If this is the case with reality, then if you have some characteristics of another "thing," then you are that thing. So, if a woman does not display the "characteristics" of a woman, then she is not a woman? I think, like shoving all women into a box, is too simple. As humans, characteristics are too vague and open-ended to determine who a person is.
de Beauvoir also comments on women as men's slaves, and have never lived in an equal world. Could it be due to what is stated before? Prior she writes, "The reason for this is that women lack concrete means for organising themselves into a unit which can stand face to face with the correlative unit. They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat. They are not even promiscuously herded together in the way that creates community feeling among the American Negroes, the ghetto Jews, the workers of Saint-Denis, or the factory hands of Renault. "
This is a good point, but it still seems that women today have created a sense of unity. Feminism has and can be viewed as a collective unity. But like any group, some do not agree on the exact essence of Feminism, and will disband the unity.
I really enjoyed this article and it prompted a really good discussion with my girlfriend. We both agreed with Simone de Beauvoir, but disagreed with what "could" or "should" be done to attempt to level the playing field. Or, if it ever could be level. Wow stoner convo for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment