Although the introduction to Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex attempts to clearly
define femininity as “Other” (6) , a complete explanation of this idea relies heavily
on the comparisons made to other social groups because “woman” has several,
varying definitions in different contexts. Early on, the text establishes that women are
the Other through her dichotomy with man, explaining that “He is the Subject;
he is the absolute. She is Other” (6). However, defining woman by what man is
not only serves to define woman in relation to man and does not elucidate what
a woman is on its own terms. As the text points women “lack the concrete means
to organize themselves…They have no past, no history, no religion of their own”
making it difficult to develop an all-encompassing definition. Thus to further the its definition, text makes
many references to historical instances of injustice against more concrete
groups, in particular, racism against African Americans and Jews. An
explanation of the “separate but equal status” of women is accompanied by a
connection to the caste system established by Jim Crow laws (12). Alluding to the Jim Crow laws and using of
language that is normally associated with the laws causes our perspective of the
suggested system be negatively skewed because of their connection to a similar, recently amended system. In addition,
this connection provides a context in which to consider women. Contrasting the situation of
women with racial and economic groups is also used to further explain the situation of women. For example, the connection between and men is explained
through the differences between the plight of women as compared to that of the
Jews and African Americans. “[A] fanatic Jew or black could dream of seizing the
secret of the atomic bomb…woman could not even dream of exterminating males” (9). Through realizing the inability of woman to escape from this system when compared to other groups, we gain a greater understanding for the situation at large. Through this use of connections to define the plight of woman, we are given a sense of the situation that extends beyond an understanding illustrated by abstract ideas that are largely without context and gain a greater understanding of what it means to be woman.
Kyra puts Simone de Beauvoir's argument into perspective in how this comparison with Jews and African Americans really does institute a greater appreciation for the nearly unmatched and hard to define situation that women are in, in this text.
ReplyDeleteAn example that Simone de Beauvoir uses that I found particularly effective in describing similarities between women and other groups was what she says about the slave's dependence on his or her master. Page 9 states "The master does not posit the need he has for the other; he holds the power to satisfy this need, and does not mediate it; the slave, on the other hand, out of dependence, hope or fear, internalizes his need for the master..." While women and men are mutually dependent upon each other for reproduction, I found that comparing women and men to slaves and their masters is an eye opening example.
I think that de Beauvoir’s comparisons of women to different Others created by society can be further understood by examining de Beauvoir’s argument concerning the difference between identifying as a woman and submitting to being an Other. de Beauvoir states this argument very clearly when she points out that “To reject the notions of the eternal feminine, the black soul, or the Jewish character is not to deny that there are today Jews, blacks, or women” (4). While de Beauvoir points out later in the introduction that there are important differences between these Others, understanding that de Beauvoir views the ultimate goal of the Other as to embrace its separate identity without accepting the traits of an Other. This especially sheds light on de Beauvoir’s reference to the idea of being “separate but equal” (12); de Beauvoir’s claim embraces being separate, or rather, other groups being separate, as in order to be a Subject one must view oneself as the norm. This placing oneself as the norm drastically changes the idea of being separate but equal, as it changes other groups to being the ones who are separate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it seems that de Beauvoir does not fully accept the expression "separate but equal" in the case of sex (12). As she notes earlier in the introduction, "woman has always been, if not a man's slave, at least his vassal; the two sexes have never divided the world up equally; and still today, even though her condition is changing, woman is heavily handicapped," (9). She points out that according to biological differences, women play a more submissive role than males. The social dynamics that this difference implies puts women in the secondary position to men. She continues by pointing out that in modern society, a mutual respect has masked these discrepancies. "Married, he respects in his wife the spouse and the mother, and in the concrete experience of married life she affirms herself opposite him as a freedom," (14). In this way, women do gain a separate but equal status. Then again, "as soon as he clashes with her, the situation is reversed," (14). I found this point extremely interesting. De Beauvoir points out that it is when conflict arises that men feel the need to assert their authority. Since conflict requires a division, the theme of otherness comes into play. Men take advantage of biological differences to cast women into the submissive role.
ReplyDelete