This happened to me I was kept home from school to look after my family because my mother had mental health issues, and now that I am trying to educate myself, I find myself under attack from other women and men who think I have no right to educate myself
Hey! Awesome podcast and I'm glad I found it. I'm taking an intro philosophy class for an ethics minor and we are discussing feminism. I have my preconceptions, admittedly, and my professor is biased in her views, so I've been looking for less biased views and discussion. I feel more sympathetic to the cause, but I'm still cautious about large overarching ideologies in general. Thank you for providing some well educated points that summarize Beauvoir well.
@@diessica I’m pretty sure he is taking about Neir:Automata. A boss in the game is a persona of her. The game is incredibly interesting both story wise and gameplay. I can’t recommend it enough.
Appreciate your points with all presentation of the background of feminism but I want to listen to one of your presentations on feminism as a scientific literary theory
And I would like to add that not all sexism these days is covert, much of the blatant sexism against women can be witnessed here on RUclips. However, you could argue that it is covert since people can comment without revealing identity. Not that that isn't an easy fix (hacking, duh). Aside from that, I still get catcalled. And every man I deal with in a professional setting will make at least one move to either touch me inappropriately or call me "baby" or "sweetie," then defend himself by saying, "oh, sorry. That's just how I talk to/act around women." I'm an electrical engineer. Not a woman, not in that setting anyhow.
thanks for your great work , i think : if women had the power in the first eras , the world wouldn't change , it is the power and ideologies that shapes the nature . their nature qould be the same as men's .
women had the power in as they were the majority, women were the ones who first domesticated fire, invested medicine, made calendars and a bunch of other shit, google pre paganist matriarchy//goddess feminism
and why would men relinquish their power over women?? I think cultural history and bias has created inequality no matter what. It's the same for any oppressed people. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It's bizarre and frustrating to me that so many people don't pay attention to Feminist history. I'll tell you people still demean the subject just like I remember being demeaned by some people during the 60s and 70s when I would speak about the subject.
A lot of effort being a subject (need to act, exert transcendence), easier to be an object. Tension between this 7 ways to objectify Transcendent(male), imminent (female) Differentialist feminist vs egalitarianism feminism
Whoa! People DO tend to objectify those they disregard and exploit. Like hunters objectify living sentient animal by saying "I harvest it" after they shoot them dead, for no reason usually other than their own sadistic pleasure. Just fyi :) (But people do lots of good stuff too!!)
I can't believe you didn't touch on the huge role religions played in enforcing misogany and patriarchy and oppressing women and dimishing their role in society.
Learn history and you know who is responsible for the difference of rights between men and women. Take the ancient Greek and Roman position and compare it to the Celtic or the Germanic attitude. Unfortunately, the Western culture was build on the Greek and Roman culture and not on the Celtic or Germanic culture.
I'm studying European history all my life. So, the important difference between Germanic and Celtic role patterns for women and those of the ancient Greeks and Romans is known to me. A woman could wear arms and divorce in Celtic and Germanic cultures, she was seen more or less as an equal partner in those cultures (for instance: Boudicca). But, thanks to the intellectual achievements of (especially) the Greeks and the Romans, it was their world that stood as a role model for the Western culture and in those cultures women had practically no rights at all. Furthermore, the situation of women got worse thanks to the catholic church that forbid and suppressed any slightly feminist gospel (like the gospel of Maria Magdalena, the story of the devout partner of St-Paul for whom God did several miracles), that precluded women to become priests (what wasn't the case in the early days of christianity) and that killed EVERYBODY who didn't agree with these rules, among others by organising crusades within Europe (for instance: the conquest of the original Prussia by Teutonic Knights). If you look at history, you come a long way in explaining why women have been treated the way they have been treated.
@@JCiesko I'm sorry, Jakub, but I don't know much about the role of women in the Slav societies. I guess that's the disadvantage of growing up in the Cold War. In the West, we had very little contact with the Slav world... :(((
I dont think we should view existencialism as a escence denying theory. I mean, it can have started that way, but it is doomed to oblivion if taken literally. There is no way to reject that human have certain biological conditions. There is no way to reject that men and women have different biological conditions between them. From this starting point, we can debate anything anyone feels like debating. But denying so, its only stubborn. I think that a modern interpretation of existencialism should use this as starting point: we are animals with genetics conditions, but we have the ability to question them; therefore, our existence preceds any social construct. We are individual beings that CREATE a social media, with certain limitations rooted in our biologic desing.
Thoughtful analysis .... (I wish reality was not so gray ... after all, SdB procured young women for her beloved JPS -- to please him. How's that for paradoxical objectification?!)
Was listening to your series with interest. Then I spun this up. I have a degree in Women's Studies. I've spent quite a bit of time with SdB's writing. Why you had to actually use the term 'witch hunt' is beyond me. Systemic gender equality is on display for all to see. Whatever work environment you imagine is hiring based on merit, I guarantee you that women have no amount of parity there as far as numbers hired or pay. Except in the still existent 'pink collar' professions. Your corpus is proof of this. The philosophical accounts you cover are overwhelmingly white and male.
the hiring story was an unfortunate example of how non-feminists let their fears and inherent sexist biases creep in - even to apparently "neutral" podcasts explaining philosophies. You missed her point completely. Going to see if your other podcasts (on men) have less implied commentary...
im confused that you make the point (maybe not adopted by your own but used as an example) of it being the ways of nature for a female to have an interest in the sedentary lifestyles... but then critique when history blankets explanations with "that was the nature of how merderuous and evil war was back then". im sure some women, looking back into histroy before this "male oppression" had its footing with agriculture, actually did prefer a role of compliance but at the same time another woman also preferred to be a warrior on equal with her male counterpart! point im tryin to make here is that true freedom will come to women when this "definition veil" is lifted and we have our own language into doing what we want not because it is accepted as male based OR female based... just you and your experince of the world where gender has melted into a useless term!
A female warrior? These only exist in GOT and Marvel Comics. Do you even how much a typical two-handed medieval sword weighed? It would take 2 adult males of your LGBT community to carry it. "at the same time another woman also preferred to be a warrior on equal with her male counterpart! " LMAO
@@breandadavis3168 That's true, but going back again to the prehistoric era in which we as a species were devoided of cultural biases, then you can make a case for why male predominancy started as just a trait of natural selection defined not by humans themselves but the enviroment. I'm not trying to justify the vile history of injustice to women in modern and present times by any means. I just think that to deny the role of biology in all of this is a little naive, therefore to believe in the possibility of an 'egalitarian' prehistory sounds less than an actual possibility and more like romantization.
@@breandadavis3168 she said hun lol but yeah vikings used females. A lot of times armys used females in hope's that men would be hesitant in killing females.
One shortcoming I always see in feminist philosophy is the claim that throughout history, women were oppressed. This claim is true, but what I'd like to focus on is the omission implicit in this claim. Or what some more radical feminists claim; that men were never oppressed, that they were privileged, that they "dominated" society. Feminists take it as some sort of objective fact that if you were teleported to the 1700s and were given the option of being male or female, you would be foolish not to choose male. As if the average man was living the dream working 12-16 hours a day as a miner and being forcefully drafted for war... It seems clear to me at least that while all the people in power were men - they held absolutely no allegiance to their gender. They shared no power with the common man. 99%+ of men living in this period were just as much oppressed as the women were. They were a means to an end for whatever the ruling, rich elite desired. Yes, men could vote and women couldn't. But men had to sign up for the draft and carry out military service in exchange for this right. It was unjust not to offer it to women; but it hardly seems fit to say that women were oppressed because of this fact. If you teleported back to the 1700s, would you gladly sign up for military service just so you could vote? Both men and women were forced into dangerous and harmful social roles throughout history. The erasure of male suffering is something I've always found offputting in feminist circles. It's almost like men are treated as a sort of "other" to them; as if the average man of history who was dying in horrible work conditions trying to feed his family was their enemy.
I don't view this as a matter of who suffered more, but as a matter of who had a choice and who didn't... Simone did say, I believe, that we're all human, regardless of our gender (sex). Interpret this as you wish. There's at least 2 sides of every story.
No reasonable feminist has ever said " men were never oppressed ", considering that many feminists (especially contemporary philosophers) are sympathetic to racial justice, and are often leftists (as in they believe the wage worker is oppressed by the capitalist mode of production). I'm left to scratch my head in bewilderment as to where you have acquired this opinion of feminists. Certainly not from any feminist writings, that's for damn sure.
I can’t tell here, but you must surely be a man. History clearly shows that at least beginning with agriculture, men of all classes used their extra muscle, testosterone and violence pulse lack of empathy to overpower women and make her the “helpmeet” with the assistance of religions and force her to serve him, have sex whenever he wants and to follow his every decision. Studying philosophy without studying history is a fools errand.
Is Ms de Beauvoir your sister or a relative. Are you close friends? NO? Then why do you think to infantilse her by calling her "Simone"? You don't call Sartre Jean-Paul or Heidegger good old Martin. So why the belittling use of her first name? It's unprofessional and dare I say sexist.
Her argument is valid but not sound. I agree with the thoughts on feminine/masculine qualities but not to the extent of gender as a whole. Biology determines gender. If you take 1000 female and a 1000 males kids and isolate them from any pre-existing notion of gender norms and you can even keep them in today's society so literal strength(defense) and literal hunting arent factors...what do you think would happen ranging from the immediate to generational?
Idk man, what would happen in your completely impossible hypothetical and why do I get the feeling you presume to know the answer. Rather than inventing up impossible scenarios, one need only look to the varying gender norms across culture and time to see that gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined.
We raised our kids without gender norms and they only started copying such behaviors from friends around age 8 or so. Now in their mid-30s, they are uniquely their own mix of what our culture calls feminine and masculine. People joke that she is more masculine and he more feminine but that’s just because they are both firmly in the middle. His closest friends are still women. But not too many guys are interested in having women as friends so her guy friends have dwindled as they aged. We did homeschool but weren’t isolationists and organized daily time with public school kids in activities and the neighborhood. They did and do have friends of a wider age range, too. Our daughter likes to tell the story of how she only realized people gender chores when she and her partner moved in with their kids from earlier marriages and his girl and boy had different chore lists and acted so differently. Interestingly, his daughter became transgender midway through high school.
It's quite dissapointing you forgot to put your own hat on the table. Anyway the thing is that De Beauvoir conveniently omits is that the biological differences not only effect your physique, but also mentally due to different hormone levels. Making them not just physically weak men(what would be really sexist), but whole different creatures who also behave differently. This is why older societies put women in the roles that are best suited for (most of) them and a healthy society.
I'm not going to rewatch the whole episode to pick out examples, but a couple of times you call De Beauvoir great. You also state somewhere that old societies had it wrong and that since feminism it is somehow better.
If hormone levels steered us towards being certain types of character as you've suggested, then surely 'femininity' is something we wouldn't be able to stray from? Yet, as feminism has made us more sensitive to gender stereotyping in recent years (for example there are individuals who identify s non-binary now), more women AND men are straying from the norms of their gender to express themselves more freely, as a more liberal society now allows for this to some extent. If our characteristics were truly innate, as you've suggested, surely we wouldn't be able to reject them and live without them in the way that some of us are now brave enough to do?
read the actual first chapter of The Second Sex bc she specifically talks the things you say she doesnt talk about and maybe read Cordelia Fine bc its good supplementary reading and drink some juice or something and like chill
I'm literally not invested in Simone that much as a person, i dont think of her as a hero or anything, however I lately I have been studying monique wittig and i thought it'd be useful to read beauvoir because wittig is somewhat of a successor. that's it. I dont like appreciated being told I skimmed the summary when it seems like you read the first paragraph of the chapter and stopped entirely and this isn't like meant to be an attack or anything but like a complaint i had reading it specifically was that it was a data-heavy intro especially for a humanities text and especially toward the end of the chapter. The chapter isn't even that much about biology it's mostly a criticism of a specifically Aristotelian tradition of thought with regard to women, and theres plenty to critique with that regard because it's sort of easy to dismiss Aristotle's thoughts on women to be misogynist.
I'm addicted to your channel
Greetings from Basra Iraq
Greetings from California USA :)
Greetings from Johannesburg, South Africa. A fellow addict of Steve's podcasts :)
Well Well Well ... here is a guy greeting you from north africa ( Morocco ) . Isn't the internet super weird and wonderful at the same time ?
This a perspective the world needed!
This happened to me I was kept home from school to look after my family because my mother had mental health issues, and now that I am trying to educate myself, I find myself under attack from other women and men who think I have no right to educate myself
Hang in Jane!
Where?
@@merc9nine Forget all about that comment it's all irrelevant now when I think about it, Them days are gone dead
@@halestorm123wdym
This is awesome! Thank you Stephen West!
Not even the first wave has reached Saudi Arabia.
#End_Saudi_Male_Guardianship
The very simple math problem line about subjects and objects was great at 10:07
Fantastic lecture. Very balanced and informative.
All the waves became splashes when they reached southeast Asia.
Damn right those are good cookies!
Thanks for being objective in this topic. It's hard to find a video about feminism that isn't obviously biased and pushing down a narrative
Hey! Awesome podcast and I'm glad I found it. I'm taking an intro philosophy class for an ethics minor and we are discussing feminism. I have my preconceptions, admittedly, and my professor is biased in her views, so I've been looking for less biased views and discussion. I feel more sympathetic to the cause, but I'm still cautious about large overarching ideologies in general. Thank you for providing some well educated points that summarize Beauvoir well.
What a fascinating woman. however, we've come to the conclusion that 'the other,' is absolutely essential in life.
Excellent, subscribed
29:49 listening to this in 2020!!! XD
Same 😃😃
Same.
I've just recently become interested in Simone de Beauvoir (due to a video game no less...) and this was an excellent introduction. Thank you.
interesting! would you share what video game that was?
@@diessica I’m pretty sure he is taking about Neir:Automata. A boss in the game is a persona of her. The game is incredibly interesting both story wise and gameplay. I can’t recommend it enough.
...I love this lol
Good material
Appreciate your points with all presentation of the background of feminism but I want to listen to one of your presentations on feminism as a scientific literary theory
Great video! Subscribed
And I would like to add that not all sexism these days is covert, much of the blatant sexism against women can be witnessed here on RUclips. However, you could argue that it is covert since people can comment without revealing identity. Not that that isn't an easy fix (hacking, duh).
Aside from that, I still get catcalled. And every man I deal with in a professional setting will make at least one move to either touch me inappropriately or call me "baby" or "sweetie," then defend himself by saying, "oh, sorry. That's just how I talk to/act around women."
I'm an electrical engineer. Not a woman, not in that setting anyhow.
g person it's the subtleties that can be the most dangerous. It allows for perpetuation without acknowledgment that anything needs to change.
You are a woman in that setting. It doesn't mean you don't deserve to be respected
great talk!
thanks for your great work , i think : if women had the power in the first eras , the world wouldn't change , it is the power and ideologies that shapes the nature . their nature qould be the same as men's .
women had the power in as they were the majority, women were the ones who first domesticated fire, invested medicine, made calendars and a bunch of other shit, google pre paganist matriarchy//goddess feminism
and why would men relinquish their power over women?? I think cultural history and bias has created inequality no matter what. It's the same for any oppressed people. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It's bizarre and frustrating to me that so many people don't pay attention to Feminist history. I'll tell you people still demean the subject just like I remember being demeaned by some people during the 60s and 70s when I would speak about the subject.
