth noting that gender relations in Western society have advanced tremendously since this time; however, there remains enough insidious and institutionalized sexism for de Beauvoir's theories to still be relevant.

No Wonder Intrigue and Strife Abound

"A Man never begins by representing himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a Man."

Man represents himself as both the positive and the neutral. He represents Woman as the negative. Man represents himself as objective. He represents Woman as subjective.

Ironically, n  Man is the Subject, but objective; Woman is the Object, but subjective.n

Aristotle defines a Woman in terms of a certain lack of qualities and therefore as defective. Woman is defined relative to Man. Man is not defined relative to Woman.

Yet, both together constitute a pairing, a duality, "a totality of which the two components are necessary to one another." A pairing does not necessarily imply the permanent subjection or submission of One to the Other.

Yet, a certain level of subjection is present in all relationships. n  "The category of the Other is as primordial as consciousness itself."n It derives from the duality of the Self and the Other.

De Beauvoir argues that subjection would be incomprehensible, "if in fact human society were simply a Mitsein or fellowship based on solidarity and friendliness." However, according to Hegel, we find in consciousness, the ego, itself "a fundamental hostility toward every other consciousness; the subject can be posed only in being opposed."

Thus, there is subjection, but it is not simply in one direction. The Subject opposes the Object. It defines itself as the essential as opposed to the inessential. However, the other consciousness, the other ego, makes a reciprocal claim.

In its (the second consciousness’) perception, it is the Subject and the first consciousness is the Object. Each Subject is the Master and each Other is the Slave. n  "Willy-nilly, individuals and groups are forced to realise the reciprocity of their relations."

n De Beauvoir asks the killer question, n  "How is it, then, that this reciprocity has not been recognised between the sexes,n that one of the contrasting terms [the Male] is set up as the sole essential, denying any relativity in regard to its correlative [the Female] and defining the latter as pure Otherness? Why is it that Women do not dispute Male sovereignty?

No Subject will readily volunteer to become the Object, the inessential; it is not the Other who, in defining [itself] as the Other, establishes the One.

The Other is posed as such by the One in defining [itself] as the One. But n  if the Other is not to regain the status of being the One, [she] must be submissive enough to accept this alien point of view."n

What, then, is the origin of Woman’s submission? What is the origin of Man’s domination of Woman? Why does Man "stabilize" Woman as Object and doom her to be "overshadowed and forever transcended by another ego (conscience) which is essential and sovereign?

The drama of Woman lies in this conflict between the fundamental aspirations of every Subject (ego) – who always regards the Self as the essential – and the compulsions of a situation in which she is the inessential?

n  What circumstances limit Woman’s liberty and how can they be overcome?"n

Although built on a philosophical foundation, "The Second Sex" seeks concrete answers to these questions.

Payel Yayınevi, kitabı üç cilde bölerek doğru bir karar vermiş; çünkü kitap durarak, üzerinde düşünerek, sindirilerek okunması gereken bir kitap. Okumak için çok geç kaldığımı düşündüğümden üç cildi arka arkaya okumayı tercih ettim; ancak bu durum zaman zaman kafamın karışmasına da yol açtı. O nedenle okuyacaklara tavsiyem yavaş yavaş, belki başka kitaplarla birlikte, okumaları.

Çok fazla bir şey söylemek istemiyorum aslında, ne söylesem az. Kitabın ilk cildinde, erkek Yahudilerin güne Tanrı'ya ilk olarak kendilerini köle olarak yaratmadığı, sonra da kadın olarak yaratmadığı için şükrederek ile başladığı söyleniyor. Benzer bir duayı Platon da edermiş. Niyeyse günümüz erkeklerinin bir kısmında da bilinçaltında bu tip bir "şükretmeyi" taşıdıklarını düşünüyorum. Bu sebeple bu kitabı sadece kadınlar değil erkekler de okumalı. Bir kadın olarak pek çok konuda "aydınlandığımı" söylemem mümkün. Bir kere ciddi psikolojik analizler var kitapta. Ayrıca pek çok yerde kendimle de yüzleştiğimi hissettim.

Kitabın ilk cildinden itibaren tarihten bu yana kadınların getirildiği, sokulduğu pozisyon anlatılmaya çalışıyor. Bunların nedenlerini analiz etmeye çalışıyor. Evet, bunda erkeklerin payı büyük, nitekim Beauvoir'in kendi sözleriyle söyleyecek olursak "Kadını götürüp mutfağa ya da süslenme odasına kapatıyor, sonra da ufkunun darlığına şaşıyoruz; kanatlarını kesiyoruz, sonra, uçamıyor diye yakınıyoruz. Geleceği önüne serdiğimiz an, şimdiki zamana çöreklenip kalma zorunluluğunu duymayacaktır elbet". Fakat elbette tek taraflı bir şekilde olayı analiz büyük bir yanlışa da götürür bizi; çünkü kadınların da kendilerine bağlanan zincirleri kırmaya ne derece hevesli olduğu tartışılır. Erkeği ya da kadını önyargıyla suçlayıcı bir tavır yok kitapta ya da şöyle söyleyelim, haksız suçlamalar yok. Erkeği de kadını da kendisiyle yüzleştiriyor kitap.

Arka arkaya okumaktan belki de, bazı yerlerde konunun dağıldığını, bütünlükten uzaklaştığını hissettim. Buna ek olarak, belki de farklı yazarlara atıflar okumak beni daha fazla tatmin edebilirdi. Buna karşın sanki hep aynı kişilerin eserlerine, fikirlerine göndermeler yapılıyormuş gibi hissettim.

Sözün özü, kadın, erkek herkesin hayatında bir kez okuması gereken bir kitap olduğunu düşünüyorum.

I read several criticisms that assert Simone de Beauvoir must hate women, or perhaps she simply hates being a woman. These reviewers are so close to insight but they do seem to miss the point.

Throughout The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir constantly reaffirms the state and condition of femininity is a direct result of woman's situation. Women are not victims of hormones or mysterious whims, they are victims of systematic oppression. Women are defined as other, they have no identity of their own, everything is in relation to man. Woman's purpose, joy, sorrow - man, man, man.

Does Simone de Beauvoir write about women with judgement, occasionally bordering on disgust? Yes. And while there is a fair share of man blaming, de Beauvoir certainly holds women accountable for their reluctance to assert themselves. I was particularly interested de Beauvoir's focus on the inclination of women to throw their lot in with the men oppressing them - instead of joining women of other races and social class.

Perhaps this is why many read this volume as "woman hating," because Simone de Beauvoir is not babying women, she is critical instead of consolatory - this is the swift kick in the ass women need to propel themselves forward.

Simone de Beauvoir does not hate women, she hates what women have allowed to transpire. "One is not born, but rather becomes, woman." Simply put, she hates what we have allowed ourselves to become.