#the second sex
““The female is female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities,” Aristotle said. “We should regard women’s nature as suffering from natural defectiveness.” And Saint Thomas in his turn decreed that woman was an “incomplete man,” an “incidental” being. This is what the Genesis story symbolizes, where Eve appears as if drawn from Adam’s “supernumerary” bone, in Bossuet’s words. Humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being. “Woman, the relative being,” writes Michelet. Thus Monsieur Benda declares in Le rapport d’Uriel (Uriel’s Report): “A man’s body has meaning by itself, disregarding the body of the woman, whereas the woman’s body seems devoid of meaning without reference to the male. Man thinks himself without woman. Woman does not think herself without man.” And she is nothing other than what man decides; she is thus called “the sex,” meaning that the male sees her essentially as a sexed being; for him she is sex, so she is it in the absolute. She is determined and differentiated in relation to man, while he is not in relation to her; she is the inessential in front of the essential. He is the Subject; he is the Absolute. She is the Other.”
- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier)
by Simone de Beauvoir
What’s it about?
It’s about women. It’s not an exaggeration to say that The Second Sex invented second-wave feminism.
Oh God. “Feminism”?
No, wait! This book is not like that. It’s a rigorously-researched and deeply intellectual analysis of the place of women in society, both in theory and practice, from the dawn of time to this year (which is this case is 1949). This level of analysis is maintained throughout 978 pages without once descending into triviality or encountering a single sentence that could be described as “man-hating.” Simone de Beauvoir was too busy being awesome and living her authentic life to hate on anyone.
So what does she write about?
The first part is a feminist analysis of history. It’s interesting (because no one had done it before), and introduces the concept of woman’s identity as a function of man’s identity. This situation developed because only women can have babies, but all the real-life womb stuff that goes along with that terrifies men. Allowing women control over their reproductive machinery would therefore go a long way towards freeing women from their merely functional relationship with a society run by, and for, men.
There’s more?
The second part explains in detail how a female child’s future identity as “a woman” is engineered from birth by society’s expectations filtered through the validation of her social network. Things could be different: in a world where women are equal citizens, they should be free to disengage from society’s ideas of femininity, strive to be self-sufficient and forge their own identity (at least insofar as men do). Although, if you’ve read Game of Thrones and you’re struggling with the idea of strong, independent women successfully navigating a world designed for men, you should present yourself to the relevant authorities at first light.
What should I say to make people think I’ve read it?
“Why can’t modern feminists be more like this?”
What should I avoid saying when trying to convince people I’ve read it?
“Wasn’t she the one married to Sartre?” or “Bloody feminists. All the same.”
Should I actually read it?
Definitely. It’s a wonderful antidote for the belief that feminism is dead and contains much which remains relevant to modern audiences.
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex
