Education is the Key

                In the conclusion of The Second Sex, Beauvoir posits that society perpetuates women’s inferiority through its acceptance of and indoctrination of inequality. She concludes that all other factors, such as psychology, economics, and biology, are irrelevant because “Woman is taught to assume her condition” (279). Since Beauvoir claims that “Woman is defined…by the way she grasps…her body and her relation to the world,” society’s unjust education will forever put women in this inferior position, though society seems oblivious to the fact that women’s position is not at all their fault (761). Educators, both men and women, would cease normal gender roles education once they realize it causes “neither men nor women [to be] satisfied with each other today” (753). Beauvoir illuminates society’s vicious cycle in which women will be forever be the Other and both sexes will be forever discontent with each other. She claims that this “conflict will last as long as men and women do not recognize each other as peers,” which, at the end, represents the need to dismantle the current mode of education in which females are taught to be in service through drinks, sandwiches, and babies under men (755). Beauvoir describes the perfect solution in which both children, regardless of sex, learn through “a coherent sexual education” so that they view the world as an androgynous one (761, 762). When children grow under equal education, girls will not fear their adulthood, nor will boys look forward to unfair privilege. Once both men and women achieve reciprocity in their relationship, “the slavery of half of humanity is abolished,” producing a world in which twice as many humans can pursue their full potential. Each sex would have equal opportunity to contribute to the world’s collection of ideas and knowledge which would grow at twice the speed. The only problem, as Beauvoir argues, is education. Hopefully the majority of women college students tears down years of indoctrinated bigotry that has led to the enslavement of half the human race.

An Uneven Hand

Reading Simone de Beauvoir’s well-known book The Second Sex is a plunge into an extremely well developed position on sexual status and equality, but in some cases she takes her stance to an extreme in her defense of women, both animal and human.

Simone demonstrates a good deal of respect for the sexual dimorphism present in nature, and in many cases, Simone argues that both sexes are equal. As she claims, a termite female “that lays an egg every second until she is sterile […] is no less a slave than the dwarf male attached to her abdomen that fertilizes the eggs as they are expelled.” (The Second Sex 32) The female is on equal footing with the male – both are laboring mindlessly in the interest of perpetuating the species. This trend holds as we rise among the ranks of animals to creatures such as entoniscids and edriolydnus. Even though in some cases “the dwarf male […] is solely devoted to reproduction[, in] all these cases the female is just as enslaved as the male: she is a slave to the species”. (The Second Sex 32) The male suffers, but no more than the female, who must focus on the grander goal of perpetuating the species. A few pages later in the reading, however, the roles are reversed when Simone speaks of higher animals – animals more like humans. “Coitus is a rapid operation that does not reduce the male’s vitality. He manifests almost no paternal instinct. He very often abandons the female after mating. When he remains near her, as the head of a family group […] he does so in a nurturing and protective role vis-à-vis the whole community.” (The Second Sex 37) The text seems to be clear on the point that this is a negative point against the male – the previous sentences suggest his separation from the worries of reproduction. This is very clearly a reversal of roles from the previous situation – there, the male had no purpose other than reproduction while the female worked for the survival of the species, while here the male has little to do with reproduction, and his role is in context of the survival of the whole species. Despite this, Simone takes sides unevenly, setting them as equal in one context and unequal in another.

In the case of humans, Simone takes a stronger stand, arguing that women, when gripped in the midst of their reproductive cycle, “seem possessed by outside forces” (The Second Sex 38). Simone references how the female body forms and unforms embryos every month and other ways in which the body acts independently of the control of the brain as her proof, establishing them as “much more complex” (The Second Sex 39) than men. This point, however, is noticeably reminiscent of when, a few pages earlier, the book refers to “Aggressiveness [as] one of the characteristics of the male in heat.” (The Second Sex 37) The male’s aggression is, as the text states, not able to be explained by competition, since there are even numbers of males and females. The aggressiveness must therefore be linked to the male’s own hormonal levels, and cannot be attributed to his own control.

Though Simone argues for a valid cause, the way in which she over-emphasizes females as victims of the system weakens her position greatly while simultaneously setting up females as victims. Simone’s exaggeration lessens her argument – presenting any one side as different from the other will merely aggravate the problem of sexual disparity for time to come.

Individuality and its Difference in Sexes

In The Second Sex by Simone De Beauvoir, the idea of woman’s individuality is an important aspect. On this note, Beauvoir illustrates that in the process of reproduction, men can have a separation while woman can be both herself and another. I agree with this point and think it has importance because it helps us see a striking difference between male and female (at least for humans). It is through examining these differences, that we can eventually attempt to explain why woman has become the second sex. 

Beauvoir poses the idea that, “in the same quick instant, the sperm, by which the male’s life transcends into another, becomes foreign to it and is separated from its body; this the male, at the very moment it goes beyond its individuality, encloses itself once again in it” (36). This idea that man can quickly separate himself back to an individual from woman and offspring after procreation juxtaposes the idea that woman is then left with this other. Beauvoir states, “The female is both herself and other than herself during the whole gestation period” (36). Woman is the one bearing the burden of a second life and this is something that a human male will never experience. This also means that male will never experience a complete lack of individuality. Man does not have the ability to bear and nurture life. This experience of nurturing two lives at once and losing individuality is something that poses a great difference between man and woman.

