Simone de Beauvoir was a political writer like Herbert Marcuse, not a scientist (or even a social scientist). Both of them Marxists (a political ideology). Despite of the human rights abuses in Mao's China she still visited went there. If she didn't criticize Mao's abuses then I'd consider her a propagandist for Mao's regime.
‘One is not born, but rather becomes, woman’. This the complete opposite of what I’ve always heard, ‘woman is accepted as she is. A man must do something in order to be acceptable’.
Joseph Campbell... I recall him pointing out in tech primitive cultures females become women biologically with menstruation but males have to pass into manhood via some trial or test, often dangerous, and with dire consequences if they fail (expulsion from the tribe, say).
You are misunderstanding her completely. She is a perfect example of a sadistic psychopath. Her pleasure is only in manipulating and harming others. She knows women will read her writings and then they will suffer. For her language exists only to manipulate and harm others.
As a French person who recently dug into the "new left" from the May 68 movements, I am more and more horrified the deeper I dig. This mob mixing the Psychoanalyst crooks, rich nihilistic idiots, "hero" philosophers like Sartre and De Beauvoir, the widespread sexual predation, the support for the worse totalitarian regimes (Mao, Pol Pot, Khomeini who couldn't have accessed to power in Iran without the aid of the French left)..... They also disconnected the left from the workers and the proletarian plea. Worse than that, I also realized that their influence on French society has been profound, and we dearly pay the bill today in so, so many ways. From the way the judicial system works to the media, the general delusion, the terrible lack of objectivity in almost every domain, because a beautifully crafted sentence has more impact that any rationality... It's too vast to summarize and explain in a few words, but the influence of that crowed has had a massively detrimental effect, and across the world, not just in France. I even think at this stage that wokism and other extremist "left" movements take root exactly there. Even as far as the woke movements in the USA, when looking at the original influences.
Very well said. The left seems to have a predilection for sexual deviancy and, frankly, what we call debauchery. De Beauvoir's victimization of young girls belies her concern for women as individual human beings, and relegates them to objects of her personal, sexual desires as a lesbian. It is said here in the US that leftists of our Ruling Class have been active pedophiles for many years, and from what we know of the activities of Epstein, this seems more probable than most Americans ever imagined. So, what is it about leftism/Marxism/wokism that creates such destructive tendencies in their most faithful adherents? Is tyranny a natural aspect of liberational philosophy, or does such philosophy contain within it the seeds of its own perversion and eventual downfall? How does what claims to be high morality descend into extremism, radical feminism, and the willful destruction of the societies from which it arises? One thing for sure. The leftists' feelings of moral superiority are nothing but an illusion. If we believe in what they DO rather than what they SAY, we will come much closer to the truth about the tyranny of the left.
Speaking of Sartre (who was just as crazy as De Beauvoir): he apparently said that western society should let other countries overrun them as revenge for colonialism. This was in the introduction to a book. I'm looking for this quote. Let me know if you know the title.
The rallying cry of the French Revolution is so intoxicating . Now compine with that with sex drugs and rock n roll- the barricades, Paris in the spring- 68. You say you want a revolution? In theory yeah. I have to admit the American model works better though. Better checks and balances on flawed human nature. You can’t theorize it away with word magic. The Romanov Lenin effect will likely entail. Your liberators will tern out to be worse than your oppressors unless that what the left- old or new, aspires too. Unconscious process’s.Voten unleased. The threshold guardians have been aroused.God help us.
@@trondsiit’s happening now. The only gov agency, aside from the military the radical left, wish to abolish is homeland security. I defended borders that is.operation Trojan horse in plain sight
Thanks Janice for a brilliant expose of rationalisations for gendered hatred. You have wonderfully examined De Beauvoir's beliefs and linked them with her interpersonally toxic and self-destructive behaviour. I am saddened that in my experience, gendered nastiness nowadays seems far more prevalent in women and even encouraged as legitimate feminine assertiveness which, of course, it is not. I offer two broad generalisations of trends in behaviours by and between the sexes, the earliest signs of which became evident in public in the late 1970s. Now, most men, when challenged about their gendered nastiness, tend to retreat in shame. More and more women now tend to defend their gendered nastiness as righteous and deserving. De Beauvoir was indeed a destructive influencer.
Absolutely agreed. Remember "Ban bossy"? You're not supposed to tell a girl that she is bossy, because the word has a negative valence. We're supposed to celebrate "bossy" (and bitchy, rude, mean-spirited, and vengeful) female behavior in females from a young age. Our present era seeks to ruin women's characters and is largely succeeding.
Not forgetting the old chestnut Janice “never hit a girl” this was drummed into boys in my era. Instead of “never hit anyone” it left the door wide open for the acceptance of boy on boy violence.
She never did a hard day's labour, so she didn't understand the sacrifices and suffering men make, as well as women. She spoke universally, because of her interest in philosophy, but really, she was reacting against academia and anyone who could stop her becoming famous and successful. With Marxism that sees society as conflicting groups, her obstacle to fame and success, she must have decided was the patriarchy. So, her fury - which was really caused by her rebellious life - was directed at men.
It's very much appreciated that you are reading intelligently texts that formed the basis for feminism. Most of us haven't the time or stomach to do so. These texts and their authors will certainly be taught to gullible young minds in 'women's studies' and 'gender studies' courses in taxpayer funded universities (secondary schools? kindergartens?). It's great to have these wonderful analyses to understand something of these works. A fine contribution to the discipline, albeit unwelcome by most of the feminist 'scholars'. Thanks again Prof Fiamengo!
THANK YOU FEMINISM!. Feminists did MEN a huge favor. Men can now focus on themselves instead of sacrificing their entire lives working 60/80 hours a week providing for a wife. Men can now enjoy a much more stress free & longer life without being married (for life) with (only one Woman) and financial ruin after divorce, with (alimony payments) & (18 years of child support payments) that SHE spends on herself. Yes, Thankyou Feminism!
Everything come up with pros and cons. The dark side of working both is the break down of family system and lack of parentship for the future kids. Not all women need a job ,but all men need a job. The duty for life is to live for ourselves and for our future generations. May love & compassion born again between men&women.
Femunism has stripped away the mask that women wore and made their true natures plain. Their demands for equality, where it benefits women, and special protections when it doesn't. This is what he means.
That's all BS. Married men live longer,are richer and mentaly healthier. You're talking about DIVORCED men. We NEED women and family. Stop that childish BS.
I never was able to read The Second Sex without wanting to scream! In the 70s I argued with so many women in ‘consciousness raising’ groups that without recognizing women as (potential) mothers, the rhetoric was empty and misleading. I still believe I was correct.
I left these groups, being bored to tears by women sitting around moaning about their problems. I agree with you about many of her ideas, and, having read her book at 19 thought she promoted many fallacious ideas, stating the obvious, and espoused in those days Marxist and communist ideology.
Excellent, Janice! I say again that this series, FF2.0, would be wonderfully expressed as a book (the videos of course are wonderful). Why isn't some publisher on this?
Thank you, my friend! Maybe one day. I've done a lot of research, but I would have to do even more; it is such a rich history with so many diverse influences and aspects.
