Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:04:29 — 59.1MB)
Continuing Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949) with guest Jennifer Hansen.
We explore the Hegelian foundations of the text: How does one become a Subject and how do women traditionally get shut out of this process? What do they do to compensate for or react to being so mutilated? We get into the "Lived Experience" sections of the text where Beauvoir details how this drama unfolds in upbringing, marriage, and other stages of life. How does religiosity among women reflect their situation? Beauvoir says that men even claim logic itself, using it as a tool to get women to assent to their own subjugation, which many women therefore reject.
We're still left with these questions: How do we modernize this critique given the evolution in women's positions since the book was written? And while it shows how social forces shape women's roles, what's the exact connection with biology? Could the entirety of women's situation be different, or do biological factors inevitably determine some of its more invidious parameters?
Start with part one or get the full, ad-free Citizen Edition. Please support PEL!
End song: "Wrong Side of Gone" by Beth Kille as discussed on Nakedly Examined Music #13.
Sponsor: Give effectively through givewell.org/PEL.
Thank you all for the interesting discussion on the Second Sex.
I know that you guys, like me, are fans of De Beauvoir (I recall your conversations on The Ethics of Ambiguity) and so I’d like to suggest that you take a look at her book on Old Age.
It’s the best work on being old that I know of. I’m 73 and I read it the first time when it came out around 1970 and understood nothing. It’s almost impossible for someone young to understand what it’s like being old. I think that it’s easier for a man to understand what it’s like being a woman and certainly vice versa. Just yesterday a polite young lady offered me her subway seat and I explained that actually, it’s easier for me to remain standing than to sit down and get up: I’m not at all sure that she understood me, but anyone over 65 would.
Maybe you guys are still a little too young to read it, but it would be a good idea to put it on your list of future reading.
A great discussion, but a glaringly absent analysis around how traditionally “feminine” characteristics are as unacceptable for male-identified people as they are for female-identified people. Just about everything said about women could be applied to feminine presenting men. The episode ends with a mention of progress looking like telling young girls they’re strong instead of pretty, which only serves to reinforce the subjugation of the feminine and teach her that masculinization is the only road to “success” as our society measures it. Perhaps not a “Philosophy of Fashion” episode, but something that highlights how elevation of feminine traits, roles, careers could be beneficial for all genders.
Thanks, yes, that’s a notable blind spot in the text. While she clearly thinks that the “second weaning” given to boys is crazy, it’s not her task in this book to remove “toxic masculinity,” i.e. aggression, but just to untangle us from the situation where women are treated as objects. Making men more compassionate and gentle (though not passive) would presumably be necessary for this, but it’s not sufficient. She’s dealing with a different problem: that even the most good-hearted man will treat women like crap when operating within the patriarchal framework. We go into this more in ep. 234 (just recorded a couple of days ago) when talking more about B. on relationships. There’s some discussion of what you’re talking about in our discussion of Lysistrata from a year and a half ago or so (where we for once had two female guests).
Jenny – you were amazing. Thank you so much. I almost heard an apology for your awesomeness in the “thank you for tolerating my passion.” And thank you guys for this. It was so so great.