I see a lot of the similarities between Beauvoir and Sartre on the topic of other people in this reading. This is most evident when Beauvoir states that, “things become clear, on the contrary, if, following Hegel, we find consciousness itself a fundamental hostility towards every other consciousness.” Her and Sartre both seem to agree that the one and the other exist in a state of conflict. It is always an “I” or “we” against some other individual or group. Is this a correct interpretation? Does Beauvoir think this conflict can be overcome?
At one point in the reading Beauvoir refers to an existential ethics. I know Sartre never fully developed an existential ethics, but does Beauvoir? She seems to hint at this when she talks about individuals not remaining stagnant, but continually transcending their situation. When the individual surrenders to living inauthentically she calls it a “moral fault” and an “absolute evil.” For me, it appears that, Beauvoir would say, that the right course of action is the one that maximizes individual freedoms.
1. The title is kind of sexist. Saying "the second sex." Rather than another sex saying, "the second sex," comes across as him believing women are second to men or less than them. 2. He goes onto say that women were just thought of as a sex subject which exemplifies the sexist mindset men had possessed.
Beauvoir asserts that men would never write about men the way they do about women. This constructs the mental schema that there some sort of conceptual difference in men and women, and from this point, I think she's trying to outline what those conceptual differences are.
She is pointing out that women are treated as second sex, and that's the conception that a lot of men tend to have, which is why sexism is so prevalent.
In reading the introduction to Beauvoir’s book “The Second Sex,” I can’t help but notice similarities in the tone to other female writers. Namely Mary Wollstonecraft (who I have the most experience with reading.) Although they are writing more than a century apart, there is an attitude that I think makes them similar. Although Beauvoir’s writing is a more technical argument, she maintains the voice of a woman writing about women as more significant than a person writing about women, however neither of them will let the reader really believe that this distinction is anything other than a rhetorical appeal to ethos. Their arguments do not need this type of rhetoric though, too often it is the requirement of the reader. It interests me how Beauvoir draws a distinction between women and oppressed minority groups. Certainly since women are not a minority (never significantly at least) is the easy distinction to be made, but Beauvoir takes a different route. She expresses the idea that a minority is oppressed in a specific time and place. The oppression of a minority is a historical fact, where the oppression of women exists adjacent to historical fact. In western culture at least, it has always been the case that women are other, and therefore this alienation is both historically true, and biologically true.
I can see the similarities between Sartre and Beauvoir's work. She talks about women having to define themselves in the existential manor but experiencing great difficulty in the form of men pre defining their supposidly desirable characteristics and projecting these onto her. I think this, is what she means by the concept of woman being an Other.
From this reading, and the previous work of Beauvoir's, I've really taken to her work. I'm looking into getting her full book as a practical application of the existentialist methodology of creating meaning out of millennia of oppression.
I found this reading very interesting. The concept that men treat women almost as slaves and compares it to sparta where women weretreated teribly is intresting. I also find it intresting that She belives that the need to grow families is what prepatuates the oppression.
When Beauvoir says "They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat." I would like to introduce some supporting evidence for this claim; accusations of Witch-craft.Although witch hunts have existed through out time, in the context of Europe there was still a tradition of transmitted knowledge that had exited in Europe since ancient times.They had been preserving knowledge with regard to biology, astronomy, ethics, and medicine through the chaos and anti-intellectualism of Europe, this empowered them both socially and politically. This all came to an end during the 16th century. Millions of women who possessed even small amounts of such knowledge were systematically hunted down and murdered in a series of genocides that occurred during the 16th and 17th century. However it was no simple genocide it was an epistemicide, for the knowledge that they possessed was systematically destroyed.
I find the title the second sex to be quite interesting because Beauvoir word selection makes his view in woman look quite odd. The title makes it seem that he feels woman are inferior to men because he calls them the second sex. Even if he had chosen the title of "the other sex" it would not make him seem so dismissive of woman.
I also find Beauvoir's comparing of treatment of woman and minorities to be a solid point that is hardly ever addressed. Despite woman being a part of ever race they are somewhat treated as second class citizens. This is a plight that minorities have gone through since the beginning of time. Often times men have failed to comprehend how females feel about the treatment they are receiving.
I like that she brings up the common anti-feminist point that women who live stagnant lives such as house-wives are happier because they are at rest. She counters this by saying that from the existentialist perspective this must be untrue since humans express themselves and achieve mainly through the pursuance of projects and exploits. And existentialism aside, I'm not sure that many would agree -with a straight face- that a life inside the home would be fulfilling to anyone.
It is quite hard to deny that throughout the development of Western civilization women were, at least in a sense, oppressed. Beauvoir quotes many prominent philosophers and religious texts throughout this Introduction with blatantly sexist passages such as "Blessed be God... that He did not make me a woman." Surely it would take at least hundreds of years to bring equality into a society that was built off of sexist thoughts such as these.