@@janicefiamengo993 🐟 26. FEMINISM: Feminism is the penultimate evil at present because feminism is based on the misguided assumption that women are equal to (or even SUPERIOR to) men. The only institution more destructive to human society than feminism, is illicit governance (see Chapter 22). Equality is non-existent in this transactional sphere. Equality exists ONLY in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably, on the sub-atomic level. Even identical twins are not perfectly identical in every possible criterion. Geneticists have discovered that a pair of so-called “identical twins” share, on average, about only ninety-four percent of their genetics by the time they are born. Mothers of such twins can instinctually differentiate between them, since there are always distinguishing features. Unfortunately, for a great many persons, the objective fact that equality among humans is non-existent, is impossible to accept, since they are afflicted with what is known as a “leftist” mentality. Although a female can exhibit superior traits, skills, etcetera, to some men, a woman can never have AUTHORITY over a man. Therefore, the assertion that women are subordinate to men is based purely on this notion of authority, not on any particular attribute, such as intelligence, wisdom, beauty, physical strength, or artistic talent. Simply because a woman may be stronger or more highly-educated than her husband, for instance, does not give her the right to instruct her master in any way. No true man has ever been attracted to a domineering, bossy female. Truth be told, no true man would ever descend to the level of accepting counsel from ANY of his subordinates. A man should fully obey his appointed masters (such as his father, grandfather, uncle, employer, or priest), and never emasculate himself by submitting to the dictates of a mere female, or any other lesser. Of course, in past millennia, it was unnecessary to explicate the reasons why (adult) males are inherently superior in authority to females - most everybody, both men and women, accepted that claim without argument, as it seemed quite logical. However, at the time of writing, especially in the Western World, very few understand that the reason for this assertion is due simply to it being part of the natural hierarchy of society. Only emasculated, feminized “men” are unable to comprehend this very basic fact of life. Imagine the scenario where a woman provides the material requirements of her family, physically protects her family from harm, teaches and instructs her husband and their children. Does that appear to follow the natural order of things? OBVIOUSLY not. Therefore, my point is made. Feminist ideology commonly manifests as the desire for women to perform the societal role of the OPPOSITE gender, that is to say, partaking in intrinsically male activities, such as studying at educational institutions, working for a wage, or building business enterprises (or even more preposterously, usurping the position of a national leader or the role of a member of the Holy Priesthood!). Feminism also advocates for preferential treatment of females in institutions that may have traditionally favoured men and/or boys, even when “the tables have been completely turned-around the other way”, so to speak. In a nutshell, feminists suffer from the psychological disorder termed “penis envy”, and fundamentally yearn to become males in every conceivable way (sometimes even biologically, despite the incontrovertible fact that transitioning from one gender to the other gender being a physiological impossibility). This explains why (female) feminists are typically manly. Conversely, as a general rule, the more feministic and gynocentric is a man, the more effeminate and uxorious is his behaviour and manner. This aspiration of a person wishing to seize the position of another person, deemed to be of higher value, is a common phenomenon in MALES as well, such as working-class men who consider themselves to be rulers/kings or priests. Every so-called “priest” and every national leader on earth, with virtually no exceptions, is either a worker, a businessman, or even more risibly, a mere female, who is literally stealing the occupation of an authentic guru or arrogating the role of a king. Such persons are, therefore, full-time criminals and ought to be censured. Feminists are victims of the SLAVISH mentality that the instigators of that evil, pernicious ideology (Karl Marx and the so-called “Globalist Elite”) have always wanted them to be. The desire to serve is a natural propensity of humans, but one ought to serve a lawful authority. It is extremely unfortunate that the vast majority of women are unable to see the obvious truth that feminist ideology wants the destruction of women (as well as society as a whole), as can clearly be seen at present. At least it is clearly seen by any decent, wise and intelligent person. Due to feminist indoctrination and lack of proper discipline, as a consequence of an increasingly profane and secular world, modern women have become EXTREMELY debased. The typical woman nowadays is afflicted with bitterness, uncontrolled emotions (especially jealousy), gross immodesty, greed, arrogance, misery, snobbishness, and loneliness due to a false sense of “independence”, with hardly a single noble quality. In those gynocentric societies that are dominated by feminism, men are urged to avoid any UNNECESSARY contact with the opposite gender. Those (heterosexual) males who disregard this sage advice will invariably regret their choices, either after experiencing false allegations against them, the destruction of their families through divorce, or after constant rejection by snobby women. However, let it be made clear: the greatest enemy of males is NOT the opposite sex, but those uxorious “white-knight” so-called “men” who do the bidding of feminist ideologues, since they have far greater power than females, despite being truly pathetic-excuses-for-men. wom•an n. pl. wom•en She who gives “woe” to “man” - therefore “wo(e)man” “Though I have searched repeatedly, I have not found what I was looking for. Only one out of a thousand men is virtuous, but not one woman!” “Ecclesiastes” 7:28. “Holy Bible” (New Living Translation). “We must not allow ourselves to be deflected by the feminists who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth.” Sigismund Schlomo Freud, Austrian Neurologist.
She actually published it right after a global event that majoritarily killed men BECAUSE of their gender. And to this day, the same happens. We are all watching it on TV, about Ukraine and Russia. Where do I sign up to be part of the second gender? First gender kinda sucks.
@@nickbarber2080 a mother can only do so much... the moment a boy is considered an adult, they are free to choose with what they want to do with their lives - which is, as said, influenced by the system
@@helsing7454 A mother can do a lot. the primary age to learn some behaviors (racism is example) is between 2 to 6. and that is when woman have the most influence. So once again woman cannot simply wash your hands of that influence.
Alice Schwarzer in Germany, who met Simone De Beauvoir in the 70ies and is very much influenced by her work, is nowadays in deep conflicts with the gender identity ideology. An interesting branch in history, I think.
Yes, the whole idea of the sex-gender distinction, which really begins with Beauvoir and was amplified by the American Kate Millett and others, is responsible for feminists' trouble with trans. But feminists refuse to own it.
As Dr. Jordan Peterson points out. Women migrating to the workforce doubles its size. Effect? Wages went down by half. Men were no longer paid a wage sufficient to support a family.
Not only did it suppress wages, it doubled the tax base and the value of the wealthy people's real estate portfolios. It could only be done once though. Here in Australia successive governments use immigration to continue the effect.
Except women always worked. Further you go into history, more both sexes worked from home. Take baker or smith, these did not "go to work". Farmer even more. After industrialization men started working as we know it and soon after women followed. This "man was able to provide for family himself" is a myth, that was exception that happened mostly in US after WWII, because it got into special position where Europe was destroyed by the war and US economy was boosted by it.
Thank you. There is more to be done on Beauvoir. She wrote many novels that expounded her philosophy too, and I admit I haven't read them. Also, to be truly thorough, one would need to read her letters to Sartre, which I also haven't done (yet--maybe one day).
@@janicefiamengo993 I know this is somewhat off-topic, but if you don't mind saying, when it comes to what's moral for men and moral for women, do you base that on what's natural for other animals, particularly animals that are closely related to the ones we evolved from? From some of what you've said in certain videos, I kind of sense that you feel like men shouldn't be called out when they act in creepy ways due to the fact that they're supposedly just follow their natural male instincts. Is that your perspective or do I have it wrong? If, by chance, I'm understanding your perspective correctly, the issue is that as you probably know, something being a natural or something that other animals do doesn't necessarily make it ethical or good. For instance, no other animals use computers or any other electronic devices that are manmade, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should get rid of all of our electronic devices on basis
Just from wiki: Beauvoir was born on 9 January 1908[10] into a bourgeois Parisian family in the 6th arrondissement.[11][12][13] Her parents were Georges Bertrand de Beauvoir, a lawyer, who once aspired to be an actor,[14] and Françoise Beauvoir (née Brasseur), a wealthy banker's daughter and devout Catholic. Simone's sister, Hélène, was born two years later on June 6, 1910. The family struggled to maintain their bourgeois status after losing much of their fortune shortly after World War I, and Françoise insisted the two daughters be sent to a prestigious convent school. So, her mother, second sex with no influence, insisted that she go to prestigious school? How was that possible in her mind? How can a property and slave insist that master do something against his will exactly?
Too bad she didn't learn or understand the lucid beauty of Catholic natural law theory which is pretty much the foundation of human rights in the west or a truly liberal view, advancing true human freedoms and responsibilities. The US constitution though composed by protestants , followed the Catholic natural law views which I would maintain are simple sanity. But.. as always.. I digress. Cheers
her confused mind, thought women are a minority group. Not realizing women are always part of the same social group as the man. When a woman starts competing with men, in mens discipline, these women play a losing game. Same would be true for man.
I was absolutely shocked to learn that Simon liked the YOUNGER "fairer" sex. I mean what a shocker, whoda thought. Great video. I always learn something when I tune into your channel.
Ms. Fiamengo, you are a pearl!!!! Your erudite commentary on the history of feminism is much needed in a society that has failed to examine the hypocrisy and the socially destructive nature of this ideology. Thanks for all you do, please keep going!!!
Simone De Beauvoir (1908-1986) may have been a wiser woman had she been more acquainted with her elder Henry Lewis Mencken (1880-1956) and his wonderful essay 'In Defense of Women' (Libravox & Gutenberg), an astonishing work about human nature, delivered with great wit subtle humour*. Sadly, an exchange between them wasn't part of their fates nor ours. The 'reader' in Libravox is absolutely excellent. No one else could conjure up Mencken better than his unique voice. Wonder what became of him after that gift ?
Every fruity revolution began in some weirdo's philosophy classroom. Our thoughts determine our lives, say the Saints. These are not happy or life giving thoughts. May she rest in peace and her ideas do less damage...
As far as I can tell, the biggest problem within academia (broadly defined) was publishers allowing ideology to be published in the first place. I mean this in the sense that it is impossible to discuss an idea if it is worded in a way that it can't be falsified. I suspect that this is a root cause of the problems that our society is facing today.
I don't know how people can absorb and share their existence without that classic western realistic view of Aristotle and Aquinas who affirm the innate sense and awareness of intrinsic purpose and meaning as ultimately the manifestation of that Spirit who literally is, BEING itself... Himself dare I say. I find traditional Catholic rational life to be the only comprehensively solid foundation for mind and soul. As I noted above , her natural law theory is what American protestants adopted in their formation of the rights of man and constitution. I don't know how... or rather I do... but remain surprised that so many stagger along with such a disconnect in their minds from reality. And de Beauvoir is a great example of this. We are here to instantiate love and communion, community, Love.... not "luv". Cheers
@@themarxologist So your solution is completely misreading a simple statement to make someone look like a fascist while you literally have Marx in your name and can't seem to spell a single sentence right?