She is basically a female regurgitation of Nietzsche.
Lol I think I’m gonna enjoy reading her more now
A lot of effort being a subject (need to act, exert transcendence), easier to be an object. Tension between this
7 ways to objectify
Transcendent(male), imminent (female)
Differentialist feminist vs egalitarianism feminism
Judith Butler 🙏🙏
Whoa! People DO tend to objectify those they disregard and exploit. Like hunters objectify living sentient animal by saying "I harvest it" after they shoot them dead, for no reason usually other than their own sadistic pleasure. Just fyi :) (But people do lots of good stuff too!!)
The question is, why is that a profound statement? Why wasn't that obvious
I can't believe you didn't touch on the huge role religions played in enforcing misogany and patriarchy and oppressing women and dimishing their role in society.
Learn history and you know who is responsible for the difference of rights between men and women. Take the ancient Greek and Roman position and compare it to the Celtic or the Germanic attitude. Unfortunately, the Western culture was build on the Greek and Roman culture and not on the Celtic or Germanic culture.
I'm studying European history all my life. So, the important difference between Germanic and Celtic role patterns for women and those of the ancient Greeks and Romans is known to me. A woman could wear arms and divorce in Celtic and Germanic cultures, she was seen more or less as an equal partner in those cultures (for instance: Boudicca). But, thanks to the intellectual achievements of (especially) the Greeks and the Romans, it was their world that stood as a role model for the Western culture and in those cultures women had practically no rights at all. Furthermore, the situation of women got worse thanks to the catholic church that forbid and suppressed any slightly feminist gospel (like the gospel of Maria Magdalena, the story of the devout partner of St-Paul for whom God did several miracles), that precluded women to become priests (what wasn't the case in the early days of christianity) and that killed EVERYBODY who didn't agree with these rules, among others by organising crusades within Europe (for instance: the conquest of the original Prussia by Teutonic Knights). If you look at history, you come a long way in explaining why women have been treated the way they have been treated.
@@dirkgonthier101
Hello!
Do you happen to know anything about the role and the rights of women in the old Slav societies? Thank you
@@JCiesko I'm sorry, Jakub, but I don't know much about the role of women in the Slav societies. I guess that's the disadvantage of growing up in the Cold War. In the West, we had very little contact with the Slav world... :(((
@@dirkgonthier101 Ahh, nevermind! Nonetheless, thank you. I suppose I will google it.
I dont think we should view existencialism as a escence denying theory. I mean, it can have started that way, but it is doomed to oblivion if taken literally. There is no way to reject that human have certain biological conditions. There is no way to reject that men and women have different biological conditions between them. From this starting point, we can debate anything anyone feels like debating. But denying so, its only stubborn. I think that a modern interpretation of existencialism should use this as starting point: we are animals with genetics conditions, but we have the ability to question them; therefore, our existence preceds any social construct. We are individual beings that CREATE a social media, with certain limitations rooted in our biologic desing.
Nietzsche
Thoughtful analysis .... (I wish reality was not so gray ... after all, SdB procured young women for her beloved JPS -- to please him. How's that for paradoxical objectification?!)
Was listening to your series with interest. Then I spun this up. I have a degree in Women's Studies. I've spent quite a bit of time with SdB's writing. Why you had to actually use the term 'witch hunt' is beyond me. Systemic gender equality is on display for all to see. Whatever work environment you imagine is hiring based on merit, I guarantee you that women have no amount of parity there as far as numbers hired or pay. Except in the still existent 'pink collar' professions. Your corpus is proof of this. The philosophical accounts you cover are overwhelmingly white and male.
the hiring story was an unfortunate example of how non-feminists let their fears and inherent sexist biases creep in - even to apparently "neutral" podcasts explaining philosophies. You missed her point completely. Going to see if your other podcasts (on men) have less implied commentary...
