Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir is our 2nd Quarter (April - June) 2022 Long Read for the group.

This is the Spoiler thread.

I listened to the translator's introduction and really enjoyed it. I'm excited to read with the group and that we have three months. :) This is not a book I could read quickly.

I'm reading it in French. Many of the words don't have an entry in the dictionary feature of my Kindle. But de Beauvoir knows how to get her point across!

I'm mid-way through the intro - good to be finally reading this, imagine me with a big cheesy smile :)

I'm reading this on kindle, published by Vintage in 2009 (translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier)

I do have an old mass market paper back, but I think I will also move to the Kindle version for reading. Old eyes appreciate the ability to make it large print.

It is hard to know any longer if women still exist, if they will always exist, if there should be women at all, what place they hold in this world, what place they should hold.

...she is a womb,” some say.

I just finished reading Volume 1: Introduction.

I absolutely loved it. There was so much that stood out to me. There was a lot that still feels relevant. I marked so many quotes and wrote so many notes.

So not every female human being is necessarily a woman; she must take part in this mysterious and endangered reality known as femininity.

I was thinking about how often "male" is employed as the "neuter.” One example, the bible, almost always uses the word "men" when referring to everyone.

...the man represents both the positive and the neuter…

She had so many great examples from texts disparaging women. You can tell that she really did her research and thought long and hard about this work. The more I read, the more excited I am to read more.

“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.”

In the book Factfulness, (one of my favorite books!) Hans Rosling talks about how “patriarchy” is a world system. It was something found in every culture on earth and in present times, we’re seeing cultures further or farther behind on the spectrum moving away from a patriarchal system. I was thinking about that as I read much of this chapter. Beauvoir brings up the point as well.

...as far back as history can be traced, they have always been subordinate to men; their dependence is not the consequence of an event or a becoming, it did not happen.

It remains to be explained how it was that man won at the outset.

Why is it that this world has always belonged to men and that only today things are beginning to change?

She also pointed out something that I’d never thought about, how typically groups set themselves up as “One” against the “Other” but that’s never happened with men and women, because they have to coexist.

No group ever defines itself as One without immediately setting up the Other opposite itself.

…whether one likes it or not, individuals and groups have no choice but to recognize the reciprocity of their relation.

Why do women not contest male sovereignty?...Where does this submission in woman come from?

This is the fundamental characteristic of woman: she is the Other at the heart of a whole whose two components are necessary to each other.

Beauvoir put “woman” as secondary to whatever group the women belong with. Another point I’d never thought about, but I think it definitely prevented women from organizing as efficiently as they could have.

It is that they lack the concrete means to organize themselves into a unit that could posit itself in opposition. They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and unlike the proletariat, they have no solidarity of labor or interests; they even lack their own space that makes communities…

I thought a lot about what she said about the oppressor making the rules for the oppressed, and I’m not going to lie, I was thinking a lot about government and even history as a whole. I feel like it’s a depressing view, but there have always been the “haves” and the “have-nots” and the “haves” do everything they can to maintain and keep the power they have.

That is, in the master-slave relation, the master does not posit the need he has for the other; he holds the power to satisfy this need and does not mediate…

…it always plays in favor of the oppressor over the oppressed…

This comment felt especially relevant. I was even thinking, anecdotally, in my school district, in a field dominated by women, most of the admin are male.

Economically, men and women almost form two castes; all things being equal, the former have better jobs, higher wages, and greater chances to succeed than their new female competitors; they occupy many more places in industry, in politics, and so forth, and they hold the most important positions.

And for those reading Persuasion right now, the following made me think of the conversation Anne has with Captain Harvill, when he says all literature is against her, and then points out that may not work because all that literature was written by men!

...the present incorporates the past, and in the past all history was made by males.

“Everything that men have written about women should be viewed with suspicion, because they are both judge and party,” wrote Poulain de la Barre…

Religions forged by men reflect this will for domination: they found ammunition in the legends of Eve and Pandora.

Beauvoir just has such a quick way of hitting the hammer on the head.

The familiar line from George Bernard Shaw sums it up: The white American relegates the black to the rank of shoe-shine boy, and then concludes that blacks are only good for shining shoes. The same vicious circle can be found in all analogous circumstances: when an individual or a group of individuals is kept in a situation of inferiority, the fact is that he or they are inferior.

For all those suffering from an inferiority complex, this is a miraculous liniment; no one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or more disdainful, than a man anxious about his own virility.

This comment also made me think of Hans Rosling. He says that education and making life better for groups makes life better for everyone.

...they can hardly be blamed for not wanting to lightheartedly sacrifice all the benefits they derive from the myth: they know what they lose by relinquishing the woman of their dreams, but they do not know what the woman of tomorrow will bring them.

I often think of the women that came before me. I thought about it a TON when I was reading The Decameron and thanking my lucky stars I was not born in the middle age. I’m so grateful for the people that have pushed and fought for equality for everyone. I am definitely benefiting from their diligence and hard work.

What destiny awaits our younger sisters, and in which direction should we point them?