I'm rhankful I found this. I read her thirty years ago and did not find ber empowering. Rather, what I saw was college friends of mine using her wirks go justify amoral behaviors.
Keep in mind, her lover/companion was JP Sartre, who was barely 5 feet tall and had wall-eyes. Hardly Apollo! Talk about "Short Man Syndrome"! They were made for each other, and the product of each other's Narcissism.
I think she knew very well how important motherhood was for most women. That's why she said, "No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children".
One is not born a French, Sexy, Woman; one becomes a French, Sexy, Woman. Which is not a bad thing. French, sexy, women are something that is well worth the trouble of being. Even woman who are a little . . . angular . . . should feel free to make the effort.
Ain't one the first stories growing children learn about, after Santa, is the one about the 'Birds & the Bees' ? T'was an introduction to what always becomes a life-long study for some and often forgotten by many others.
I read S.B 40 years ago with a certain interest but abandon her very quickly 30 year ago when I got my two daughters.... Realized she didn't experience actual life...
"Marxism", if the word is applicable at all in the casual throwaway manner it is used, is most certainly NOT about antagonism between IDENTITY GROUPS. Social classes are products of the structural features of the economic mode of society.
Excellent work again, Janice! In a sane world, you would be commended within academia for discovering the roots of society's problems. Alas, this is not a sane world although there are sane people in this world. I wonder if it would be possible to compile the audio files for these videos and have them available either for download or as a box set of CDs.
All the tentpole ideas and doctrines from Objectification to the Bechtel Test were based on nothing more than assertions laundered through academic culture and repeated ad nausea. I scarce believe you could convince your younger self of such a thing though.
well.... trans people aren't new. they've always existed in the background, in modern times we've just learned more about them.. because of science and biology and stuff. to deny that trans people are real is just factually incorrect and uneducated
I realize this video is a criticism of de Beauvoir, but we need to remember that women in America could not take out a loan or apply for a credit card without a man's co-signature until 1974 with the passing of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. I do agree, however, that disconnecting women's lives from our bodies has had disastrous results for women.
Have you seen photographs of the old 1800s asylums on acreage? The massive mental asylums that were some of the biggest buildings in America at the time? We need to build those again.... to house all women like Simone de Beauvoir. There are literally millions like her today.
Thank you Janis An Instructor having relationship with students is really inappropriate. Even if both are adults, that's a barrier that shouldn't be crossed. I come from the viewpoint of a man educated with a Bachelor of Science in Kinesiology and certified as a, Kindergarten - 12th grade, Teacher in the State of Texas, USA. My education comprised of the physical-physiological and psychological development of children into adulthood. The concept of gender is a myth to me. Child rearing and societal differences exist in countries and cultures, but a male is male and female is female. At 21:25, "even with full political and legal equality these ideas would continue to assert there malignant ...." Isn't that the Marxist ideology fed to every group? You are always a victim. They are always against you. The name of the term escapes me now, but the emphasis upon pitting one group against another to see who has the most grievances is highly destructive.
Yes, the same script can be applied to every institution about knowledge and gatekeepers always struggling to maintain power, by determining or "labeling" with no objective reality .. or simply rejection of objective reality as a legitimate source of knowledge. Now you have "lived experience" but that means only in context of the approved Marxist oppression narrative. Anyone's actual lived experience that rejects the oppression narrative is nothing more than "false consciousness" or internalized repression.
This is interesting! Specifically - the claim that 'woman' is created, not born. Academy of ideas made a video regarding a similar thing, but for men - specifically looking at how various tribal cultures (but not limited to) 'thought' of manhood: that it too was something earned, something created, 'the big impossible'... The video is called 'why are so many men psychologically infantile'... So I was curious to see what the author of the claim (not this video) had to say about this... So far, I have heard only a summary of the treatise of the domination of women by men... I smile inside, because I know stories of the exact opposite, in modern times, where 'the Colombian Queen' was trafficking children, as sex slaves... She was captured in operation triple take, initiated by Operation Underground Railroad - Tim Ballard... There is always another side to the coin! Ideology is hyper focused on one negative aspect, bloating it as the totality, while blind to the exact counter to all their claims... Wisdom, is highly encouraged for these modern times!
10:30 "women might do and be much more than at present ..." Written in 1949, that seems to look down its nose at what most women were doing and "being" then and previously. I put being in quotes, because I am not sure what that means. In my time, it seems like a person IS their job, although myself I have never been all that attached to any of my jobs. It's just a meal ticket, it is not what I am. Anyway, to look at a sort of average woman from the past, consider one of my great grandmothers, Matilda. She was born in 1868 and died in 1967 about two months shy of her 89th birthday. What did she do? I don't have much of an idea. Nothing especially remarkable, I guess. Mostly a whole bunch of cooking and cleaning. She is the mother of 3 and grandmother of 5. Is Simone going to scoff at that? To be sad that she didn't "do MUCH more" in some sort of way? Compare her to another forgotten woman - Vida Dutton Scudder. Born in 1861 and died a few months shy of her 93rd birthday in 1954. Did she do more? She wrote a number of books, and articles, taught for a number of years at Wellesley, gave speeches, helped to found a settlement house, and so on. A fairly accomplished life which was mostly forgotten even by 1990 when I happened to learn of her. Is that somehow a better life that more women should try to emulate? Maybe, but I note that it is a life that most men of the time did not accomplish either. Matilda's accomplishments are not really any less than those of her husband (or most other men of that time, or the present). I might also note that Vida, like Simone did not "have it all". She had no children, or other descendants. It also seems to me that the accomplishments of 25 great grandchildren and at least 47 great great grandchildren are a part of Matilda's legacy which is pretty significant.
Very good points. The subjugation of women by men is highly exaggerated. In reality the largest change for women has been hormonal birth control. That has changed the culture to one where sex is not meant to have consequences so there is no need to get married. But unintended children still arrive in large numbers, and marriage is in great decline. That is a terrible unintended effect of the pill.
"One of the benefits that oppression secures for the oppressor is that the humblest among them feels superior(...) The most mediocre of males believes himself a demigod next to women." Minute 08:22.
That of course contradicts the other statement by S dB that men are afraid of women and need to control them. Watch the modern women interviewed on the street, many of them thinking they are superior to men and have no need of men. So often what feminists accuse men of is what women are inclined to do when "empowered".
Do these Greek thinkers ever take their conclusion Beyond human and desire to reconstruct other species such as the hierarchy of a pride of lions or perhaps removing the vocal cords of a rooster?
Janice,Steve 🙏🙏,no cencortube notification in 4 months. And I had to search for this. You both are definitely over the target 🎯 when you both are constantly censored by RUclips. Are you on LBRY?
@@webmasterultra3487 Oh no! My son had it briefly after he was born, and they fired purple rays at him in the hospital, with UV-goggle for protection. I didn't know adults got it as well.
British journalist Melanie Philip's book Sex Change Society at the end of the 1990s , characterised feminism of the day as "adolescent". In that it was all about thei individual and "freedom" from any constraint of culture or even reality. Hence the popularity of de Beauvoir et al because essentially their message is be selfish and self absorbed and it will be great. Some, she argues, remain in a perpetual strategic adolescence. However many start, belatedly, to deal with the realities of life ; from the "biological clock" to the obvious practical benefits of partners and extended families once there are children to support and look after. Very clearly de Beauvoir had all sorts of "issues" with sex and desire and was desperate for her debauched lifestyle to be "validated". What could be more attractive to those who wanted a carefree and responsibility free life ; than an ideology of irresponsibility and blame, for the inevitable downsides, firmly planted on "men" or "the patriarchy" when behaving like a petulant self absorbed teen turns out to be a poor strategy for life.
@@toweypat I read it cover to cover as I found it impossible to believe someone so revered as SdB could actually be so deranged. It was later that I discovered she was an abuser of teenagers…we’d now call her a pedophile. She was a very nasty piece of work
The Second Sex was written just a few years after women got the right to vote in France. French law was based on Napoleonic Code, where the husband had legal authority over their wives. A wife, for example, couldn't work or manage assets without her husbands consent, and this was true even a decade after The Second Sex was published. You remove her work from the context of her time, when women were objectively, institutionally, and legally dominated by their husbands authority.
Women could vote, see video on this channel. Men were held responsible for their wive's bad behaviour., and were rarely held personality accountable (even today wimen are often given a pass). Women did own and manage assets. Don't get your history from Feminism. See videos on this channel for details.
@@StudioBrule I said women just got the right to vote in my first sentence. They had to have permission to manage assets *in a marriage* under law at the time. The Law of July 13, 1965 authorized women to manage their own property and assets freely by opening a bank account in their own name, and to choose to exercise a professional activity without the permission of their husbands. The institution of marriage was legally tethered to patriarchal oppression at the time. This *is* the history according French Law, not feminist editorials.
