I am so beyond tired of English speakers misinterpreting this quote and making it mean the exact opposite of what Beauvoir meant by it.
Here is the explanation that immediately follows it in The Second Sex:
“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society: it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine.”
I don’t know how much clearer she can be: she defines “woman” as “the figure that the human female presents in society” and goes on to criticise the fact that society has made this figure into something “intermediate between male and eunuch” and called it feminine. To Beauvoir, “woman” is a harmful social construct forced on females, so this word doubly doesn’t apply to transwomen, who a) are not female and b) are not forced into womanhood.
When people use “one is not born, but becomes a woman” to mean “anyone can become a woman”, they
– are conveniently forgetting the part where the political construct of “woman” is inextricably linked to the condition of being born a human female (I mean, the first chapter of that book is called The Data of Biology…) and the part where Beauvoir is criticising this man-made concept of “woman” as well as the, in her words, “hierarchy of sexes” (also known as ~spectrum of genders~) it helps create; and
– are essentially saying that transwomen are feminine eunuchs. That is what “woman” is in this book, a restrictive patriarchal construct that could best be described as an inferior, castrated male with feminine clothing and behaviour, and that female humans are not born as (as patriarchy would like us to believe) but are forced to grow into, which is the main component of their oppression.
(Please keep in mind that this was written in the 1940s when the belief that women were naturally inferior and born to serve men wasn’t publicly challenged at all. When everyone defines “woman” as “naturally inferior”, saying “the human female is not born a woman, she is made one” is revolutionary.)
The point of “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman” was not that male humans can also become women despite being born male, it was that female humans should not be forced to become a “woman” as defined by our patriarchal world. But trust our modern-day “feminists” to take a quote about female oppression and make it about male fantasies instead.
It is blatant gender criticism by SdB so you can see why it would need to be repurposed by men to serve men.
-Found on Ses Purs Ongles.
42 comments
December 3, 2016 at 7:10 am
tildeb
How can anyone read de Beauvoir and not understand this central thesis… unless they haven’t but are using cherry-picked quotes out of context to serve some other purpose than what is true?
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 3, 2016 at 7:53 am
Godless Cranium
I dusagree with what she’s saying but like Tildeb says, it seems fairly obvious what she is saying.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 7:57 am
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
People using out of context quotes from the ‘other side’ to bolster their ideological positions? Is that even possible? :)
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 3, 2016 at 8:00 am
The Arbourist
@GC
Completely shocked. :)
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 3, 2016 at 8:26 am
tildeb
Are you saying that you disagree that gender is a social construct. disagree that femininity is a construct that favours males over females?
Really?
Just as an aside, have you ever read Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex?
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 8:29 am
Godless Cranium
Would the same apply to women transitioning into a man? Are they considered men?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 8:32 am
Godless Cranium
[@Tildeb – added for clarity]
Yes. I disagree that our behavior is only shaped by society and yes, I disagree with patriarchy in general.
No I haven’t read that book. I can certainly add it to my readibg list though. 😊
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 8:33 am
Godless Cranium
My bad. Walking and text typing sucks. I meant are they considered female or men?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 8:51 am
Godless Cranium
[@tildeb – added for clarity]
By the way, when you say ‘really’ like that, I hear the echo of religious fundamentalists who have said the same thing when I tell them I don’t believe in their God. They are genuinely flabbergasted that someone doesn’t believe in their fictional god construct because they have spent so much time in their echo chambers reinforcing their beliefs without examining the other side.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 9:16 am
The Arbourist
@GC
Two definitions – Man = Adult human male. Woman = Adult human female. Easy-peasy. :)
One can identify however they’d like, but the material biological reality remains, as biological sex in the human species is functionally immutable.
Seems rather straightforward to me. Or is that the angle you were trying for GC, because the formulation of your question would seem to indicate that you’re looking for an angle to lay down the equality argument by pointing out that there is much criticism of MTT (male to trans) politics by radical feminists and their allies versus FTT (female to trans) politics?
The short answer is that female to trans individuals are still biologically female and thus still in the class of people the feminist movement is attempting to liberate from patriarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 9:27 am
The Arbourist
@GC
Fascinating position to take GC.
Could you list which behaviours are not shaped by society? I’m genuinely curious to see how far down the biological deterministic rabbit hole you’ve gone. :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 9:35 am
Godless Cranium
So you believe that society is the only factor in human behavior and genes play no part?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 11:27 am
The Arbourist
@GC
*grins* We’re in the realm of sociology now GC, and also I’m at the University which means access to the online libraries and available research – I can reference any particular topic you’d like with regards to your claims. Socialization and social constructs are features of society that have a significant amount of sociological evidence behind them. I’m sensing that you may pejoratively regard them as ‘SJW propaganda’ or the like. You don’t have to take my word for it, but there is a significant amount of evidence for the ideas of socialization and social constructs.
Did you wish to begin with the ‘echo chamber’ known as ‘current sociological theory’? It’s been awhile since I took SOC101 but if a review of what the social sciences have to offer is in order, we can most certainly go there.