There are gaps in my understanding, but this book is fantastic mostly. I love the analysis so far, with de Beauvoir easily dismantling what my French edition calls monisme, in Engels and Freud. Love it. On track for 5 stars. I am in part 2.

I had a glance at the English version, and at that first one glance it seems like a different author has written the book. The ideas are stated more clearly. But I will keep reading the French version, because I am loath to put it down without reading it. Plus that version will equal two books read instead of one ;)

I am trying to finish a different chunkster of a book before I start this one. Hoping to begin in May.

I'm enjoying this, on the last chapter of part 2, history.

One of my many fav things about this read is discovering in volume 1, part 2, chapter 5 the names of many women who tried to make a difference.

quote from my kindle ed published by Vintage:

"The feminist movement begun in France by Condorcet, in England by Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman ..."

Mary Wollstonecraft was born today in 1759.

I just began this today and am reading several other books so it will take all of June and perhaps longer for me to complete. I only read through the introductions and noted Simone's prose in her intro is of a persuasive nature almost an argumentative form of essay writing. I enjoy this style but often have to step back and consider an author's points rather than accept their points Carte Blanche. I will be interested to see if she varies that style as we go along. But so far it is a strong, " Call to arms!" approach.

I found the book to be muted in tone so far. It has no negatives, and few highlights, so to me it looks like a curious work of art, nonfiction though it is. Will read more tomorrow.

I just finished it. Not the greatest writing, like not that stylish but clear and very impactful over the distance [5/5] review.

The time the book was written--1946 to 1949--matters. During World.War II women had proven themselves to be fierce and powerful members of the worldwide resistance and as wartime laborers and professionals. Women had proven themselves to be a force to be recognized. Yet women everywhere were shoved back into boxes, underappreciated. This is part of genesis of The Second Sex.

1945 World War II ends. Women sent back to what they did before war.
1947 Dior shows his New Look. Very feminine as in Not very Practical for working in. Women encouraged to be beautiful over practical or functional.
1949 Last post-war strong American woman short story published in popular women's magazine. I have long forgot which one--possibly McCalls or Good Housekeeping.
1946 to 1949 Simone de Beauvior wrote The Second Sex.

There being few if any strong women representations in popular culture would be a reason to ask: Are.there even women?

I want to read this book The Second Sex because into the 1990s during the time of celebratory feminism, this book was still being quoted and considered.

Reading Part 1: Chapter 1: Biological Data

I wonder why Simone de Beauvior writes of androgynous germ cells when x and y chromosomes were discovered in early 20th century Nettie Stevens published her finding about these chromosomes in 1905.

https://ricochetscience.com/nettie-st...

Reading Part 1: Chapter 1: Biological Data
Angry Cat here. Women with periods were told into my lifetime--and I was born after 1949--that menstrual pain was in minds/mostly in minds. And yet doctors knew these symptoms. grrrrrrr.

Reading Part 1: Chapter 2: The Psychoanalytical Point of View

I will clap back with this quote from Uncommon Women and Others by Wendy Wasserstein:

But don't men have breast and womb envy.

Reading Part 1: Chapter 3: The Point of View of Historical Materialism.

Bebel recognized:

Women and the proletariat are both oppressed.

In response de Beauvior says:

And both must be set free by the same economic development resulting from the upheaval caused by the invention of machines.

And now I see how machinery hurt women and slaves and why in the US women of the abolitionist movement could begin to see their own oppression strongly enough that the first generation suffragists/first wave femininists gathered at Seneca Falls, New York in 1848. Connection made.

One of the ways American women started to fight back is by claiming and transmitting property. Starting about mid-19th century, women started leaving informal written wills stating who was to inherit the special personal items from tea sets to clothing items--and children. Before this time men were the ones who decided who would be in charge of children's welfare.

Thank you for all of these observations and reportages Cynda. I read it with good humour.

Good to see you Luffy.

Cynda Hi - your posts are an interesting read.

And I know, the logic that diminishes women's value - grrr - is a good place to start.

I like how Simone de Beauvoir gives a multi-faceted overview of being a woman - as it's a journey that continues and has some way to go.

Inkspill, I think I understand what you are saying: Thinking about women's place in society has value, but overthinking things about women's situations in life does diminish perception of women's value. . . . Is that about right? Or did I overthink it?

It is now thought that in Paleolithic societies that the head woman of a clan would decide if a newborn would be encouraged to survive or be left to die. . . .Encouraging to live/being left to die is probably still being done today. I know that in the earliest 1980s that infant children born in US hospitals who were severely malformed were being left alone to die drugged up and alone in a partitioned area. A cousin of mine who volunteered at a local hospital told me of one such child.

There are Neolithic art depictions of Goddess.

The most widely known depictions are of the figurines in cultivated fields or other places of food production. The Earth Goddess was understood to give life and to take it away. Note the Neolithic did not have our sensibilities about unclothed divine bodies.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/ne...

There are cave wall depictions of Goodess, often as either lifegiver or maintainer of balance. The Neolithic did not have our sensibilities about unclothed divine bodies. The images here are at Chauvet Caves.
https://goddess-pages.co.uk/galive/is...