I am having a hard tike understanding how is the qoute "One isn't born woman but becomes one" wrong? To me it seems perfectly reasonable, if we are talking about the concept of woman which is seperate from the biological aspect with the word.
i am convinced the ones of the same religion are the ones who financed the hatred of men and family. I would mention that religion but we know yt will allows no criticism of that one
Also, she had to form her philosophical argument in language that was polar because, that in fact had been true as pertained to the previous history of MOST women. Discussion of degrees or difference would just cloud the point. Realize that de Beauvoir herself did not call herself a feminist.
I think it was a priest I was reading who pointed out the most obvious fact. Men and women only make sense as men and women in relationship to each other. Men and women are unintelligible in themselves if their complementary sex doesn't exist. We are the vehicles of loving creation .. life itself ordered by our very natures to be faithful , indeed a faithful unity of love and the manifestation of this mutual self gift which is irrevocable by nature is seen in the splendor that is the laugh of a child. Love creates.
Like almost all the extreme feminists, SdB had weak, or absent, maternal instincts. Women in this position can often feel purposeless. When this is combined with their own resentment at female hypergamy the result is the anti-family, generally misandrist, feminist. Even the more mild-mannered Wilma Meikle believed that child-rearing should be handed over to the state.
"Extreme" feminists. You mean the suffragetes in the early 1900's who already wanted men to suffer? Just google the "white feather movement". All feminists are extremists.
15:05 I must say that in the early 90's up north me, my twin brother and my cousin used to see who could send their urine the highest and furthest. I did always win. MARK was the misogynist.
This really a folly of my own optimism to expect that you will be able refute her work with appropriate intellectual statement which are not rooted in your own prejudices and biases, do you realise that you have not been able to make a single claim that what she stated was not true but rather attacked her character and her own beliefs for their inherent nature. How childish.
This channel is a perfect example of how people can call themselves intellectuals and philosophers while being sexist and unsuspecting people will fall for it
You sound like you tried to build a 2 page sentence for half an hour in order to look smart, yet your comment is still just bitter mad whining because she critizised one of your gods.
On the opposite, i find this video a monstrous mystification of de Beauvoir’s work. Quotes are isolated from their wider context in order to make de Beauvoir appear like a fool. Moreover, about the idea that she exaggerated the concept of women oppression beyond reality, in a way that you are not able to identify in what she states… I ask myself: in which planet do you live? Either not in the Earth, either, and this is more probable, you are in bad faith and consequentely it is not de Beauvoir the lier. At the end of the day, de Beauvoir made history and inspired radical changes from which even you benefit, and you…you posted a denigratory video about her on RUclips. Now, spot the differences if you wish.
And on what planet do you live? Feminism major claim is that we live in patriarchy that disadvantages women to advance men. As such, feminism should be the underground movement with little to no support. And look around. Any criticism of feminism is instantly put down by mainstream, does not matter how precise it is. To present yourself openly as anti-feminist will damage your social status. Look how many financial support any feminist movement gets. When was the last time you have heard any politician promote anything to men benefits or interests? Emma Watson came with "He for She" and in a year she stood before UN giving speech. To say that Feminism is underground is beyond naive. And btw, it wasn't feminism that gave women freedom as we know it today. It was technological advancement, specifically reliable contraception and medical advancements so nobody expects that their two kids won't live to adulthood anymore.
These aren't *lies* (technically). Monstrous? Maybe (arguably) - alas, beliefs, opinions, "theories" often are. If Simone de Beauvoir *believed* what she wrote, then (technically) she wasn't lying. (Being mistaken isn't the same thing as lying.) (Being ideologically possessed isn't the same thing as lying.) Lying is when someone *knows* (or at least believes that one knows) what's true, then says or writes what one's knows isn't true. Although one could make the case that, e.g., whataboutery, motte-and-bailey, mind-reading (heck, soul-reading)-in a word, fallacies-abound in her writing and thinking (which is no doubt true, to varying degrees, for each and every human being that's ever existed), as bad as that'd be, that's *not* the same thing as actually, literally, technically, lying.
It was not truthful to say that men who ask about their partner's sexual pleasure actually wanted to dominate and humiliate the women. Beauvoir wasn't stupid. She knew that she couldn't possibly deduce men's mental state with any authority. Similarly, she knew that her extensive faux-sociological claims about the experience of girls in the heteropatriarchal family were founded on nothing real. Complete disregard for the truth is no different from lying.
@@willmercury It's always better to be accurate with one's words & wordings. Reality itself, and the honesty and indeed sanity that attends it, requires fidelity to the meaning of words. (Both Orwell and Roger Scruton have demonstrated this.) Similar to how woke types misuse words like "harm," for self-serving and ideological ends, counter-woke types must resist the temptation to misuse or use too loosely or "stretch" (or worse) words, too. (Am I making sense?) P.S.: pedantic bloviation was quite well put, quite well wrought (thank you for that - I'm going to remember that one); you'd likely appreciate this Mark Twain quotation (enjoy): "It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that there were too many prehistoric toads in it." -Mark Twain, Pudd’nhead Wilson
Except I think that Janice was making the point that, at the very least, SdB was turning a blind eye to the truth, and that comes within the purview of a lie.
@@benjaminperez969 I'm sorry for your severe autism but Simone Bouvdhsjsdjsksksk or whatever she's called is still a terrible writer, thinker and person.
Another gold nugget in this treasure trove of feminist history. Funny how so few have really criticized these feminist icons who were so nutty.
The other day I thought of how few people know the real history of feminism. Only a few feminists know it, and they're not telling.
Many have. They got silenced for it.
“So nutty” lol. Nice one, cuck.
Simone de Beauvoir was the Harvey Weinstein of her time. Seducing young girls whose careers she could influence.
She certainly raped boys.
Simone de Beauvoir was a political writer like Herbert Marcuse, not a scientist (or even a social scientist). Both of them Marxists (a political ideology).
Despite of the human rights abuses in Mao's China she still visited went there. If she didn't criticize Mao's abuses then I'd consider her a propagandist for Mao's regime.
‘One is not born, but rather becomes, woman’. This the complete opposite of what I’ve always heard, ‘woman is accepted as she is. A man must do something in order to be acceptable’.
Joseph Campbell... I recall him pointing out in tech primitive cultures females become women biologically with menstruation but males have to pass into manhood via some trial or test, often dangerous, and with dire consequences if they fail (expulsion from the tribe, say).
This book isn't Sociology. It s the autobiography of a bitter woman.
You are misunderstanding her completely. She is a perfect example of a sadistic psychopath. Her pleasure is only in manipulating and harming others. She knows women will read her writings and then they will suffer. For her language exists only to manipulate and harm others.
Fascinating and well-argued as always.
As a French person who recently dug into the "new left" from the May 68 movements, I am more and more horrified the deeper I dig.
This mob mixing the Psychoanalyst crooks, rich nihilistic idiots, "hero" philosophers like Sartre and De Beauvoir, the widespread sexual predation, the support for the worse totalitarian regimes (Mao, Pol Pot, Khomeini who couldn't have accessed to power in Iran without the aid of the French left)..... They also disconnected the left from the workers and the proletarian plea.
Worse than that, I also realized that their influence on French society has been profound, and we dearly pay the bill today in so, so many ways. From the way the judicial system works to the media, the general delusion, the terrible lack of objectivity in almost every domain, because a beautifully crafted sentence has more impact that any rationality...
It's too vast to summarize and explain in a few words, but the influence of that crowed has had a massively detrimental effect, and across the world, not just in France.
I even think at this stage that wokism and other extremist "left" movements take root exactly there. Even as far as the woke movements in the USA, when looking at the original influences.
Excellent comment!
Very well said. The left seems to have a predilection for sexual deviancy and, frankly, what we call debauchery. De Beauvoir's victimization of young girls belies her concern for women as individual human beings, and relegates them to objects of her personal, sexual desires as a lesbian. It is said here in the US that leftists of our Ruling Class have been active pedophiles for many years, and from what we know of the activities of Epstein, this seems more probable than most Americans ever imagined.
So, what is it about leftism/Marxism/wokism that creates such destructive tendencies in their most faithful adherents? Is tyranny a natural aspect of liberational philosophy, or does such philosophy contain within it the seeds of its own perversion and eventual downfall? How does what claims to be high morality descend into extremism, radical feminism, and the willful destruction of the societies from which it arises?
One thing for sure. The leftists' feelings of moral superiority are nothing but an illusion. If we believe in what they DO rather than what they SAY, we will come much closer to the truth about the tyranny of the left.
Speaking of Sartre (who was just as crazy as De Beauvoir): he apparently said that western society should let other countries overrun them as revenge for colonialism. This was in the introduction to a book. I'm looking for this quote. Let me know if you know the title.
