about de beauvoir's _the second sex_
(i’m sorry to post so late. yesterday i couldn’t get to the site.)
de beauvoir recognizes that women’s situation, our so-called inferiority, is a result of patriarchal systems designed to limit us and that myths about our ineptitude are propagated by calculating or insecure or self-deluded men—and sometimes women. i guess i was surprised to read ideas so pertinent to today’s world in a text that was published more than fifty years ago.
well, some of the ideas.... “what has become of women?” “femininity is in danger!” (did that make anyone else laugh out loud?) these expressions of alarm strike me as attempts to protect what is really in danger—patriarchy—because those women who have “lost their way” (are acting like men? like people?) are proving gender biases and men’s superiority wrong. gender equality, admitting that “feminine” and “masculine” aren’t very accurate (and therefore aren’t very valuable) terms doesn’t take anything away from people. a woman can still choose to be pretty and sweet and whatever, still be a loving wife and mother if she wants. the point is to not restrict anyone because of gender. if a woman is professionally ambitious and/or decides not to have kids, she isn’t less of a woman. she just doesn’t fit into categories of gender that are artificial.
i agree with the “well-known woman writer” who wanted to be counted among the men. that which is labeled as “women’s” or “feminine” is ignored or condescended to. literature reflects universal (white men’s) truths; women’s literature might as well be called “literature lite.” i do wish, though, that rather than getting herself into the category with the men, she’d at least tried to argue against the gender division. of course, if she’d made crazy claims about women’s equality, she never would have been taken seriously.
i constantly wonder why men feel the need to exclude women, perpetuate their subservience. it must be about not wanting to share power (a concept i can’t really relate to—why would anyone want to overpower anyone else?) but i think it’s also about ego and insecurity. puffing out their chests so no one notices how tiny they are...? wouldn’t a rational human being rather have a partner who is an equal, someone to share the burden and offer support, someone who is with him by choice rather than need?
there are a couple of expressions that de beauvoir uses that i’ve seen before and wonder about their origins and exact meanings: “eternal feminine” and “woman question”???
(i wrote this before reading moi’s essay. i have plenty to say about that but i’m just going to get this posted before i run into any more technical problems!)