Beauvoir’s Logical Genius

Nila Horner
English 3552
13 October 2015
                                                           Beauvoir’s Logical Genius
     Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex” is often regarded as one of the most influential texts in feminist theory. The second edition of “The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism” features one chapter from the lengthy original text titled “Myth and Reality.” In this portion of the original text, Beauvoir reflects on the widespread marginalization of women in society. She claims that men pigeonhole women into one group as perpetuated by literature and believe women are in general without individualized thought. She states toward the beginning, “to pose Women is to pose the absolute Other, without reciprocity, denying against all experience that she is a subject, a fellow human being” (1266). Beauvoir is saying that each woman is a conscious individual, worthy of the natural desires of life. To classify women into one category at all, in Beauvoir's mind, would be to subject women to the degrading notion of being undeserving of basic human desires and rights. Her striking tone and passionate call for equality resonate throughout most of the piece.
     Toward the middle of the piece, Beauvoir spends a great deal of time discussing the woman as a Body. Beauvoir reflects on the complex relationship between the mind and body in women when she says, “ the bond that in every individual connects the physiological life and the psychic life is the deepest enigma implied in the condition of being human, and this enigma is presented in its most disturbing form in women” (1268). On first reading, it is strange that Beauvoir would draw attention to a point in which she believes women are dealing with an issue in a much different way than men. Throughout the entirety of the piece, she is hoping to halt the practice of generalizing the experiences and emotions of women. The statement that women have a more difficult time reconciling the relationship between the mind and the body seems contradictory to the main point of Beauvoir's paper. However, on further analysis, Beauvoir’s statement is actually an effective rhetorical strategy to accomplish her goals outlined in the paper. In making such a daring claim, Beauvoir is inviting deeper thought.
     In stating that women have a distinct psychological difference from men, readers may think Beauvoir is driving a wedge in her argument about the dangers of Otherness. However, when one considers the implications of her provocative statement, Beauvoir is in fact leading readers to see what she wants them to see. This statement near the end of the chapter titled “Myth and Reality” illuminates the universal nature of Beauvoir’s argument in that her bold statement invites men to relate to the opposite sex and alter sexist mannerisms, and encourages women to recognize their own lack of social privilege.
     Consider a man reading Beauvoir's point that women have a harder time than men connecting emotions with their bodily self. A male reader considering Beauvoir’s point could come to only one of three conclusions: disagree with the point, agree, or consider the point further.
In agreeing with the statement that women have a distinct disadvantage, a male reader has seen exactly what Beauvoir wanted her readers to see. The man here is recognizing his own privilege in that women have it worse in the world in some way. In agreeing, he is recognizing that women are in fact complex human beings capable of elaborate human thoughts and emotions. When he is able to see a woman as both a mind and a body, he is removing the idea that “the categories in which men think of the world are established from their point of view, as absolute...” (1268). By relating to a woman on an emotional level and considering her experiences, he is Subjectifying her instead of Objectifying her. He is taking a cue from a woman to shape his opinion, which in itself would be extraordinary in the time of Beauvoir’s writing. If a man were to agree with Beauvoir’s claim, her goals of treatment based on truth would be fulfilled.
     On the other hand, if a man disagrees with her statement that women are physiologically and emotionally more complex and have deeper issues, her success is much more subtle, but nonetheless effective. The man would disagree for one of two reasons. In the first case, he would argue that women do not have as difficult a time as men do connecting mind and body. In this case, he would be admitting that men do have weaknesses and troubles emotionally. The man is still perpetuating the idea that men are in some way more important, but by stating that men have a difficult time connecting the mind with the body, they are admitting a weakness. Additionally, by taking a position, the man would have had to consider the female experience for at least a moment to make his assertion that men do have it worse. If a man disagreed with the female author’s proposition, he would have had to care enough to consider her opinion.
     Beauvoir did not offer solutions in this piece, but instead pushed for discourse. We see this on page 1273 when she says, “what must be hoped for is that the men for their part will unreservedly accept the situation...” In considering her opinion by reading her piece, audiences were exposed to the issues, which was her goal.
     Thirdly, if men did not agree or disagree with her opinion, then they could say that they need to consider the issues further or that they could agree with parts of the argument but not the whole. If the reader wants to consider issues more thoroughly, Beauvoir would be glad the reader was inviting further inquiry and again was exposed to her issues. If a male reader believes that
her assumption is partially correct, then he would further her point that people are individuals. If he could think of some examples in which women had a more “disturbing” bodily relationship and some examples in which he believed men did, he would further her plea for the individual.
Beauvoir’s position as a female author places her in an interesting, yet still advantageous position. Her credibility at first may be considered compromised in a male-dominated society, but in fact, works to her logical advantage. If men did not think that Beauvoir was speaking for all women, they would have considered her an anomaly among females, but an individual nonetheless. Beauvoir wanted men to stop lumping all women into one category, and even if they think she is loony, they would have to admit that at least one woman does not fit into the mold that society imposed on the entirety of the female gender.
     If readers think Beauvoir is giving them insight into the female condition, men may start to consider the possibility that more women think like Beauvoir. In doing that, men may start to sympathize with women and attempt to relate to them. Whether men have ever had the slightest inclination toward these thoughts of female inequality or have never considered the plight of the woman, hopefully her piece will have caused further thought and discussion. If Beauvoir can explain to men the issues plaguing many women and get them to consider her points or even read her paper, she has completed her goal.
     Beauvoir’s message is universally relevant and serves a purpose to a reader of any gender, but her primary audience is most likely men. Men had most of the power in society in Beauvoir’s time, as they continue to have today. Political, economic, literary and social influence were in the hands of men in the patriarchy. Thus, in writing to a primarily male audience, she was trying to enact a change by reaching out to the most powerful people of her time. While
women may not have been her target audience, Beauvoir would have benefitted from reaching female audiences.
     If a woman read her piece, she would have to consider the social disadvantages of women Beauvoir identifies. Even if a particular female reader didn’t agree with the author’s points, she would have been, at the very least, exposed to feminist ideas. She even concedes the point that “it is very difficult for women to accept at the same time their status as autonomous individuals and their womanly destiny...” (1273). Beauvoir recognizes the hardships of her female contemporaries. However, even if readers do not agree with her points, they will have been exposed to her groundbreaking ideas. If a female spoke about this piece with disapproval, men would revert to the thought that females are not all the same. Again, Beauvoir’s ideas of individuality are communicated whether or not readers agree with the actual content of the piece. Additionally, if women did resonate with the idea of inequality and “Otherness,” women may have influence on compassionate men to read and relate to Beauvoir’s ideas. So, regardless of the opinions readers held about her or the piece or the gender of the audience, Beauvoir was achieving her goals of reaching out to people, communicating a problem, and creating discussion and thoughts on her issues.