The rallying cry of the French Revolution is so intoxicating . Now compine with that with sex drugs and rock n roll- the barricades, Paris in the spring- 68. You say you want a revolution? In theory yeah. I have to admit the American model works better though. Better checks and balances on flawed human nature. You can’t theorize it away with word magic. The Romanov Lenin effect will likely entail. Your liberators will tern out to be worse than your oppressors unless that what the left- old or new, aspires too. Unconscious process’s.Voten unleased. The threshold guardians have been aroused.God help us.
@@trondsiit’s happening now. The only gov agency, aside from the military the radical left, wish to abolish is homeland security. I defended borders that is.operation Trojan horse in plain sight
She, De Beauvoir, sounds like she was extremely passive aggressive. Blaming men for her own behaviour and perhaps self hatred.
perhaps a sociopath or narcissist
Cluster b pd no doubt
@@iceCOLDable I suspect more than a few feminists would come under that DSM
Thanks Janice for a brilliant expose of rationalisations for gendered hatred. You have wonderfully examined De Beauvoir's beliefs and linked them with her interpersonally toxic and self-destructive behaviour. I am saddened that in my experience, gendered nastiness nowadays seems far more prevalent in women and even encouraged as legitimate feminine assertiveness which, of course, it is not. I offer two broad generalisations of trends in behaviours by and between the sexes, the earliest signs of which became evident in public in the late 1970s. Now, most men, when challenged about their gendered nastiness, tend to retreat in shame. More and more women now tend to defend their gendered nastiness as righteous and deserving. De Beauvoir was indeed a destructive influencer.
Absolutely agreed. Remember "Ban bossy"? You're not supposed to tell a girl that she is bossy, because the word has a negative valence. We're supposed to celebrate "bossy" (and bitchy, rude, mean-spirited, and vengeful) female behavior in females from a young age. Our present era seeks to ruin women's characters and is largely succeeding.
Not forgetting the old chestnut Janice “never hit a girl” this was drummed into boys in my era. Instead of “never hit anyone” it left the door wide open for the acceptance of boy on boy violence.
And girl on boy violence.
Women usually initiate DV@@kaneplowman7901
@@kaneplowman7901 This is what my father taught me. When hands are thrown, the gloves come off whether it be man, woman or beast.
The only thing I like about Simone de Beauvoir is that she broke the heart of Jean Paul Sartre.
Good one!
@@janicefiamengo993"one is not born but becomes a woman"
What heart?
It seems to me that she broke her own heart while he laughed all the way to the next woman's bed....
It was his fault for sticking his duck in crazy
She never did a hard day's labour, so she didn't understand the sacrifices and suffering men make, as well as women. She spoke universally, because of her interest in philosophy, but really, she was reacting against academia and anyone who could stop her becoming famous and successful. With Marxism that sees society as conflicting groups, her obstacle to fame and success, she must have decided was the patriarchy. So, her fury - which was really caused by her rebellious life - was directed at men.
It's very much appreciated that you are reading intelligently texts that formed the basis for feminism. Most of us haven't the time or stomach to do so. These texts and their authors will certainly be taught to gullible young minds in 'women's studies' and 'gender studies' courses in taxpayer funded universities (secondary schools? kindergartens?). It's great to have these wonderful analyses to understand something of these works. A fine contribution to the discipline, albeit unwelcome by most of the feminist 'scholars'. Thanks again Prof Fiamengo!
THANK YOU FEMINISM!. Feminists did MEN a huge favor. Men can now focus on themselves instead of sacrificing their entire lives working 60/80 hours a week providing for a wife. Men can now enjoy a much more stress free & longer life without being married (for life) with (only one Woman) and financial ruin after divorce, with (alimony payments) & (18 years of child support payments) that SHE spends on herself. Yes, Thankyou Feminism!
Everything come up with pros and cons. The dark side of working both is the break down of family system and lack of parentship for the future kids. Not all women need a job ,but all men need a job. The duty for life is to live for ourselves and for our future generations.
May love & compassion born again between men&women.
Men could do all that before feminism.
Femunism has stripped away the mask that women wore and made their true natures plain. Their demands for equality, where it benefits women, and special protections when it doesn't. This is what he means.
That's no excuse for feminist crimes against humanity
That's all BS. Married men live longer,are richer and mentaly healthier.
You're talking about DIVORCED men.
We NEED women and family. Stop that childish BS.
I never was able to read The Second Sex without wanting to scream! In the 70s I argued with so many women in ‘consciousness raising’ groups that without recognizing women as (potential) mothers, the rhetoric was empty and misleading. I still believe I was correct.
I left these groups, being bored to tears by women sitting around moaning about their problems. I agree with you about many of her ideas, and, having read her book at 19 thought she promoted many fallacious ideas, stating the obvious, and espoused in those days Marxist and communist ideology.
Excellent, Janice! I say again that this series, FF2.0, would be wonderfully expressed as a book (the videos of course are wonderful). Why isn't some publisher on this?
Thank you, my friend! Maybe one day. I've done a lot of research, but I would have to do even more; it is such a rich history with so many diverse influences and aspects.
@@janicefiamengo993
🐟 26. FEMINISM:
Feminism is the penultimate evil at present because feminism is based on the misguided assumption that women are equal to (or even SUPERIOR to) men. The only institution more destructive to human society than feminism, is illicit governance (see Chapter 22).
Equality is non-existent in this transactional sphere. Equality exists ONLY in abstract concepts such as mathematics, and arguably, on the sub-atomic level. Even identical twins are not perfectly identical in every possible criterion. Geneticists have discovered that a pair of so-called “identical twins” share, on average, about only ninety-four percent of their genetics by the time they are born. Mothers of such twins can instinctually differentiate between them, since there are always distinguishing features. Unfortunately, for a great many persons, the objective fact that equality among humans is non-existent, is impossible to accept, since they are afflicted with what is known as a “leftist” mentality.
Although a female can exhibit superior traits, skills, etcetera, to some men, a woman can never have AUTHORITY over a man. Therefore, the assertion that women are subordinate to men is based purely on this notion of authority, not on any particular attribute, such as intelligence, wisdom, beauty, physical strength, or artistic talent. Simply because a woman may be stronger or more highly-educated than her husband, for instance, does not give her the right to instruct her master in any way. No true man has ever been attracted to a domineering, bossy female.
Truth be told, no true man would ever descend to the level of accepting counsel from ANY of his subordinates. A man should fully obey his appointed masters (such as his father, grandfather, uncle, employer, or priest), and never emasculate himself by submitting to the dictates of a mere female, or any other lesser. Of course, in past millennia, it was unnecessary to explicate the reasons why (adult) males are inherently superior in authority to females - most everybody, both men and women, accepted that claim without argument, as it seemed quite logical.
However, at the time of writing, especially in the Western World, very few understand that the reason for this assertion is due simply to it being part of the natural hierarchy of society. Only emasculated, feminized “men” are unable to comprehend this very basic fact of life.
Imagine the scenario where a woman provides the material requirements of her family, physically protects her family from harm, teaches and instructs her husband and their children. Does that appear to follow the natural order of things? OBVIOUSLY not. Therefore, my point is made.
Feminist ideology commonly manifests as the desire for women to perform the societal role of the OPPOSITE gender, that is to say, partaking in intrinsically male activities, such as studying at educational institutions, working for a wage, or building business enterprises (or even more preposterously, usurping the position of a national leader or the role of a member of the Holy Priesthood!). Feminism also advocates for preferential treatment of females in institutions that may have traditionally favoured men and/or boys, even when “the tables have been completely turned-around the other way”, so to speak. In a nutshell, feminists suffer from the psychological disorder termed “penis envy”, and fundamentally yearn to become males in every conceivable way (sometimes even biologically, despite the incontrovertible fact that transitioning from one gender to the other gender being a physiological impossibility). This explains why (female) feminists are typically manly.
Conversely, as a general rule, the more feministic and gynocentric is a man, the more effeminate and uxorious is his behaviour and manner.
This aspiration of a person wishing to seize the position of another person, deemed to be of higher value, is a common phenomenon in MALES as well, such as working-class men who consider themselves to be rulers/kings or priests. Every so-called “priest” and every national leader on earth, with virtually no exceptions, is either a worker, a businessman, or even more risibly, a mere female, who is literally stealing the occupation of an authentic guru or arrogating the role of a king. Such persons are, therefore, full-time criminals and ought to be censured.
Feminists are victims of the SLAVISH mentality that the instigators of that evil, pernicious ideology (Karl Marx and the so-called “Globalist Elite”) have always wanted them to be. The desire to serve is a natural propensity of humans, but one ought to serve a lawful authority.
It is extremely unfortunate that the vast majority of women are unable to see the obvious truth that feminist ideology wants the destruction of women (as well as society as a whole), as can clearly be seen at present. At least it is clearly seen by any decent, wise and intelligent person.
Due to feminist indoctrination and lack of proper discipline, as a consequence of an increasingly profane and secular world, modern women have become EXTREMELY debased. The typical woman nowadays is afflicted with bitterness, uncontrolled emotions (especially jealousy), gross immodesty, greed, arrogance, misery, snobbishness, and loneliness due to a false sense of “independence”, with hardly a single noble quality.