I do agree Neolithic men were placating Goddess. I think they were also hoping and begging.

Reading Volume 1: Part 2 History: Chapter 5
about Woman Suffrage in France.
French women got the vote in 1944. To help promote better equality of women, French ballots contain even number of men and women for each elected office. When I first read of this way of doing things,I thought: How outta box is that! . . . .For more information about woman suffrage and other social aspects of 20th-century French culture and society, I suggest Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong by Jean-Benoît Nadeau and his wife Julie Barlow.

I am going to read this one slowly. It requires a slower pace from me. I want to savour this book.

I think you are right Luffy. After I finish the myth section, I will slow down for a week or so to review some ideas and to let ideas sink in.

Thank you, Cynda.

Cynda wrote: "Inkspill, I think I understand what you are saying: Thinking about women's place in society has value, but overthinking things about women's situations in life does diminish perception of women's value...Is that about right? Or did I overthink it?"

Cynda, I like your take on what I meant, I sometimes do wonder if we are diminishing our value by (ironically) underlining the need for equality. But what other option is there?

What I meant in message 25, where maybe logic was a poor choice of word, is how society rationalises / justifies this inequality.

As I keep reading, what’s been a surprise to discover is that it is not just religion but also science and philosophy has contributed to this inequality.

The ground Simone de Beauvoir covers in this book is immense in how it pools together so many different strands and ideas.

Inkspill maybe let's be a little careful of taking Madame de Beauvior's writing so seriously.

She wrote most of a century ago. Many things have changed. The 1944 suffrage of French women was new. The changes that would come in time were not yet set in place. So Madame de Beauvior was writing in a time of great change, just catching the wave of political and social change.

As I read this book The Second Sex, I begin to see that Madame de Beauvior is intentionally describing women as being the second sex, second-class humans. She may not be describing reality--only a perception. What things seem to be and what they are often two different things.

Madame de Beauvior's discussing social perceptions rather than any form of reality is an important discussion. Now feminists can use these social perceptions that Madame de Beauvior has worked out to better build new pro-feminist arguments.

Basic Example:
Even though women are perceived to be ----fill in the blank----, the truth about women might be better represented by this idea ------fill in the blank----.

Inkspill, the religion/theology, science, and philosophy that Madame de Beauvior refers to is the academic fields of an earlier time. When women start to enter professional fields such as theology, science, and philosophy, they bring their own truths into the study of their fields.

Example on my bookcase:
Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language by Jennifer Coates first published 1986.

My young adulthood was filled with books like this where women were entering academics and changing the academic fields.

So why read Madame de Beauvior's book The Second Sex? Because it is a beginning place to start to consider the dialogue about interactions between men and women, about women's place in the world.

Cynda wrote: "Inkspill, the religion/theology, science, and philosophy that Madame de Beauvior refers to is the academic fields of an earlier time. When women start to enter professional fields such as theology,..."

Thanks for the book link Cynda :)

Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language is a book written by an academician for other academicians. It is interesting and worthwhile. If you are looking for some general information on the topic, maybe you will want something more accessible.

Here is something more accessible.You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen which is/was a national bestseller.

I haven't read this book. If you read it, I will be interested in reading your review.

Cynda wrote: "Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language is a book written by an academician for other academicians. It is interesting and worthwhile. If y..."

Thanks Cynda, those look interesting, sometimes I wish there was just a lot more time to read.

I’ve now started Vol II – the impression I’ve gotten so far is that the makings of a woman are a construct of society.

I’ve now purchased and .

I'm – ha ha – ummmm – hoping to also read this year, maybe - well hoping :)

Yes, exactly Inkspill. Construct of society. I grew up and entered earliest adulthood during the Second Wave (of feminists). Women who were so ready for things to change had to hear men--friends, family members, husbands--scoff and ask: So you are a feminist!! This became a refrain: No, I am not a feminist but. . . . .

This may/not matter to you Inkspill: The Bluestocking book is about English bluestockings, if that interests you, then that book is right for you. It was not for me, but that just shows my preference for US feminism.

The nonfiction group I read with is also reading All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation by Rebecca Traister. My tbr lengthens and blooms.

Cynda wrote: "This may/not matter to you Inkspill: The Bluestocking book is about English bluestockings, if that interests you, then that book is right for you. It was not for me, but that just shows my preferen..."

Thanks for the pointer re Bluestockings: The Remarkable Story of the First Women to Fight for an Education I'm interested in the development of education for women through history.

And I know what you mean about the growing tbr Cynda, there's just too many interesting books to read :)

I have been trying to finish this for the end of June and while reading chapter six, "Mother," in Part 2 Volume Hi, de Beauvoir spends some ink arguing that the attempts to criminalize abortion are more about the repression and subjugation of women than about protecting the lives of unborn. At the point I am reading, she cites the hypocrisy of the claim it is about protecting the life of the unborn and I find her argument compelling. I also thought the coincidence of reading we Beauvoir's thoughts on the matter the topic becomes big news today in the U.S. was worth mentioning.