I think tildeb may be genuinely flabbergasted, as I have in the past in our dealings, with an apparent lack of knowledge/appreciation of the rudiments of sociological theory.
I’m not trying to throw stones here, but in my estimation, some of your skepticism has been misplaced when it comes to certain topics informed by the social sciences.
Please understand I’m not trying for ‘checkmate atheist!!!!!’ scenario here, but wanting to move toward facilitating an exchange of ideas informed by the relevant facts available.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 11:32 am
The Arbourist
@GC
Only the Sith speak in absolutes Anakin! – Ben Kenobi, Episode 3.
The Nature versus Nurture debate has been going on for a long time. The current evidence mostly points toward socialization being the major factor in human behaviour; therefore I also share that point of view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 11:34 am
Godless Cranium
Then we agree on that point, Kenobi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 2:23 pm
tildeb
Wow. You actually changed the subject entirely.Remember, we’re working from de Beauvoir’s thesis (that you say you disagree with) and not your sudden and inexplicable substitution.
Let’s try again: do you disagree that gender is a social construct?
Do you disagree that femininity is a construct that favours males over females?
Let’s stick to these two, shall we, and see where your reasoning leads.
LikeLiked by 3 people
December 3, 2016 at 2:55 pm
roughseasinthemed
@ tildeb
Let me answer
1) there is no patriarchal society
2) all men are not oppressing all women (note, we need to look at individuals not class-based oppression which is just er, non-existent)
3) of course all women can be men, and vice versa, gender is innate. Unlike biological sex which is some flimsy feminist theory
4) now where were we?
5) almost forgot. Mansplaining about, well everything, as usual. Do I need to add a /snark?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 2:59 pm
Godless Cranium
@Tildeb
“Let’s try again: do you disagree that gender is a social construct?”
It depends what you’re lumping in with gender.
“Do you disagree that femininity is a construct that favours males over females?”
I already answered this. Yes, I disagree with this.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 3:04 pm
Godless Cranium
@roughseasinthemed
“1) there is no patriarchal society”
Depends where you live.
“2) all men are not oppressing all women (note, we need to look at individuals not class-based oppression which is just er, non-existent)”
Seems obvious that not all men are oppressing all women. Not sure how that’s even a controversial stance.
“3) of course all women can be men, and vice versa, gender is innate. Unlike biological sex which is some flimsy feminist theory”
No. Biological sex is biology, and I don’t deny it.
“4) now where were we?”
You were rudely answering for me.
“5) almost forgot. Mansplaining about, well everything, as usual. Do I need to add a /snark?”
Weren’t you the one answering for me before I had a chance to respond? Wouldn’t that be ‘mainsplaining’?
Ironic. lol.
I didn’t mansplain anything. I answered the questions and politely took part in the conversation.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 3:33 pm
tildeb
Not bad… it’s almost as if you’ve encountered this reticence to appreciate reality before. We shall see…
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 3, 2016 at 3:38 pm
tildeb
Depends? How about starting with the socially constructed parts!
Consider a typical statement you’ve probably encountered many times by now:
Someone exclaims, ‘We had a baby!’
What is the average response to that?
‘Great! Boy or girl?’
Now think to yourself why this very first question matters even a little bit, GC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 3:39 pm
tildeb
Put another way, why should it matter at all if we’ve already attained a gender-neutral society?
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 3:44 pm
Godless Cranium
Because they want to know what sex the child is? Not sure where you’re going with this.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 3:54 pm
Godless Cranium
That wasn’t the topic though. We were discussing if gender roles were strictly learned social behavior or not.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 4:39 pm
Godless Cranium
Sorry. Not gender roles. Just gender.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 5:20 pm
tildeb
I’m asking you to think: why do you think the gender of the baby matters if we supposedly already live in an egalitarian society… where gender plays no important role now that we have equality laws?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 5:21 pm
Godless Cranium
And you accused me of changing the subject but that’s what you’re doing.
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 5:40 pm
tildeb
No. I’m not changing the subject at all. Here’s why:
I have every intention of getting you to think about gender in a way that Simone de Beauvoir points out is ‘obvious’: gender is a social construct that has winners and losers, namely men and women, and that to change that deplorable state of affairs means to stop talking about real men and real women as if they inhabited two spheres of reality. This is bullshit.
She writes about how we empower a prejudicial social system called gender to inform what we think of as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’… as if these had specific objective meaning. This is the great lie.
De Beauvoir’s thesis is one of those important works that I think crosses all kinds of boundaries and is applicable in so many worthwhile ways: what we are doing when we empower gender-based thinking is the same as faith-based thinking: artificially creating in our minds what she calls The Other. We see this in today’s partisan politics all the time. Us and Them. She then writes brilliantly about how this is the necessary ground to empower and enforce inequality in a million different ways that privilege one at the cost of The Other.
So my intention is to show that we participate in this unmindful way all the time. And look how early it starts! Why does it matter if the baby is a boy or a girl? Well, if you spend honest time thinking about that, you begin to realize just how soon we begin imposing on infants discriminatory ideas of gender… as the difference matters. Does it? Welcome to the world of patriarchy… that not-so-hidden world that begins to define people as different right from the start. Now think about in what ways and you begin to peel back the veneer of equality you think is deeper than just words.