In those gynocentric societies that are dominated by feminism, men are urged to avoid any UNNECESSARY contact with the opposite gender. Those (heterosexual) males who disregard this sage advice will invariably regret their choices, either after experiencing false allegations against them, the destruction of their families through divorce, or after constant rejection by snobby women.
However, let it be made clear: the greatest enemy of males is NOT the opposite sex, but those uxorious “white-knight” so-called “men” who do the bidding of feminist ideologues, since they have far greater power than females, despite being truly pathetic-excuses-for-men.
wom•an n.
pl. wom•en
She who gives “woe” to “man” - therefore “wo(e)man”
“Though I have searched repeatedly, I have not found what I was looking for. Only one out of a thousand men is virtuous, but not one woman!”
“Ecclesiastes” 7:28.
“Holy Bible” (New Living Translation).
“We must not allow ourselves to be deflected by the feminists who are anxious to force us to regard the two sexes as completely equal in position and worth.”
Sigismund Schlomo Freud,
Austrian Neurologist.
@@janicefiamengo993 It needs to be!
@@janicefiamengo993 You are THAT woman for sure. And your careful framing of evidence and argument is a most welcome thing. Cheers
Thank god there are a few people who see clearly! Where would we be without you?
She actually published it right after a global event that majoritarily killed men BECAUSE of their gender. And to this day, the same happens. We are all watching it on TV, about Ukraine and Russia.
Where do I sign up to be part of the second gender? First gender kinda sucks.
who set that system up? not women
I had to look up 'majoritarily'. That is my new go-to comical choice over 'mostly' when in erudite company. ;)
@@themarxologist You don't think so?
Who raises children and tells them right from wrong?
You can't wash your hands that easily....
@@nickbarber2080 a mother can only do so much... the moment a boy is considered an adult, they are free to choose with what they want to do with their lives - which is, as said, influenced by the system
@@helsing7454 A mother can do a lot. the primary age to learn some behaviors (racism is example) is between 2 to 6. and that is when woman have the most influence. So once again woman cannot simply wash your hands of that influence.
Alice Schwarzer in Germany, who met Simone De Beauvoir in the 70ies and is very much influenced by her work, is nowadays in deep conflicts with the gender identity ideology. An interesting branch in history, I think.
Yes, the whole idea of the sex-gender distinction, which really begins with Beauvoir and was amplified by the American Kate Millett and others, is responsible for feminists' trouble with trans. But feminists refuse to own it.
As Dr. Jordan Peterson points out. Women migrating to the workforce doubles its size. Effect? Wages went down by half. Men were no longer paid a wage sufficient to support a family.
Not only did it suppress wages, it doubled the tax base and the value of the wealthy people's real estate portfolios. It could only be done once though. Here in Australia successive governments use immigration to continue the effect.
And it would likely (did?) increase house prices as people would be buying individually instead of as a family.
Except women always worked. Further you go into history, more both sexes worked from home. Take baker or smith, these did not "go to work". Farmer even more. After industrialization men started working as we know it and soon after women followed. This "man was able to provide for family himself" is a myth, that was exception that happened mostly in US after WWII, because it got into special position where Europe was destroyed by the war and US economy was boosted by it.
Really looking forward to this! Thank you, for putting all this information together. Its a lot of research.
Thank you. There is more to be done on Beauvoir. She wrote many novels that expounded her philosophy too, and I admit I haven't read them. Also, to be truly thorough, one would need to read her letters to Sartre, which I also haven't done (yet--maybe one day).
@@janicefiamengo993
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but if you don't mind saying, when it comes to what's moral for men and moral for women, do you base that on what's natural for other animals, particularly animals that are closely related to the ones we evolved from? From some of what you've said in certain videos, I kind of sense that you feel like men shouldn't be called out when they act in creepy ways due to the fact that they're supposedly just follow their natural male instincts. Is that your perspective or do I have it wrong? If, by chance, I'm understanding your perspective correctly, the issue is that as you probably know, something being a natural or something that other animals do doesn't necessarily make it ethical or good. For instance, no other animals use computers or any other electronic devices that are manmade, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should get rid of all of our electronic devices on basis
Wonderful "deconstruction" of this horrible intelectual treachery. Thank you!
Just from wiki:
Beauvoir was born on 9 January 1908[10] into a bourgeois Parisian family in the 6th arrondissement.[11][12][13] Her parents were Georges Bertrand de Beauvoir, a lawyer, who once aspired to be an actor,[14] and Françoise Beauvoir (née Brasseur), a wealthy banker's daughter and devout Catholic. Simone's sister, Hélène, was born two years later on June 6, 1910. The family struggled to maintain their bourgeois status after losing much of their fortune shortly after World War I, and Françoise insisted the two daughters be sent to a prestigious convent school.
So, her mother, second sex with no influence, insisted that she go to prestigious school? How was that possible in her mind? How can a property and slave insist that master do something against his will exactly?
Man has money, so man has power. This is the logic.
@@FDJUwe The same shallow logic as : Men cannot be victims of DV because they are bigger.
Too bad she didn't learn or understand the lucid beauty of Catholic natural law theory which is pretty much the foundation of human rights in the west or a truly liberal view, advancing true human freedoms and responsibilities. The US constitution though composed by protestants , followed the Catholic natural law views which I would maintain are simple sanity. But.. as always.. I digress. Cheers
her confused mind, thought women are a minority group. Not realizing women are always part of the same social group as the man. When a woman starts competing with men, in mens discipline, these women play a losing game. Same would be true for man.
@@tommore32633:30
"...biological privilege enabled men to affirm themselves as sovereign subjects"
We are seeing the impact of the matriarchy in San Francisco and its relentless compassion devoid of expectation.
Janice you are the best, de Beauvoir was completely crazy...
You are so much more effective when we can see you. And the photo you post, you aren’t even looking at the camera lense. Love your work, always.
Excellent
Fantastic
Nice take here and many things to (re) consider.
Daddy issues, envy (including penis envy) and influence that's allowed to go unchallenged.
Sounds like she is merely justifying her own self loathing..
Bravo.
Outstanding!
I was absolutely shocked to learn that Simon liked the YOUNGER "fairer" sex. I mean what a shocker, whoda thought. Great video. I always learn something when I tune into your channel.
I heard Helen Dale say that lesbians are over represented in feminism
Ms. Fiamengo, you are a pearl!!!! Your erudite commentary on the history of feminism is much needed in a society that has failed to examine the hypocrisy and the socially destructive nature of this ideology. Thanks for all you do, please keep going!!!
_In-case-ya-dint-know...._ 'Ms.' is a Feminist construction.
Simone De Beauvoir (1908-1986) may have been a wiser woman had she been more acquainted with her elder Henry Lewis Mencken (1880-1956) and his wonderful essay 'In Defense of Women' (Libravox & Gutenberg), an astonishing work about human nature, delivered with great wit subtle humour*. Sadly, an exchange between them wasn't part of their fates nor ours.
The 'reader' in Libravox is absolutely excellent. No one else could conjure up Mencken better than his unique voice. Wonder what became of him after that gift ?
@18:15 She was obviously the aggressor at times, at least with her female students, and there's a sacred trust she broke.
Every fruity revolution began in some weirdo's philosophy classroom. Our thoughts determine our lives, say the Saints. These are not happy or life giving thoughts. May she rest in peace and her ideas do less damage...
Beauvoir always sought to intellectualise her own anxiety and insecurity.
As far as I can tell, the biggest problem within academia (broadly defined) was publishers allowing ideology to be published in the first place. I mean this in the sense that it is impossible to discuss an idea if it is worded in a way that it can't be falsified. I suspect that this is a root cause of the problems that our society is facing today.
I don't know how people can absorb and share their existence without that classic western realistic view of Aristotle and Aquinas who affirm the innate sense and awareness of intrinsic purpose and meaning as ultimately the manifestation of that Spirit who literally is, BEING itself... Himself dare I say. I find traditional Catholic rational life to be the only comprehensively solid foundation for mind and soul. As I noted above , her natural law theory is what American protestants adopted in their formation of the rights of man and constitution. I don't know how... or rather I do... but remain surprised that so many stagger along with such a disconnect in their minds from reality. And de Beauvoir is a great example of this. We are here to instantiate love and communion, community, Love.... not "luv".
Cheers
Glad I found a link to your site , sir. Keep up the brave work.
@@tommore3263 Thank you for your encouragement, Tom!
so your solution is censorship? and only allowing for one ideology.. reminds me of a book i read called 1984
@@themarxologist So your solution is completely misreading a simple statement to make someone look like a fascist while you literally have Marx in your name and can't seem to spell a single sentence right?
based studio b
I'm rhankful I found this. I read her thirty years ago and did not find ber empowering. Rather, what I saw was college friends of mine using her wirks go justify amoral behaviors.
