First of all, before people start getting angry with me, I am not going to argue that sexism is dead or that women are regarded entirely as they should be (which in my opinion would be as normal human beings, same as us men). However, many of the social norms and examples that De Beauvoir gives in the introduction are not nearly as true as they were when she was writing in 1949.
For instance, she gives the following example:
"In the midst of an abstract discussion it is vexing to hear a man say: ‘You think thus and so because you are a woman’; but I know that my only defence is to reply: ‘I think thus and so because it is true,’ thereby removing my subjective self from the argument. It would be out of the question to reply: ‘And you think the contrary because you are a man’, for it is understood that the fact of being a man is no peculiarity."
It is not out of the question for a woman to say 'you only think that because you're a man.' In fact, that response has been used against me in abstract discussion. It is not a good or logical response, and it annoys me as much as it probably annoyed De Beauvoir, but has happened more than once. Also, legal equality and the integration of women into higher education and the work force (this hasn't been full integration--wage gap still exists), and social changes associated with these shifts, have greatly reduced the sense of dependence on men for identity. I know plenty of unattached women who are not lacking in identity, and who find the idea of depending on anyone to validate their identity to be extremely distasteful, even shameful. While De Beauvoir's conception of women as the other sex might be true, changing cultural norms, at least in some places and for some people, have taken much of the force from her supporting arguments.
-------------
De Beauvoir also talks about the trouble with saying exactly what femininity is. She rejects thinking of it as a Platonic essence, because such essences are eternal, unchanging, and probably don't exist. In my philosophy of aesthetics class (this is about to get abstract...sorry), we've recently been covering a theory by Amie Thommason about cultural artifacts that I think could apply nicely here. According to artifactual theory, femininity would be an abstract real thing (no location in time or space, but it does exist) similar to a Platonic essence. It may be embodied in various times/places, but the thing itself is never located. More importantly for us, it means whatever competent users of the language and the culture meant it to mean--it is created by the intersection of language and culture, and so as those things change so would femininity. This maintains the idea of femininity as an abstract idea, while allowing it to change as people do.
"However, many of the social norms and examples that De Beauvoir gives in the introduction are not nearly as true as they were when she was writing in 1949."
ReplyDeleteYes this is true but that applies to most of the readings we have for this class. You cite
"In the midst of an abstract discussion it is vexing to hear a man say: ‘You think thus and so because you are a woman’; but I know that my only defence is to reply"
However, I would say that this most likely still occurs even today. Although it much less likely to happen then in 1949 so I get what your trying to say here.
Although I do agree that there has been a great amount of progress in striving for equality for women, it has most definitely not been achieved.
ReplyDeleteAt Western we are in a very fortunate community where, I feel, that women are treated and respected as equals (for the most past). However, outside of our incredibly liberal community things are different.
Because some women are independent, and do not need a man for identity does not mean that the majority of woman do not depend on a man.
I found it interesting when she discusses the idea that man created religion that kept the woman suppressed. And by my following statement I am not attempting to say religion is a bad thing, but I was raised in the church and have been involved throughout college and I do see this concept being very true. Submission to a man is extremely prevalent. Books titles such as "Lady in Waiting" are suggested that imply a young adult is suggested to be preparing herself for her husband to come along, and THEN she can start living. As long as such ideas in one of the largest and most influential religions in the world, we are still existing in a time where equality is not realized.
I believe her argument is just as strong today as it was when she originally wrote it.