Not my homework, I swear- Simone de Beauvoir

OK, so yes it is my homework. It would help me a lot with a paper if someone could briefly criticize (or heap praises upon) my understanding of some of the factors leading to de Beauvoir’s outlook on life:

Marx denied that there was an essential human nature pertaining to anything above animal activities, and basically believed that if we changed society, there was no limit to how much we could change the man. 
Sarte took the next step with this idea and claimed that freewill (though undefinable) was evidenced and enabled by our lacking of an essential nature- our nothingness. 
de Beauvoir then uses this lacking of an essential nature to argue that if a woman's role in society is unsatisfactory, it must be because society is causing a powerful illusion that makes women feel less free than they in fact are. 
 All of this started from Marx reversing Hegel's notion that the ideas a group of individuals have will determine the sort of community that springs up from their interactions. 

This is just philosophy 101, so it doesn’t have to be solid gold. But can I write a one and a half page paper from these assumptions and not look like a retard, you think?

It’s fine. These are basic ideas of the respective thinkers. Solid as a rock. That last idea - Marx’s origins in Hegel - You’re going to start the paper with the filler material - very clever. When you put it in the middle, it’s obviously a second-draft, post word-count insertion. A winning strategy.

Don’t forget to spell Sartre’s name correctly - look! It’s okay. Toughest name in the business. But getting it right separates the grownups from the kids. Another winning strategy.

Yeah, you spelt it wrong.

It’s a toughie.

Quick! Is it Jean Paul or Jean-Paul?

No Googling!

I hate spelling names, there’s no friggen rules, it’s all memorization. I didn’t have to Google Jean-Paul Sartre, because Being and Nothingness is here on my desk at work. :stuck_out_tongue:

Actually, I was going to stick the bit about Hegel in at the very end, and suggest that an alternate course for women might be to change their own and other individuals way of thinking about women, and to let society take care of itself. Right after I argued that Communism's most classic failing is an underestimation of the power of human nature, and that feminism needs some options that aren't rooted in non-essentialism(?).

Wow. In a page and a half? I assumed that you were going to go in chronological order. Myself, I would plant that seed first and then come back to it at the end. It produces a sort of serendipitous ring to go full circle like that.

I’ll post the paper here after I turn it in to the teacher, if you’d like to see it. Thanks for your input. :slight_smile: I’m definitely going to at least hint at Sartre being wrong at the beginning, that is a nice touch.

Tada.

de Beauvoir relies heavily on Sartre’s notions of free will, and the lack of an essential human nature to make her points about women’s ideal role in society. Sartre defines a free act as being composed of motive, action, and end. These factor’s surely all exist for a woman making decisions, so the situation cannot be purely metaphysical. In fact, Sartre denies outright that our past or society restricts our freedom. Any effect on a woman from society must be in the form of an illusion- the nature of society acts to make a woman think she is less free, when in fact this is not the case. To an extend, this places the burden on the individual woman to see her own way out of the illusion, though of course an enlightened person who has already done this can help. I am reminded of Plato’s cave. A lot of Beauvoir’s view fails if key points of Sartre’s view fails, a point to which I will return later.
So what is the nature of this illusion? First, it comes from popular notions of the nature of a woman. We talked about numerous quotes from people like Aquinas and Aristotle saying that a women was either an incomplete man, or a man with the addition of some imperfections or problems. Either way, masculinity is The Standard, and femininity is some negative deviation from this standard. Men made this claim unchallenged, for women seemed to be unwilling or uninterested in challenging it. Because of these notions, de Beauvoir argued that women see themselves in terms of how they are unlike men, and further, that those differences are most likely detriments. This illusion, then, is most likely to lead to beliefs that woman are ill-suited for some paths in life, such as politics or philosophy. This dichotomy, that men can do whatever they want, yet women are limited to things that fit their role. Hence, women see limitations to their free will that men do not perceive.
Let us look at de Beauvoir’s influences. First, Karl Marx. Mark believed that there was no such thing as human nature that pertained to anything above the level of animal needs- in a nutshell, he claimed that if we changed society, there was no limit to how much we could change the individuals in that society. Sartre took this idea and ran with it, arguing that the past and our environment do not encroach on our free will, and in fact points at that lack of a essential nature, our nothingness, as a key component without which free will could not operate. de Beauvoir observes that women seem to have a very limited, undesirable role in society. How can this be, if her will is condemned to be free? It must be that women cannot see their own freedom, because of the society they live in. Hence, change the society, and women will be able to perceive and enjoy their inherent freedom as much as men.
There is a good chance, though, that Marx is wrong. The notorious criticism of Communism is that it underestimates human nature- there really is a “way people are”, and that way they are makes them lazy, unmotivated and corrupt under a communist system. With this in mind, feminism could certainly benefit from a few approaches that did not rely on the non essentialism of human nature.
Marx got his beliefs about human nature and society by reversing the position of Hegel. Hegel believed that the idea was the starting point of society, and that a good or bad nation would result from the qualities of the ideas of it’s people. If Marx went astray with his denial of human nature as primary, then reversing this position would seem to suggest a couple solutions to the would-be feminist who doesn’t agree with Marx. First, it is absolutely essential that the individual change their views of women. It is incumbent upon each person to believe the right things about women. Society will take care of itself if it’s individuals come to think correctly. However, this is not to say that women can enact any and every change that they want- for to reject Marx is to admit the possibility of an essential human nature, and perhaps, the existence of essential male and female natures. If there is an essential female nature, then it may be that some of the things woman want to change about society are against that nature, and hence, beyond our power to change.
However, even if men and women have natures that don’t let them change their roles in society, there is still a powerful option left to the feminist- rather than changing women’s roles, the feminist can change the perception of women’s roles as being secondary. In an essentialist framework, inequality does not come from women having fixed roles in society, it comes from those roles being seen as inferior- and that distinction is certainly subjective, and can be affected. For example, there is no objective reason why being a politician needs to be seen as comparatively great, and raising a family as comparatively lowly. There is no objective reason why being a talented philosopher is comparatively impressive, and being a talented chef comparatively mundane. What I found most interesting about this approach is that under an essentialist framework, trying to make women’s roles and men’s roles the same is actually a way of institutionalizing sexism- for it defines a successful feminist movement by the degree to which women become like men and never the other way around.

