The question that was raised in this piece was a very important issue. De Beauvoir brought up the issue about how men have always been dominant over women. He wanted to find out what caused this and why it has continued for so long. He goes into depth discussing what roles men and women have played over the years and what exactly it was that deemed men more powerful than women.
I don’t really think there’s any question as to why De Beauvoir wrote this. I think that it’s because it was a question that I’m sure many people have been curious about for a long time. He made very good points throughout and was very easy to follow. De Beauvoir makes the statement that men are superior because they are the sex that kills rather than the one that brings forth. Men remodel the earth, creates new instruments and shapes the future whereas the women just support the things that they do. I thought that when the author made the point that women have never really set up values in opposition to males and never really challenged what men have done. I agree with him when he says that there has never and still isn’t true equality between the two sexes. Society has proven this by giving men higher wages when they are doing the same jobs and are equally qualified for jobs as women are.
There was only one part that I thought De Beauvoir was off. He said that women have set off certain events throughout history but they were mere pretexts rather than agents. I felt as though this was kind of a bold and unfair statement. It makes it seem as though they may have put the ideas into the minds of men but it was the men who carried out the actions that solved problems. I think that it is unfair for him to take the credit away from women. They may be superior to men but a lot of women have accomplished huge things and it is unfair for him to take away that credit.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Simone de Beauvoir was a woman.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what giech1ae wrote about De Beauvoir’s thoughts about women being the pretext of advancements rather than the agent. De Beauvoir discussed how men allowed women to advance when it suited them, or it would otherwise be too much of a hassle. Couldn’t it be said that women made it suit men’s needs to advance or made it too inconvenient not to participate and they are the agents using the men to their ends, or at least doing what ever they want, forcing men to participate or get out of the way.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noticed about the article that I thought should have been brought to light was that her writing was quite biased and contradictory. Her idea behind the origins of the different roles of the sexes, although well thought out, is presented with a plethora of adjectives; the woman was a burden creating more hungry mouths, she was a plaything, a docile victim tapped by her circumstances and doomed only to play the role given to her, while men were prideful and useful. When men invented fishing they “conquered the watery realm” while the women “produced nothing new” in their domestic role. This is a big leap on the part of the author. She assumes that men invented fishing, clubs, plows, spears etc. while providing no proof or explanation of her thought process. Even if, for arguments sake, it was taken for granted that since hunting, fishing, and agriculture were considered man’s domain and it could be assumed that men were responsible for all the advances, then wouldn’t it be safe to assume that women were responsible for domestic advances? i.e. developing methods to preserve food, advancement of medicines, and the production of tradable surpluses such as herbs, textiles, and fishing gear.
When she said that fishing and hunting expeditions were given “sacred character” because of the risk involved in partaking in the activity she seemed correct but when she discusses the lack of female ideals to combat this realm of taking life she turns around and contradicts herself in discussing the realm of life created by woman which she says trapped the women within it. The same thing could be said of the realm created by the men who have no choice but to give heed to their aggressive side or be ostracized. She goes on to discuss how men are able to take pride on marking society by building dams and skyscrapers; wouldn’t female engineers feel the same pride?
What I found the most interesting in the reading by De Beauvior and in this blog is that males are superior because they take away life and for the same reason women are inferior because they give life. As I was reading her work, I read it mostly (whether or not this is correct, I do not know) as she was being sarcastic, and I even laughed. Perhaps I read things wrong, but I laughed out loud when I read, “Pregnancy, childbirth, and menstruation reduced their capacity for work and made them at times wholly dependent upon the men for protection and food” and “Her misfortune is to have been biologically destined for the repetition of life.” The root of the inequality is that women have babies and support their man. This is crap, but it is still, for the most part, true. It is acknowledged by De Beauvior, giech1ae, Rebecca, and basically anyone you speak to about women’s rights. Yes it’s a problem, and yes things are getting better, but some things are extraordinarily difficult to change.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I do not plan on having children. This has met some harsh responses by friends and family members. Their most frequent responses are: you are a woman, you were made to have children, this is your purpose in life, etc. Biologically I have the tools to produce life, something males cannot do, but I do not think that having a child is the sole most important thing in my life. Because I choose not to use my ovaries and uterus in “the way God intended” I am ridiculed. This goes back to what was said earlier that essentially men are superior because they take life and women are inferior because they give life; these ideas just don’t make sense yet we have believed them (consciously or subconsciously) for thousands of years.