Simone De Beauvoir 's View Of A Woman, Black And White, Jew And Gentile

Throughout history, women have constantly been objectified and forced into submission by the male dominated society. Simone de Beauvoir’s philosophical work, The Second Sex, echoes the intense oppression of women and reflects the first wave feminist movement. Her existentialist decoding of genders resulted in the idea of the Other, which explores the phenomenon of women forced into the role of an object, while men are the subject. In the second chapter, “The Girl”, Beauvoir further studies the idea of this oppression during one’s transition from a girl into a woman. Beauvoir states that no matter how much freedom and sense of self a girl holds, she is always forced into the role of the Other in society. Beauvoir 's idea of the Other held

The oppression of certain groups of people is nothing new. These oppressed groups tend to be looked at as different because of their physical features and/or cultural background. Many efforts to improve the lives of the oppressed have been achieved, but there is still a long way to go. These oppressed groups consist of women and different ethnic groups which have had to deal with being pushed around by the white man throughout history. Frantz Fanon deals with his experience as a black man in the French colony of Martinique. Simone de Beauvoir speaks about her experience as a woman in the French mainland. Both authors assert the idea that the man, in particular the white man, sets himself as the superior being that defines what it is to be human and views women and blacks or minorities as the “Other”.

She states that `to pose woman is to pose then absolute Other' (821). `The other' is referred to women who are classified as being different to men even though both share a human body. Women are also not seen as `a subject, a fellow human being.'(821). This is caused by men who believe a myth of females through experiences of which Beauvoir states as feelings and thoughts, rather then the reality of women themselves. Men see women as what they think they see because of the way they feel about women. Men have opinions in ways of physical or knowledge of women. These opinions created are myths which men believe to be the true women. These men usually belong in the western patriarchal society. Men hold myths against women and "placed women beneath men and held them to be the property of men" (Guerrero). Being "placed beneath men" can show that women are treated unequally in a patriarchal society where they are not respected. This is the woman in a patriarch world.

This essay will critically analyze the various forms of oppression that are set out through Audrey Lorde’s concept of the “mythical norm” as discussed by Barbara Perry. Through the “mythical norm”, it can be seen that oppressions exists through the forms of racism and sexism which are exhibited through many scholarly texts and articles. Racism can be seen as a means of privilege and power that is given to individuals who coincide with the criteria of societies norm. In this case, these individuals consist of white, heterosexual, male beings who unknowingly oppress their racialized counterparts. Oppression can also be seen through the form of sexism. Sexism looks at the injustice and inequality of male dominance over female, which results to men being more privileged and advantaged in society over women who are disadvantaged. Therefore, privilege and power is obtained by those who coincide with the concept of the “mythical norm”, leaving minority groups who do not coincide with this conception oppressed through the forms of racism and sexism.

In Michael Kimmel’s pieces “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity” and “Who’s Afraid of Men Doing Feminism” he gives us a description of masculinity and explains what this concept of masculinity means for both men and women. He argues that men can, and should be feminist; that they should advocate for gender equality, because gender equality will benefit both men and women. In this paper I will use Kimmel’s analysis of masculinity, which he uses in his arguments for the necessity of profeminist men, along with some assertions made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau about the education of young boys and girls, to show the strengths and weaknesses of Kimmel’s argument. His assertions can seem strong when read alone, however by looking at his argument for profeminist men together with his and Rousseau’s assertions about masculinity one can see a fundamental flaw in his argument. In his analysis of masculinity he not only points out the significant problems with the way men, especially American men, are forced to subscribe to this barbaric concept of manliness, he also expresses concern for this ‘boys club’ atmosphere. However, in his argument for profeminist men, he takes what could be a strong argument and weakens it when he feeds into this desperate need for reassurance by telling men that feminism will benefit them too.

In the debate over equality for both African-Americans and women, the question of 'nature versus nurture' inevitably arises. Although most authors acknowledge that there are differences between these historically discriminated-against groups and members of the hegemonic culture, the origin of those differences has been hotly debated. While the African-American intellectual W.E.B Du Bois was inclined to conceptualize African-Americans as 'a race,' feminists of the 1950s like Simone De Beauvoir were more inclined to see the values ascribed to the genders as mainly rooted in cultural norms established by men, not as essential attributes of women.

Men have conquered over land and made settlements, “large-scale organizations in the form of the state and corporations, which in great majority cases are masculinized and controlled by men” (Connell: 90). Even till this day men are more dominate in military, politics, and education. The imperialism social order created a hierarchy of masculinities, distinguishing between “real men” and “lesser men.” Women in this time were not even consider they were insignificant. The hierarchy showed that lesser men held little in value compared to real men. This meant that the lesser men were close in relation to women, which in this time value range from less to non-existing. This contributes to multiracial feminism because it shows inequality for women but men to that did not possess the qualities of the real

Women face two key forms of oppression in this world, powerlessness and exploitation. These two forms fall into Iris M. Young’s ideas of oppression in her article “Five Faces of Oppression”. The definition of cultural imperialism and exploitation used in this essay are taken from Young’s essay. Cultural imperialism is where the dominant customs and morals of a society are rendered as the norm and those who are not in the norm are considered others. Exploitation is a form of oppression where a class structure is present and this class structure includes a dominant group of people who are in power of a subordinate group. Two authors, John Stuart Mill and Simone de Beauvoir, talk about how the oppression of women is not due to nature. It is rather, in Mill’s view, due to a premodern law of force which divides men and women between the strong and the weak. Beauvoir sees this oppression of women as a result from socialization, which conformed women to become immanent. Both these authors have reasonable arguments and have a similar understanding that the inferiority of women is not from the simple nature of being women. Other factors come into play when understanding why women are oppressed, and both authors recognize the fact that society and old habits must change for the equality of women and men to become a reality.