I see a lot of the similarities between Beauvoir and Sartre on the topic of other people in this reading. This is most evident when Beauvoir states that, “things become clear, on the contrary, if, following Hegel, we find consciousness itself a fundamental hostility towards every other consciousness.” Her and Sartre both seem to agree that the one and the other exist in a state of conflict. It is always an “I” or “we” against some other individual or group. Is this a correct interpretation? Does Beauvoir think this conflict can be overcome?
ReplyDeleteAt one point in the reading Beauvoir refers to an existential ethics. I know Sartre never fully developed an existential ethics, but does Beauvoir? She seems to hint at this when she talks about individuals not remaining stagnant, but continually transcending their situation. When the individual surrenders to living inauthentically she calls it a “moral fault” and an “absolute evil.” For me, it appears that, Beauvoir would say, that the right course of action is the one that maximizes individual freedoms.
1. The title is kind of sexist. Saying "the second sex." Rather than another sex saying, "the second sex," comes across as him believing women are second to men or less than them.
ReplyDelete2. He goes onto say that women were just thought of as a sex subject which exemplifies the sexist mindset men had possessed.
Beauvoir asserts that men would never write about men the way they do about women. This constructs the mental schema that there some sort of conceptual difference in men and women, and from this point, I think she's trying to outline what those conceptual differences are.
ReplyDeleteShe is pointing out that women are treated as second sex, and that's the conception that a lot of men tend to have, which is why sexism is so prevalent.
In reading the introduction to Beauvoir’s book “The Second Sex,” I can’t help but notice similarities in the tone to other female writers. Namely Mary Wollstonecraft (who I have the most experience with reading.) Although they are writing more than a century apart, there is an attitude that I think makes them similar. Although Beauvoir’s writing is a more technical argument, she maintains the voice of a woman writing about women as more significant than a person writing about women, however neither of them will let the reader really believe that this distinction is anything other than a rhetorical appeal to ethos. Their arguments do not need this type of rhetoric though, too often it is the requirement of the reader.
ReplyDeleteIt interests me how Beauvoir draws a distinction between women and oppressed minority groups. Certainly since women are not a minority (never significantly at least) is the easy distinction to be made, but Beauvoir takes a different route. She expresses the idea that a minority is oppressed in a specific time and place. The oppression of a minority is a historical fact, where the oppression of women exists adjacent to historical fact. In western culture at least, it has always been the case that women are other, and therefore this alienation is both historically true, and biologically true.
I can see the similarities between Sartre and Beauvoir's work. She talks about women having to define themselves in the existential manor but experiencing great difficulty in the form of men pre defining their supposidly desirable characteristics and projecting these onto her. I think this, is what she means by the concept of woman being an Other.
ReplyDeleteFrom this reading, and the previous work of Beauvoir's, I've really taken to her work. I'm looking into getting her full book as a practical application of the existentialist methodology of creating meaning out of millennia of oppression.
I found this reading very interesting. The concept that men treat women almost as slaves and compares it to sparta where women weretreated teribly is intresting. I also find it intresting that She belives that the need to grow families is what prepatuates the oppression.
ReplyDeleteWhen Beauvoir says "They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat." I would like to introduce some supporting evidence for this claim; accusations of Witch-craft.Although witch hunts have existed through out time, in the context of Europe there was still a tradition of transmitted knowledge that had exited in Europe since ancient times.They had been preserving knowledge with regard to biology, astronomy, ethics, and medicine through the chaos and anti-intellectualism of Europe, this empowered them both socially and politically.
ReplyDeleteThis all came to an end during the 16th century. Millions of women who possessed even small amounts of such knowledge were systematically hunted down and murdered in a series of genocides that occurred during the 16th and 17th century. However it was no simple genocide it was an epistemicide, for the knowledge that they possessed was systematically destroyed.
I find the title the second sex to be quite interesting because Beauvoir word selection makes his view in woman look quite odd. The title makes it seem that he feels woman are inferior to men because he calls them the second sex. Even if he had chosen the title of "the other sex" it would not make him seem so dismissive of woman.
ReplyDeleteI also find Beauvoir's comparing of treatment of woman and minorities to be a solid point that is hardly ever addressed. Despite woman being a part of ever race they are somewhat treated as second class citizens. This is a plight that minorities have gone through since the beginning of time. Often times men have failed to comprehend how females feel about the treatment they are receiving.
I like that she brings up the common anti-feminist point that women who live stagnant lives such as house-wives are happier because they are at rest. She counters this by saying that from the existentialist perspective this must be untrue since humans express themselves and achieve mainly through the pursuance of projects and exploits. And existentialism aside, I'm not sure that many would agree -with a straight face- that a life inside the home would be fulfilling to anyone.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite hard to deny that throughout the development of Western civilization women were, at least in a sense, oppressed. Beauvoir quotes many prominent philosophers and religious texts throughout this Introduction with blatantly sexist passages such as "Blessed be God... that He did not make me a woman." Surely it would take at least hundreds of years to bring equality into a society that was built off of sexist thoughts such as these.