Interesting point but did he not voice two opposing opinions thus making your comment a moot
im confused that you make the point (maybe not adopted by your own but used as an example) of it being the ways of nature for a female to have an interest in the sedentary lifestyles... but then critique when history blankets explanations with "that was the nature of how merderuous and evil war was back then". im sure some women, looking back into histroy before this "male oppression" had its footing with agriculture, actually did prefer a role of compliance but at the same time another woman also preferred to be a warrior on equal with her male counterpart! point im tryin to make here is that true freedom will come to women when this "definition veil" is lifted and we have our own language into doing what we want not because it is accepted as male based OR female based... just you and your experince of the world where gender has melted into a useless term!
A female warrior? These only exist in GOT and Marvel Comics.
Do you even how much a typical two-handed medieval sword weighed? It would take 2 adult males of your LGBT community to carry it.
"at the same time another woman also preferred to be a warrior on equal with her male counterpart! "
LMAO
@@alrawandi8402 there were women warriors all throughout history, hun...
@@breandadavis3168 That's true, but going back again to the prehistoric era in which we as a species were devoided of cultural biases, then you can make a case for why male predominancy started as just a trait of natural selection defined not by humans themselves but the enviroment. I'm not trying to justify the vile history of injustice to women in modern and present times by any means. I just think that to deny the role of biology in all of this is a little naive, therefore to believe in the possibility of an 'egalitarian' prehistory sounds less than an actual possibility and more like romantization.
@@breandadavis3168 she said hun lol but yeah vikings used females. A lot of times armys used females in hope's that men would be hesitant in killing females.
I kinda think she was sexist towards men lol
One shortcoming I always see in feminist philosophy is the claim that throughout history, women were oppressed. This claim is true, but what I'd like to focus on is the omission implicit in this claim. Or what some more radical feminists claim; that men were never oppressed, that they were privileged, that they "dominated" society.
Feminists take it as some sort of objective fact that if you were teleported to the 1700s and were given the option of being male or female, you would be foolish not to choose male. As if the average man was living the dream working 12-16 hours a day as a miner and being forcefully drafted for war... It seems clear to me at least that while all the people in power were men - they held absolutely no allegiance to their gender. They shared no power with the common man. 99%+ of men living in this period were just as much oppressed as the women were. They were a means to an end for whatever the ruling, rich elite desired.
Yes, men could vote and women couldn't. But men had to sign up for the draft and carry out military service in exchange for this right. It was unjust not to offer it to women; but it hardly seems fit to say that women were oppressed because of this fact. If you teleported back to the 1700s, would you gladly sign up for military service just so you could vote? Both men and women were forced into dangerous and harmful social roles throughout history. The erasure of male suffering is something I've always found offputting in feminist circles. It's almost like men are treated as a sort of "other" to them; as if the average man of history who was dying in horrible work conditions trying to feed his family was their enemy.
I don't view this as a matter of who suffered more, but as a matter of who had a choice and who didn't... Simone did say, I believe, that we're all human, regardless of our gender (sex). Interpret this as you wish.
There's at least 2 sides of every story.
No reasonable feminist has ever said " men were never oppressed ", considering that many feminists (especially contemporary philosophers) are sympathetic to racial justice, and are often leftists (as in they believe the wage worker is oppressed by the capitalist mode of production). I'm left to scratch my head in bewilderment as to where you have acquired this opinion of feminists. Certainly not from any feminist writings, that's for damn sure.
I can’t tell here, but you must surely be a man. History clearly shows that at least beginning with agriculture, men of all classes used their extra muscle, testosterone and violence pulse lack of empathy to overpower women and make her the “helpmeet” with the assistance of religions and force her to serve him, have sex whenever he wants and to follow his every decision. Studying philosophy without studying history is a fools errand.
