Simone de Beauvoir is a feminist who does not like to be labeled as one. She finds the work of many feminists to be lacking in substance and does not attain the level that she wants them to accomplish. One of the major arguments of de Beauvoir is the failure of many – this includes social scientists and philosophers – to properly answer the question: what is a woman? Thus, de Beauvoir took it upon herself to find out why. By investigating research made by luminaries in the field of anthropology, psychology, mythology, and behavioral sciences she began to process research made concerning primitive societies and even mythology to find out what can be readily observable and at the same time what the ancients were thinking when it comes to the concept of woman. After much thought de Beauvoir realized that a woman must be seen as the “Other.” A woman is not the weaker sex or merely the extension of man, she is the “Other.” This article was able to prove the main argument that a woman is an “other”; however de Beauvoir was unable to win a decisive victory because in order for this statement to be accepted as truth, human societies must acknowledge that a woman is the counterpart of man and there is no evidence to show that this was the case in the time of de Beauvoir.
Freedom and Equality
The main goal of de Beauvoir and like-minded people was to elevate the value of women to such an extent that they will finally gain what they desperately desired for so long and it is freedom and equality. They wanted to be free from labels and the social conventions that forced them to live a certain way and to behave in accordance to the dictates of a society that they believe to be controlled by men. However, de Beauvoir had to deal with one major hurdle and it is the vise-grip like hold of men on social rules simply because they were able to clearly justify their claim why they should be head of the pack and the king of the hill. When it comes to women they are still unable to prove beyond any doubt that they too are equal to men and therefore deserve at least an equal share of what he is currently enjoying.
The first thing she did was to clarify her objective and she did it by framing her main question like this:
If her functioning as a female is not enough to define woman, if we decline also to explain her through ‘the eternal feminine’, and if nevertheless we admit, provisionally, that women do exist, then we must face the question ‘what is a woman’? (de Beauvoir, 1949)
For her answer to this query, her first stop was to revisit the past; de Beauvoir went as far back as mythology. She pointed out that duality exists in the minds of all ancient people, and that there is a self and the other in their stories and myth. This is greatly evident in commonly known dualities or pairings such as Varuna-Mitra, Uranus-Zeus, Sun-Moon, Day-Night, Good-Evil, Right-Left and many more. (de Beauvoir, 1949). She also added that the concept of otherness as seen in the mirror images of the pairings listed above is a “fundamental category of human thought” (de Beauvoir, 1949).
Next, the author pointed to more familiar examples to prove that in every object or idea there is always a corresponding other. For instance, de Beauvoir pointed out that even in a train compartment where one can see more than three strangers going on a trip, one will see the others as “hostile” – in the same way that villagers will view foreigners as suspicious the first time they lay their eyes on them. In history this is played out in the extreme as with the examples of atrocities committed in the Jewish Holocaust, the maltreatment of African slaves by their American masters and many more.
The author went a little further, but this time around she used conclusions gleaned by anthropologists, particularly the well-respected Levi-Strauss who asserted that the success of mankind was dependent on man’s ability to realize that there is indeed a duality that exists in terms of biological relations. This argument is further enhanced by citing the works of modern thinkers such as Hegel who provided the idea that a person will always see himself as the essential while looking at others as non-essential.
Responsibility
Even though it is difficult to defend the right of women to equality and freedom, the author continued in her desire to fight and write to change the way society views women because it is the right thing to do. In effect de Beauvoir was saying that it was her responsibility to do so, to argue in behalf of women everywhere. While his passion to help women in their plight against inequality and prejudice, it is dishonest and irresponsible not to mention that she had encountered many difficulties in proving that women has now the capability to create change and more importantly that they can make men listen and then finally turn the tables against them and instead of following orders from a male-dominated society, it is time for women to stand tall and demand that men honor and respect them as equals.
Bad Faith
Aside from the need to be responsible and the need to stand up for what is right, existentialists like de Beauvoir believe that it is bad faith to deny women this freedom and by doing so there is no liberty for them. The author’s words is filled with this guilt-ridden feeling that it was up to her and those who privileged enough to know about these things to shout it out to the world about the injustice made against women. It is evident in de Beauvoir’s writings that she feared that women will succumb to the forces of bad faith that they will simply accept what was given them because of the reasoning that there is nothing more that they can do to change their circumstances. However, de Beauvoir could not sustain a counterattack that could have brought tremendous success to the feminist movement and settle the argument once and for all.