other than that, good paper

-Imp

Oh flick I’ll either get roasted or ignored but as a former existentialist
(in recovery)…

I’m not so sure I think his point is more that “facticity” is not “an excuse”
I’m sure many women would be quite so enthusiastic about this!

For example: Say I have the potential to will myself towards being tubby and maybe even the genetic make up maybe

  • but if I starve to death as a kid in Africa (say) before I could do any “willing” to fatness and aquirring food surely won’t be of much use to me.

Possibly Sartre’s point is that you can
“overcome” and “transform” your conditions and certainly its a good attitude to life - if you get enough life to do it!

Surely, in fairness, if you’re a woman living under the Taliban for example you can chose an “attitude” but not much else?
In fact some muslims clap on about a woman’s “freedom” being preserved by wearing a hijab - eg she’ll be free from those pesky male advances - but is this not a very male/muslim defined version of what her freedom should be (OK I’m sort of echoing your point there?!?)

What would a “female” world - ie a completely female defined world look like? (I’m sure most would agree this world is mainly male defined rigfht?)

  • Even the word fe-male - seems to imply “derived from male”
    Who can say!?

hmm possibly!

I dunno your thesis is an interesting one I guess but the “roles” aren’t just “thought” but have a real material basis (as your Marxist would put it) ie men have been and still, though to a lesser extent, are financially better off, have more money, are more powerful etc

and I dunno if just saying “ah sure money and power are worthless” looking after the family etc are really valuable
is gonna wash especially under capitalism.
(even if it is a much better value system!)

kp

krossie

I think de Beauvoir is speaking universally- women in nearly every culture throughout history have been beneath, or objects to man's subject, she would say. Since women aren't a minority, and since this happens so regularly, women must be partially complicit in this. I agree with you that in particular situations it may be very difficult for women to do anything about their situation, but if you ask in a broad sense how they got in that situation, they must have had a hand in it. 
Yeah, that's a good point- but how much we pay certain professions is under our control to an extent.  The task would be to find occupations that fit the 'woman's role' that make sense to pay comparable amounts for.  And that's not to say that there isn't plenty of overlap-  there's occupations that could be performed from a masculine and feminine approach, and I'm certainly not saying women should stay away from occupations and hobbies that don't fit their sterotyped role.

Ussisore,
Hazel Rowley’s book “Tete 'a Tete” is a bit gossipy and meandering; but it does give some insights into the Beauvior/Sartre relationship as far a exchange of ideas went. You might enjoy it.

Might l have a look at that book meself - the gossipier the better - was soem weird relationship…

uciscore women must be partially complicit in this. 

Hmm I must read a bit more of her – well beyond “the Ethics of ambiguity”

Partially maybe thats true – you hav to be careful with this type of psychology – though, it does have a grain of truth I suppose, – sexism is kinda institutionalised into both sexes but there’s an potential obvious danger of “blaming” someone for their own oppression (I know your not saying this!)
“will ya not go out there and liberate yourself love?”

Maybe time to launch a minimum wage for house wrok type campaign – the tiny but growing number of house husbands might get behind it too…

The book has a picture of S.B., seen nude from the back–a bonus or boner, depending on one’s sexual preferance. :smiley: Really, take out the sexual escapades and the book would be about 50 pages, not its current 416.

You sure you don’t work for the publishers!!!

You’ve sold me anyhow

I dunno about herself but Sartre surely had a face designed for radio

kp