It's ACCURATE to state that females are born girls *before* becoming women. :D
Such is the consistent illogic dictated by [her] preterdmined conclusion
Interesting.not quite what I remember learning in school 🤣 thank you for the video 👍
Keep in mind, her lover/companion was JP Sartre, who was barely 5 feet tall and had wall-eyes. Hardly Apollo! Talk about "Short Man Syndrome"! They were made for each other, and the product of each other's Narcissism.
I think she knew very well how important motherhood was for most women. That's why she said, "No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children".
Lol
@@StudioBrule What do you mean?
Dear Janice, I'm so glad I've found you!
Thanks, Janice.
The worst ideas in the world tend to come from France......I remember some quote about that and it still holds true.
change France to Feminists... and you're much, much closer to the truth.
16:30 "the mere fact of having to hide her sanitary napkins and of concealing her period inclines her to lies"
One is not born a French, Sexy, Woman; one becomes a French, Sexy, Woman. Which is not a bad thing. French, sexy, women are something that is well worth the trouble of being. Even woman who are a little . . . angular . . . should feel free to make the effort.
Ha ha. Apparently eating (not too much) dark chocolate helps.
Ain't one the first stories growing children learn about, after Santa, is the one about the 'Birds & the Bees' ? T'was an introduction to what always becomes a life-long study for some and often forgotten by many others.
ah yes, body shaming
One is not born but becomes bitter and twisted
She anticipated woke ideology by 50 years! Very little has been added.
I read S.B 40 years ago with a certain interest but abandon her very quickly 30 year ago when I got my two daughters.... Realized she didn't experience actual life...
"Marxism", if the word is applicable at all in the casual throwaway manner it is used, is most certainly NOT about antagonism between IDENTITY GROUPS. Social classes are products of the structural features of the economic mode of society.
But the bourgeoisie and proletariat are to some extent inherited identities.
@@markaurelius61 No, they are inherited class positions. Get lost with your post-materialist garbage.
Good thing those jobs I have had have never had any 'drudgery and repetition'.
if you have the right contacts, you can publish anything.
Excellent work again, Janice! In a sane world, you would be commended within academia for discovering the roots of society's problems. Alas, this is not a sane world although there are sane people in this world.
I wonder if it would be possible to compile the audio files for these videos and have them available either for download or as a box set of CDs.
All the tentpole ideas and doctrines from Objectification to the Bechtel Test were based on nothing more than assertions laundered through academic culture and repeated ad nausea. I scarce believe you could convince your younger self of such a thing though.
Shameful, I know.
5:42 - Therefore, the woman is the eternal victim. An early Post-modern manifest.
And people still revere her
'people'
Someone buy Janice some acoustic room abspobers and a better microphone. It sounds like she's trapped in a small bathroom.
And certain people scoffed recently when I opined that feminism had helped birth the trans movement... 🤔
well.... trans people aren't new. they've always existed in the background, in modern times we've just learned more about them.. because of science and biology and stuff. to deny that trans people are real is just factually incorrect and uneducated
*_"What a load!"_*
- Bender The Robot
I realize this video is a criticism of de Beauvoir, but we need to remember that women in America could not take out a loan or apply for a credit card without a man's co-signature until 1974 with the passing of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
I do agree, however, that disconnecting women's lives from our bodies has had disastrous results for women.
Thank you, Janice, for reading this so I don’t have to. Almost unbelievably, I have yet to read, ‘The Feminine Mystique’. I’m a goofus.
De Beauvoir, like Leacock and Mackennan, advanced feminism in one era, and a few decades later the MGTOW movement emerged.
+1
Other propagandists for the Maoist regime were the Swedish socialists Jan (a male name) and Alva Myrdal.
Have you seen photographs of the old 1800s asylums on acreage? The massive mental asylums that were some of the biggest buildings in America at the time?
We need to build those again.... to house all women like Simone de Beauvoir.
There are literally millions like her today.
Magnificent Octopus 🐙
Thank you Janis
An Instructor having relationship with students is really inappropriate. Even if both are adults, that's a barrier that shouldn't be crossed. I come from the viewpoint of a man educated with a Bachelor of Science in Kinesiology and certified as a, Kindergarten - 12th grade, Teacher in the State of Texas, USA. My education comprised of the physical-physiological and psychological development of children into adulthood. The concept of gender is a myth to me. Child rearing and societal differences exist in countries and cultures, but a male is male and female is female.
At 21:25, "even with full political and legal equality these ideas would continue to assert there malignant ...." Isn't that the Marxist ideology fed to every group? You are always a victim. They are always against you. The name of the term escapes me now, but the emphasis upon pitting one group against another to see who has the most grievances is highly destructive.
Yes, the parallels between Marxian indoctrination and feminism are very close.
Yes, the same script can be applied to every institution about knowledge and gatekeepers always struggling to maintain power, by determining or "labeling" with no objective reality .. or simply rejection of objective reality as a legitimate source of knowledge.
Now you have "lived experience" but that means only in context of the approved Marxist oppression narrative.
Anyone's actual lived experience that rejects the oppression narrative is nothing more than "false consciousness" or internalized repression.
This is interesting!
Specifically - the claim that 'woman' is created, not born.
Academy of ideas made a video regarding a similar thing, but for men - specifically looking at how various tribal cultures (but not limited to) 'thought' of manhood: that it too was something earned, something created, 'the big impossible'... The video is called 'why are so many men psychologically infantile'...
So I was curious to see what the author of the claim (not this video) had to say about this...
So far, I have heard only a summary of the treatise of the domination of women by men...
I smile inside, because I know stories of the exact opposite, in modern times, where 'the Colombian Queen' was trafficking children, as sex slaves...
She was captured in operation triple take, initiated by Operation Underground Railroad - Tim Ballard...
There is always another side to the coin!
Ideology is hyper focused on one negative aspect, bloating it as the totality, while blind to the exact counter to all their claims...
Wisdom, is highly encouraged for these modern times!
10:30 "women might do and be much more than at present ..." Written in 1949, that seems to look down its nose at what most women were doing and "being" then and previously. I put being in quotes, because I am not sure what that means. In my time, it seems like a person IS their job, although myself I have never been all that attached to any of my jobs. It's just a meal ticket, it is not what I am.
Anyway, to look at a sort of average woman from the past, consider one of my great grandmothers, Matilda. She was born in 1868 and died in 1967 about two months shy of her 89th birthday. What did she do? I don't have much of an idea. Nothing especially remarkable, I guess. Mostly a whole bunch of cooking and cleaning. She is the mother of 3 and grandmother of 5.
Is Simone going to scoff at that? To be sad that she didn't "do MUCH more" in some sort of way? Compare her to another forgotten woman - Vida Dutton Scudder. Born in 1861 and died a few months shy of her 93rd birthday in 1954. Did she do more? She wrote a number of books, and articles, taught for a number of years at Wellesley, gave speeches, helped to found a settlement house, and so on. A fairly accomplished life which was mostly forgotten even by 1990 when I happened to learn of her.
Is that somehow a better life that more women should try to emulate? Maybe, but I note that it is a life that most men of the time did not accomplish either. Matilda's accomplishments are not really any less than those of her husband (or most other men of that time, or the present). I might also note that Vida, like Simone did not "have it all". She had no children, or other descendants. It also seems to me that the accomplishments of 25 great grandchildren and at least 47 great great grandchildren are a part of Matilda's legacy which is pretty significant.
Very good points. The subjugation of women by men is highly exaggerated. In reality the largest change for women has been hormonal birth control. That has changed the culture to one where sex is not meant to have consequences so there is no need to get married. But unintended children still arrive in large numbers, and marriage is in great decline. That is a terrible unintended effect of the pill.
"One of the benefits that oppression secures for the oppressor is that the humblest among them feels superior(...) The most mediocre of males believes himself a demigod next to women." Minute 08:22.
That of course contradicts the other statement by S dB that men are afraid of women and need to control them.
Watch the modern women interviewed on the street, many of them thinking they are superior to men and have no need of men. So often what feminists accuse men of is what women are inclined to do when "empowered".
Do these Greek thinkers ever take their conclusion Beyond human and desire to reconstruct other species such as the hierarchy of a pride of lions or perhaps removing the vocal cords of a rooster?
Janice,Steve 🙏🙏,no cencortube notification in 4 months. And I had to search for this. You both are definitely over the target 🎯 when you both are constantly censored by RUclips. Are you on LBRY?
“Jaundice observations”
Jaundiced observations
@@markaurelius61, yeah, proud to have jaundice, it’s my life.
@@webmasterultra3487 Oh no! My son had it briefly after he was born, and they fired purple rays at him in the hospital, with UV-goggle for protection.
I didn't know adults got it as well.
@@markaurelius61, love is beautiful.