As we get closer to we can see why de Beauvoir felt unsure to go on an all out attack. She became a victim of her own strength. Let me clarify. The author could not have completed a very coherent and well-researched article is she was not a good writer. Therefore, de Beauvoir is someone who is not only a student of words but someone who deeply respect and even to a certain point is a slave to the English language. This simply means that she is could not go beyond what her tools will allow her. This was evident when she had a hard time scaling the mountain of semantics – she could not overcome the most notorious word as far as a feminist is concerned and it is the word woman.
You have probably heard the heartless brutalization of this word woman: they call her “woe to man”, it is like a dagger thrust into the heart of all women telling them that they are some sort of a plague that inflicts all those who posses the male gender. But even if there are those who glory in their masculinity and look down with contempt on the members of the opposite sex, de Beauvoir should never have retreated – she must go on the offensive because what she had was truth and nothing can go against it.
The author began to make excuses. She pointed out that women were always subjected to man and therefore they do not possess a history of their own. She complained that women does not have the means to organize themselves and yet at the same time point to other oppressed and marginalized groups as able to rise up above their circumstances to defeat their tyrannical masters and gain their freedom. At the beginning of the article she brandished a powerful weapon and waved it in the air as if to challenge her foes and yet all of the sudden she shot herself in the foot with it.
It was as if she was a crybaby and became vulnerable to the counter-attacks of her enemies. You can almost hear them say that if she was right then why talk about it like a loser would. The losers are not only experts in generating excuses but they always point to an insurmountable obstacle that they believe was placed their deliberately to make them fail miserably. Her enemies will tell her to her face that she must get over it; she must overcome this obstacle because every man did and they succeeded and so why is it that a woman is unable.
She should have pressed in with her advantage and what is that? It was the brilliant revelation of duality and the concept of the “other”, she should have continued with this line of attack and developed it further. We do not have her gift of writing but if given the opportunity a possible next step is to argue that there is no need for women to prove themselves in the eyes of men. This is because nature has already dictated that they are equals. There was never any need to justify their existence for it was already given that they must have a place in this world. There was no need to prove that they are superior to man.
Can anyone really say that the sun is more important than the moon? If you say yes to this question then it means that your understanding of the significance of the moon is limited. In a superficial level it seems that the sun is more powerful indeed because the light emanating from it is much brighter than that of the moon, in fact the moon merely reflects the light from the sun. However, a basic knowledge about tides, the movement of waves in the ocean will reveal that without the moon this activity is impossible or not efficient. What is the impact? We will have dead oceans and therefore a dead earth. This is how we must see the relationship between man and woman. This planet will never survive without them functioning in their full capacities.
Conclusion
For the uninitiated and those who are unfamiliar with the feminist movement and yet sensitive to the fact that women are being maltreated as we speak and that they are marginalized in many parts of the world, the argument of de Beauvoir was like a breath of fresh air – at least in the early part of the article. It was such a brilliant discussion regarding dualities and the way the human mind can easily perceive concepts such as left and right, sun and moon, light and dark etc. It was very clear that de Beauvoir has found a way to mount a strong attack; however, in the middle part of the offensive she began to lose steam and at times it seems that she was retreating.
She should have continued with a relentless attack. She already gained the upper hand and the beachhead was already secured. Why stall? Why did she refuse to go all the way? We have covered some of the more obvious reasons and we lament the lack of decisiveness. But as we take a step backward and reassess the situation, we begin to realize that it was not entirely her fault, as we take a closer look at the title of the article, there below it is the name of de Beauvoir and the time that she wrote this piece. It was 1949 and suddenly it made sense. The author could not go on full offensive because she really cannot find enough evidence that men – at least in educated circles – already accepted the woman as their “other.” If de Beauvoir was alive today someone must approach her and tell her that a significant change has occurred since the day she penned this article. In essence she and all those who write with the same fervor and mission had succeeded, even if they faltered and hesitated in 1949.