Beauvoir: Ah yes, you must know that I am concerned with the plight of women, of oppression, of systematic suffering at the hands of denial of humanity and the stripping of one’s reality. I think that the tendency of invention that you speak of lies in a systemized persecution of women, though I wish to hear more of your concept. Therefore, I would focus on more of a societal structure, in politics mainly, for my analysis of that which is regarded as bad faith. Though you would view this concept

The basis of De Beauvoir’s principle argument can be found in the first section of part three (The Aesthetic Attitude) when she writes, “every man has to do with other men”. The meaning of human existence cannot simply be

Structuralism attempted to theorize that particular subjects make choices to create their own lives, but the set of the possibilities they may make is societally constrained. This equivocal freedom to be your own person is paradoxical. A subject is someone who can act and make choices. Yet, in order to be a subject in the objective sense, you need to be subjected to do something. Simone de Beauvoir asserted “One is not born, but becomes a woman.” From this ideology, one could assert that one is not born anything. One becomes individuated by the implementation of societal pressures depending on what your biological sex is. Similar to gender, power is a social construct. Individualization is a way power operates and each person needs to be fixed into their place. However where there is power, there is resistance. Beauvoir was the first theorist to make a distinction between sex and gender; sex being biological and gender being socially constructed. In today’s society, the gender binaries are becoming more and more blurred.

Simone de Beauvoir, in her 1949 text The Second Sex, examines the problems faced by women in Western society. She argues that women are subjugated, oppressed, and made to be inferior to males – simply by virtue of the fact that they are women. She notes that men define their own world, and women are merely meant to live in it. She sees women as unable to change the world like men can, unable to live their lives freely as men can, and, tragically, mostly unaware of their own oppression. In The Second Sex, de Beauvoir describes the subjugation of woman, defines a method for her liberation, and recommends strategies for this liberation that still have not been implemented today.

Feminism in modern times has been misconstrued and framed in a way that favors women over men. Although not the intention, women want to be placed first. This has led to a cycle where women subconsciously seek approval for everything they do. There is a constant need to be recognized for the effort and success they acquire through their hard work. Is that not in itself a contradiction to what feminism should stand for? Women now have free will yet are oppressed in their way of thinking; a clear indication of how frozen in time the mentality of women is. Feminism was a concept envisioned to allow all sexes enjoy and share the same socio-economic status. The Color Purple was set in the early Twentieth century where women were not really allowed free will and were expected to be totally submissive to men. Celie, however, exhibited true feminism at her prime age when she discovered herself and accomplished herself as an independent and successful woman. True feminism is a path of self-discovery to be independent and successful without comparison to anyone or sex (gender). The purpose of this essay is to explain how the evolution of men and women to the twenty-first century has made feminism pointless.

In their work “Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism”, Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thornton Dill determined the characteristics that truly define who feminists really are. Feminist are women and in some cases men that promote social liberation, fight against racial discrimination and work to oppose the disposition of power and the systems associated with it. They defined identity as something that is more and more complex with the fact that it is no longer gender alone that defines who a person is but rather gender, race, and social stratification. This brings forth a whole new concept known as the multiracial feminism. The term “multiracial” introduces us to race as a fundamental force that influences the lives of both men and women. Race is becoming an issue as in the sense that it limits certain groups of men and women from power and other inequalities.

Although astutely aware of the philosophical ponderings of God’s existence, de Beauvoir struggled with religious ideas until the age of fourteen, despite her mother Françoise (née) Brasseur’s devote Catholic teachings. De Beauvoir professed her lack of faith for much of her life. It is in this atheism, that de Beauvoir began to define her now infamous existential truths. First, that “without God to pardon us for our ‘sins’ we are totally and inexcusably responsible for our actions” (Bergoffen). Second, and perhaps most importantly through the lens of de Beauvoir’s life works, the theme of freedom of and from others and the “ethical responsibility that the individual has to him or herself, other individuals and to oppressed groups” (Mussett) and that if all humans were to adhere to this social obligation, “the derogatory category of the Other would be eradicated. Neither the aged nor women, nor anyone by virtue of their race, class, ethnicity or religion would find themselves rendered inessential” (Bergoffen). In 1947, de Beauvoir narrates in Pour une Morale de l 'Ambiguïté (The Ethics of Ambiguity) this ethical assertion by describing children as