Another point is that a female has no choice about losing her individuality. To have offspring and continue her line she must submit herself to this other that she nurtures: “female individuality is fought by the interest of the species; she seems possessed by outside forces; alienated” (38). Males have a certain autonomy and can choose whether or not to take an active or passive role in the lives they help create.

All in all I have looked further into this difference of female versus male individuality and I agree that woman has a difference from man in the aspect of he can be separate while she can be both herself and this other. This difference is just one of the many between male and female and can help us examen how woman has become the second sex.

The Incorrect Role of Females in Reproduction

Throughout the Second Sex on the biology chapter, we learn that society has put females as the other sex because of their passive status in reproduction. The text states “the male acts as a stimulator,” the female is “rather passive,” and “the male deposits his sperm; the female receives it” (35). De Beauvoir brings up these points to show that society has put this essence of passiveness upon females. She states that “the male imposes himself on her… he who takes her: she is taken” (35). This essence of the male being the active role distorts the biological thinking of the reproduction systems. The term “woman” does define itself as simply having an ovary. That definition “confines her in her sex” (21). De Beauvoir attacks these statements because the essence of man being the better sex distorts their conclusions.

Rather than observing it in this given way, we can see that males and females are “inextricably linked” (32). Both need each other to continue the existence of their species; their functions are equal. “Without the egg’s prescience, the sperm’s actions would be useless; but without the latter’s initiative, the egg would not accomplish its vital potential” (29). We define the species, but we do not define the individuals on the matters of sexual reproductive differences. Even though male and female reproductive systems differ, they play significant and equal roles.

Throughout the text, it explains that society assumes the role of male’s reproductive systems comes first and has more importance because it seems to be the active role. Biological data and observations still do not have the evidence to claim this, but only prove that their systems are “perfectly symmetrical” (27). They fail to recognize the equality in their roles and purposes of both the male and female. They only observe with the essence in mind that females always play the passive role and are subsequently the lower sex. De Beauvoir concludes “fundamentally the role of the two gametes is identical; together they create a living being in which both of them lose and surpass themselves” (29). The text continues to points out that the active role of the sperm does not initiate the “living spark,” but “it springs forth from their meetings” (27). We understand that both the egg and the sperm’s functions are equal. The males assign the passive role to the females, but truly both systems need the other for the existence of their species.

The equality of the different roles of the male and female reveals its significance, which recognizes the differences of the reproductive systems is essential, but does define one as the lower component. Reproductive means alone cannot properly define these individuals. Society gives women the title of the Other. We see that women are given this essence of being the passive role, but this incorrectly defines women and improperly differentiates them from men. Thus, the claim of women being the “second sex” does not reinforce itself by the biological data of reproduction.

Defining "Woman"

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.

Conflicting Treatments of Femininity in Genesis

            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.

Oppositional Pairs and “Otherness”

In this introductory passage, De Beauvoir emphasizes the concept of “otherness” that women experience. As she puts bluntly, “he is the subject; he is the Absolute. She is the Other,” (De Beauvoir, 6). This observation notes that women have always fallen second to the dominant presence of man. In a world run by men, woman’s biological differences have alienated them as outsiders, or “the Others”. However, De Beauvoir points out that this categorization is not specific to sex. In fact, she contends that “no group ever defines itself as One without immediately setting up the Other opposite itself,” (De Beauvoir, 6). It is inherent in human nature to establish this dichotomy, one tending to be the relative focus as the connotation of the term “otherness” points out. De Beauvoir uses “others” as synonymous to “foreigners”, thus implying that one belongs and the other does not. There is a social hierarchy to these terms. In calling women the “Others”, she is declaring them inferior.

These dichotomies are found in abundance in both religious texts Genesis and The Qur’an. Both texts, like De Beauvoir’s Second Sex, proclaim “others” of their own. The creation story immediately establishes a sense of oppositional pairs. “And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night,” (Alter, 1:4-5). Light is immediately established as good, while darkness, or the absence of light, is less preferable. The opposition of lightness and darkness continues into Night and Day. Genesis does not name the opposite of good, implying its negativity.

Adam and Eve pose as a central oppositional pair in Genesis and The Qur’an. Like the distinction that De Beauvoir points out, sex distinguishes the couple’s differences.  “And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the human to be alone, I shall make him a sustainer beside him,’”(Alter, 2:18). The female serves as the human’s counterpart. Since the Adam was created first, Eve and the rest of the female gender are the secondary “others” that De Beauvoir spoke of. The pair is therefore referred to as “the human and his woman,” (Alter, 2:25). Again, this language implies that Adam is the dominant character in his relationship with Eve. The story of Noah’s ark continues the theme of sex based oppositional pairs. When God calls to Noah seeking his assistance in ending the corruption of humanity, he commands him to save his family and a mated pair of each animal. “And from all that lives, from all flesh, two of each thing you shall bring to the ark to keep alive with you, male and female they shall be,” (Alter, 6:19-20). This coupling of the male and female animals further illustrates the theme of dichotomy in biblical texts.  

The Qur’an especially communicates the inferiority of women according to the teachings of the text. While the female character receives the name Eve in Genesis, she is simply referred to as Adam’s property in the Qur’an. “‘But you and your wife, Adam, live in the Garden,’” (Haleem, 7:19). His possession of his wife immediately puts Adam in control of this oppositional pair. In addition, Eve, similar to the darkness that I spoke of earlier, is not even being named in this text. She is clearly isolated as the “other” and is seen by the text as less important than her counterpart Adam.