I love you but I think you pronounced Focault wrong :/
And you spelled the surname wrong.
@@dempsey6901 true but I’m not a philosophy teacher.
Is Ms de Beauvoir your sister or a relative. Are you close friends? NO? Then why do you think to infantilse her by calling her "Simone"? You don't call Sartre Jean-Paul or Heidegger good old Martin. So why the belittling use of her first name? It's unprofessional and dare I say sexist.
Dude
It is a ridiculous practice, but I'd also imagine its easier for an American to repeatedly say than de Beauvoir would be.
Her argument is valid but not sound. I agree with the thoughts on feminine/masculine qualities but not to the extent of gender as a whole. Biology determines gender.
If you take 1000 female and a 1000 males kids and isolate them from any pre-existing notion of gender norms and you can even keep them in today's society so literal strength(defense) and literal hunting arent factors...what do you think would happen ranging from the immediate to generational?
Idk man, what would happen in your completely impossible hypothetical and why do I get the feeling you presume to know the answer. Rather than inventing up impossible scenarios, one need only look to the varying gender norms across culture and time to see that gender is socially constructed rather than biologically determined.
We raised our kids without gender norms and they only started copying such behaviors from friends around age 8 or so. Now in their mid-30s, they are uniquely their own mix of what our culture calls feminine and masculine. People joke that she is more masculine and he more feminine but that’s just because they are both firmly in the middle. His closest friends are still women. But not too many guys are interested in having women as friends so her guy friends have dwindled as they aged. We did homeschool but weren’t isolationists and organized daily time with public school kids in activities and the neighborhood. They did and do have friends of a wider age range, too. Our daughter likes to tell the story of how she only realized people gender chores when she and her partner moved in with their kids from earlier marriages and his girl and boy had different chore lists and acted so differently. Interestingly, his daughter became transgender midway through high school.
@@ad2094 it's socially constructed to label what was biologically determined
It's quite dissapointing you forgot to put your own hat on the table. Anyway the thing is that De Beauvoir conveniently omits is that the biological differences not only effect your physique, but also mentally due to different hormone levels. Making them not just physically weak men(what would be really sexist), but whole different creatures who also behave differently. This is why older societies put women in the roles that are best suited for (most of) them and a healthy society.
I'm not going to rewatch the whole episode to pick out examples, but a couple of times you call De Beauvoir great. You also state somewhere that old societies had it wrong and that since feminism it is somehow better.
If hormone levels steered us towards being certain types of character as you've suggested, then surely 'femininity' is something we wouldn't be able to stray from? Yet, as feminism has made us more sensitive to gender stereotyping in recent years (for example there are individuals who identify s non-binary now), more women AND men are straying from the norms of their gender to express themselves more freely, as a more liberal society now allows for this to some extent. If our characteristics were truly innate, as you've suggested, surely we wouldn't be able to reject them and live without them in the way that some of us are now brave enough to do?
read the actual first chapter of The Second Sex bc she specifically talks the things you say she doesnt talk about and maybe read Cordelia Fine bc its good supplementary reading and drink some juice or something and like chill
deactivate your almonds
I'm literally not invested in Simone that much as a person, i dont think of her as a hero or anything, however I lately I have been studying monique wittig and i thought it'd be useful to read beauvoir because wittig is somewhat of a successor. that's it. I dont like appreciated being told I skimmed the summary when it seems like you read the first paragraph of the chapter and stopped entirely and this isn't like meant to be an attack or anything but like a complaint i had reading it specifically was that it was a data-heavy intro especially for a humanities text and especially toward the end of the chapter. The chapter isn't even that much about biology it's mostly a criticism of a specifically Aristotelian tradition of thought with regard to women, and theres plenty to critique with that regard because it's sort of easy to dismiss Aristotle's thoughts on women to be misogynist.