British journalist Melanie Philip's book Sex Change Society at the end of the 1990s , characterised feminism of the day as "adolescent". In that it was all about thei individual and "freedom" from any constraint of culture or even reality. Hence the popularity of de Beauvoir et al because essentially their message is be selfish and self absorbed and it will be great. Some, she argues, remain in a perpetual strategic adolescence. However many start, belatedly, to deal with the realities of life ; from the "biological clock" to the obvious practical benefits of partners and extended families once there are children to support and look after. Very clearly de Beauvoir had all sorts of "issues" with sex and desire and was desperate for her debauched lifestyle to be "validated". What could be more attractive to those who wanted a carefree and responsibility free life ; than an ideology of irresponsibility and blame, for the inevitable downsides, firmly planted on "men" or "the patriarchy" when behaving like a petulant self absorbed teen turns out to be a poor strategy for life.
Men are the subjects while when are the objects.
For all her political stances,she didn't seem to be very happy....
My god, Janice--did you read that entire book?
She is an academic. Reading books and elucidating their meaning is her stock-in-trade.
@@jonahtwhale1779 But 700 pages of postmodernist piffle!
@@toweypat I read it cover to cover as I found it impossible to believe someone so revered as SdB could actually be so deranged. It was later that I discovered she was an abuser of teenagers…we’d now call her a pedophile. She was a very nasty piece of work
Mu golden arcs embarrassed me, I just sit as well.
Omg you are doing a history of feminism. I missed a lot of videos.😁
How far back does female privilege go? thousands of years? to the beginning of Time?
no, never really existed like that... still doesn't
The Second Sex was written just a few years after women got the right to vote in France. French law was based on Napoleonic Code, where the husband had legal authority over their wives. A wife, for example, couldn't work or manage assets without her husbands consent, and this was true even a decade after The Second Sex was published.
You remove her work from the context of her time, when women were objectively, institutionally, and legally dominated by their husbands authority.
Women could vote, see video on this channel. Men were held responsible for their wive's bad behaviour., and were rarely held personality accountable (even today wimen are often given a pass). Women did own and manage assets.
Don't get your history from Feminism. See videos on this channel for details.
@@StudioBrule I said women just got the right to vote in my first sentence.
They had to have permission to manage assets *in a marriage* under law at the time.
The Law of July 13, 1965 authorized women to manage their own property and assets freely by opening a bank account in their own name, and to choose to exercise a professional activity without the permission of their husbands.
The institution of marriage was legally tethered to patriarchal oppression at the time. This *is* the history according French Law, not feminist editorials.
I am having a hard tike understanding how is the qoute "One isn't born woman but becomes one" wrong?
To me it seems perfectly reasonable, if we are talking about the concept of woman which is seperate from the biological aspect with the word.
But Simone De Beauvoir is a giant in the Lilliputian community!!!
thank you feminism for exposing the true evil of some disgruntled women .
She had quite the imagination.
i am convinced the ones of the same religion are the ones who financed the hatred of men and family. I would mention that religion but we know yt will allows no criticism of that one
Yet Aristotle called women “incomplete men.” Realize the historical constraints of her era and of those that went before. Read Knox.
Also, she had to form her philosophical argument in language that was polar because, that in fact had been true as pertained to the previous history of MOST women. Discussion of degrees or difference would just cloud the point. Realize that de Beauvoir herself did not call herself a feminist.
@jenniferkemp2337 Where did Aristotle called women incompetent men? He pretty much say men and women are different and better at different things.
Sounds like Aristotle was really based. Have to buy his books even more urgently now.
I think it was a priest I was reading who pointed out the most obvious fact. Men and women only make sense as men and women in relationship to each other. Men and women are unintelligible in themselves if their complementary sex doesn't exist.
We are the vehicles of loving creation .. life itself ordered by our very natures to be faithful , indeed a faithful unity of love and the manifestation of this mutual self gift which is irrevocable by nature is seen in the splendor that is the laugh of a child. Love creates.
Like almost all the extreme feminists, SdB had weak, or absent, maternal instincts. Women in this position can often feel purposeless. When this is combined with their own resentment at female hypergamy the result is the anti-family, generally misandrist, feminist. Even the more mild-mannered Wilma Meikle believed that child-rearing should be handed over to the state.
Explain maternal extinct.
"Extreme" feminists. You mean the suffragetes in the early 1900's who already wanted men to suffer? Just google the "white feather movement". All feminists are extremists.
15:05 I must say that in the early 90's up north me, my twin brother and my cousin used to see who could send their urine the highest and furthest. I did always win. MARK was the misogynist.
😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔😔
deep
But some women do dedicate their lives to seducing men.
how do you know that? how do you know that it's not some men who spend their entire lives being horny and easily aroused?
z
This really a folly of my own optimism to expect that you will be able refute her work with appropriate intellectual statement which are not rooted in your own prejudices and biases, do you realise that you have not been able to make a single claim that what she stated was not true but rather attacked her character and her own beliefs for their inherent nature. How childish.
This channel is a perfect example of how people can call themselves intellectuals and philosophers while being sexist and unsuspecting people will fall for it
That it infuriates you does not change the historical facts presented in the video. You have been fooled by feminist lies.
You sound like you tried to build a 2 page sentence for half an hour in order to look smart, yet your comment is still just bitter mad whining because she critizised one of your gods.
Oh please!!! Pshaw!! This is a hit piece with no historical context!!
That it infuriates you does not change the historical facts presented in the video. You have been fooled by feminist lies.
All you did was whack a few SdB quotes on the screen ( most of which I agreed with) and proceeded to ramble on without any coherent, concise rebuttal.
@@StudioBrule do you believe that men and women are equal and deserve equal rights, and obligations?
@EllieisHere No she pretty much prove feminism wasn't based on reality.
On the opposite, i find this video a monstrous mystification of de Beauvoir’s work. Quotes are isolated from their wider context in order to make de Beauvoir appear like a fool. Moreover, about the idea that she exaggerated the concept of women oppression beyond reality, in a way that you are not able to identify in what she states… I ask myself: in which planet do you live? Either not in the Earth, either, and this is more probable, you are in bad faith and consequentely it is not de Beauvoir the lier. At the end of the day, de Beauvoir made history and inspired radical changes from which even you benefit, and you…you posted a denigratory video about her on RUclips. Now, spot the differences if you wish.
Even today there's a large market of fools for De Beauvoir's transparent sophistry.
And on what planet do you live? Feminism major claim is that we live in patriarchy that disadvantages women to advance men. As such, feminism should be the underground movement with little to no support. And look around. Any criticism of feminism is instantly put down by mainstream, does not matter how precise it is. To present yourself openly as anti-feminist will damage your social status. Look how many financial support any feminist movement gets. When was the last time you have heard any politician promote anything to men benefits or interests? Emma Watson came with "He for She" and in a year she stood before UN giving speech.
To say that Feminism is underground is beyond naive.
And btw, it wasn't feminism that gave women freedom as we know it today. It was technological advancement, specifically reliable contraception and medical advancements so nobody expects that their two kids won't live to adulthood anymore.
These aren't *lies* (technically). Monstrous? Maybe (arguably) - alas, beliefs, opinions, "theories" often are. If Simone de Beauvoir *believed* what she wrote, then (technically) she wasn't lying. (Being mistaken isn't the same thing as lying.) (Being ideologically possessed isn't the same thing as lying.) Lying is when someone *knows* (or at least believes that one knows) what's true, then says or writes what one's knows isn't true. Although one could make the case that, e.g., whataboutery, motte-and-bailey, mind-reading (heck, soul-reading)-in a word, fallacies-abound in her writing and thinking (which is no doubt true, to varying degrees, for each and every human being that's ever existed), as bad as that'd be, that's *not* the same thing as actually, literally, technically, lying.
It was not truthful to say that men who ask about their partner's sexual pleasure actually wanted to dominate and humiliate the women. Beauvoir wasn't stupid. She knew that she couldn't possibly deduce men's mental state with any authority. Similarly, she knew that her extensive faux-sociological claims about the experience of girls in the heteropatriarchal family were founded on nothing real. Complete disregard for the truth is no different from lying.
What a pedantic bloviation. Thanks for the insight.
@@willmercury It's always better to be accurate with one's words & wordings. Reality itself, and the honesty and indeed sanity that attends it, requires fidelity to the meaning of words. (Both Orwell and Roger Scruton have demonstrated this.) Similar to how woke types misuse words like "harm," for self-serving and ideological ends, counter-woke types must resist the temptation to misuse or use too loosely or "stretch" (or worse) words, too. (Am I making sense?) P.S.: pedantic bloviation was quite well put, quite well wrought (thank you for that - I'm going to remember that one); you'd likely appreciate this Mark Twain quotation (enjoy): "It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that there were too many prehistoric toads in it." -Mark Twain, Pudd’nhead Wilson
Except I think that Janice was making the point that, at the very least, SdB was turning a blind eye to the truth, and that comes within the purview of a lie.
@@benjaminperez969 I'm sorry for your severe autism but Simone Bouvdhsjsdjsksksk or whatever she's called is still a terrible writer, thinker and person.