In tracing the origin of women’s subordination, Simone de Beauvoir
highlights its senselessness, outlining several contributing factors and
pointing out that none of them quite make sense. Among these are the principles
of categorization and of sexual need, both of which necessitate an interdependency
that is present but not acknowledged in humans. This incongruity is mirrored in Genesis,
suggesting the deep-rootedness of irrational gender discrimination.
From the start, de Beauvoir
emphasizes mankind’s need to dichotomize everything, stating that “alterity is
the fundamental category of human thought” (6). In tracing this distinct
inclination, she explains that it has no distinct origin, but is instead an
inherent pattern sewn into our psychological fabric, “as original as
consciousness itself” (6). This same tendency to categorize is apparent in
Genesis, when God bases each creation upon a distinct separation of opposites,
such as light from dark and land from water. These contrasting forces, rather
than comprising a tense rivalry, complement and shape each other, suggesting
the inherent “reciprocity” of existing things (7). After all, what is light
without dark, or dark without light? However, as de Beauvoir points out, this
universal concord does not extend to the sexes. Instead, “one of the terms has
been asserted as the only essential one” (7). Even though Adam and Eve are
mutually dependent on each other for affection and reproduction, and even
though Eve’s femininity balances out Adam’s masculinity, Eve is still created
as his subordinate. This inconsistency suggests that perhaps women's position should be reevaluated.
Another one of de Beauvoir’s points
is that although the two sexes coexist in a state of sexual symbiosis, males
still dominate and manage to escape from dependency on ovaries. Again, this
incongruity appears in Genesis as well. Throughout the narrative, one of God’s
greatest commandments to humanity is to “be fruitful and multiply” (8:17).
Because of the text’s emphasis on creation, the imperative takes on a sacred
identity. Nevertheless, woman’s role in this regeneration is undermined by the
fact that God assigns childbirth to her as punishment for tasting the fruit
(3:17). The "terribly sharpen[ed] birth pangs" that womankind experiences taint her role in reproduction, whereas Mankind participates in it without being reminded of his past transgression. Here, we see again that Genesis propagates a conflicted view of woman that contradicts the natural scheme of interdependency. The prevalence of discrimination in such a foundational text supports de Beauvoir's view that women's inferior status is an ages-old reality without a defined (or sensible) beginning.
Emily- I also found myself drawing connections between our Genesis reading and The Second sex. One point Beauvoir makes is this idea that, "Lawmakers, priests, philosophers, writers, and scholars have gone to great lengths to prove that women's subordinate condition was willed in heaven and profitable on earth" (11). This want to prove women's unequal condition as "profitable" seems something all to natural that humans do. We often do not want to acknowledge that anything we may have done and is wrong and therefore we try to justify what we have done. The book also says, "He can thus convince himself that... woman is an equal" (14). This reinforces the idea that we can justify ourselves and convince ourselves that something is true and yet still have the problem.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how Simone de Beauvoir uses the example of the Adam and Eve. Like Emily says, they should be mutually dependent on each other, but they are not made equal. As women are given birth pangs, God says to men, "Cursed be the soil for your sake, with pangs shall you eat from it all the days of your life" (Gen 3:17). Not only is this not equal in harshness to birth pangs, but God puts makes no commands to be fruitful and farm. In support of what Emily says, Biblical text of Genesis offers little help to the Feminist cause.
ReplyDeleteI would like to supplement Emily's point with another example from Genesis. Not only, as Emily points out, is woman created as man's subordinate, man continues to hold her there. A perfect example is Sarah, Abraham's wife. When discussing Sarah's future child, God talks to Abraham saying that he "will give [Abraham] from her a son" (Genesis 17:16). The language indicates that Abraham, not Sarah, will have possession of the child she births. This is just one of many examples of gender discrimination in Genesis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily and I think that Genesis was truly a reinforcer and an excuse for women to be treated as a lesser being. Originally men used their physical advantages over women as an excuse to treat women as secondary. Genesis not only reaffirms the idea that women are less than men but also says it is moral to treat them that way. Genesis definitely hurt women’s chances to become equal to men because it told men to treat women as secondary and led women to believe they should be secondary.
ReplyDeleteI Both agree and disagree with Emily. I agree with the observation that dichotomy is built into human thought. The basics of language support such a claim. In language words have meaning in context and each word has an opposite that both opposes and frames the meaning of the word for example: master-slave, white-black, good-evil, high-low, hot-cold. Each word has a corresponding term with a different place in the hierarchy of words. master is over slave, white is superior to black etc. Where I disagree is that man has "escaped reliance on ovaries". As you stated women are essential for reproduction and one of the main tenants of the God of Genesis to to multiply. I see the subjugated status of women as a symptom of man's recognition of his need for woman. The reason I believe men did not fear the rebellion of women as they did a rebellion of black slaves was because the system has been intrenched for so long that de Beauvoir admits that it's origins are very unclear. After being reassured of the efficacy of their system of thousands of years men ceased to worry about the status of women, focusing instead on more volatile hierarchies such as the ones involving Jews or blacks.
ReplyDelete