Nu uh…
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 5:58 pm
Godless Cranium
It is changing the subject because we are talking about whether gender is strictly based on our environment. Without furst establishing whether it is or isn’t, we can’t talk about the rest.
I see where you’re going with that line of thinking, but it is still a diversion from the actual topic, which you rightly admonished me not to diverge from, but which are now diverging from in the exact same way.
Is gender only based on environment or are there other factors at play? That was the question.
Arbour and I seemed to agreed it was based on more than just environment.
Do you agree or disagree?
LikeLike
December 3, 2016 at 9:37 pm
tildeb
de Beauvoir claims that gender is a social construct that creates femininity when she says, “it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine.”
You disagree.
So I’m trying to get you to see that we begin to create this creature we call feminine from the earliest time and impute it with meaning not deduced from reality but imposed on it and then claim this creation to be the basis for inequalities because of differences. This is how we create The Other
Gender, according to Wiki, means the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.Different cultures assign different meanings to these masculine and feminine terms but the point here is that these characteristics are assigned. This is compelling evidence that gender is a social construct and not a biological one (by which we simply refer to the sex of the person for objectively different physiological characteristics). de Beauvoir’s point is that the assigning creates The Other and has the effect of privileging the masculine at the cost of the feminine. And this plays out throughout life in all kinds of manner. As long as we see The Other and accept it, we do our individual part to sustain the inherent problem of gender-based thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 3, 2016 at 9:43 pm
Godless Cranium
So you think gender is entirely a social construct and there are no other factors? Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 6:27 am
roughseasinthemed
@ tb
Ha. Ha.
We shall see that there is no patriarchy, no gender as a social construct, no class oppression, and la la personal identity politics are the way to go.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 6:50 am
tildeb
Why do you continue to try to alter de Beauvoir’s thesis… the thesis you say you disagree with? It doesn’t matter what I think here, and I don;t want to be drawn into a diversion about the term ‘entirely’ you’ve introduced. She says gender is a social construct used to create The Other, with privileges for the masculine and emasculation for the feminine. I think this is an important understanding to keep in mind because it is applicable far beyond gender inequalities. How we make The Other is a sure sign of biased thinking, a signpost that we are importing beliefs that may or may not be the case and then attributing these imports to be sourced not from ourselves but from The Other. This is one way we fool ourselves.
I think the meaning we attribute to gender – both positive and negative – does indeed turn real people with nearly universal similarities into a segmented Other. This is the only way by which we can objectify women as sexual objects… an objectification fundamental to our society we wouldn’t dream of doing on a personal level to our mothers and sisters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 4, 2016 at 8:39 am
Godless Cranium
“Why do you continue to try to alter de Beauvoir’s thesis… the thesis you say you disagree with?”
I haven’t altered anything. You have continually side stepped your own question, which was:
“do you disagree that gender is a social construct?”
You said that and I answered you that I don’t think it is entirely due to environment. In fact, Arb and I have agreed on this point.
I then asked you pretty much the same thing. I asked if you think gender is only due to environment and you can’t answer. I suspect you know where that leads and so you keep on spouting about the thesis without first answering your own question or defining what gender is. Her whole thesis relies on the fact that being a woman means “No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female “.
So nothing else plays a factor in gender. Do you or do you not believe this?
Second, your tribalism is so very apparent. I mean, Rough accuses me of mansplaining, while actually mansplaining and answering for me. You then praise Rough for a good comment when it was anything but. It’s really very funny.
” This is the only way by which we can objectify women as sexual objects… an objectification fundamental to our society we wouldn’t dream of doing on a personal level to our mothers and sisters.”
Women never objectify men? I find that hard to believe since I’ve witnessed it first hand on several occasions, but I digress.
Please answer whether you think gender is strictly due to society and nothing to do with anything else.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 8:45 am
Godless Cranium
@roughseasinthemed
“Ha. Ha.”
Not sure what you find so funny. Your childish snark? Your mainsplaining?
“We shall see that there is no patriarchy”
Wouldn’t want that victim card to get away from you.
I already said it depends on where you live. We also aren’t discussing patriarchy. But do try to read my comments in response before making things up.
“no gender as a social construct”
You really aren’t reading are you?
I already established with Arb that our personalities and gender rely heavily on society and learned behavior. We are discussing whether that is the only factor.
” and la la personal identity politics are the way to go.”
Modern feminism is a form of identity politics. I don’t agree with identity politics. I never have and if you’d take your fingers out of your ears long enough, you’d know that to be true.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 8:48 am
The Arbourist
@GC
You’re getting hung up in thinking in absolutes. The spectrum for the nature vs nurture debate is a good tool for understanding what the general arguments are, but when talking about gender specifically we need to understand that there is nothing innate about gender and the associated gender roles as both are social constructs.
A quick check to see if a particular thing is socially constructed is to see if said object occurs in nature. For example – let’s look at currency – does that occur in nature? No. Therefore it is something we humans made up – socially constructed – to use in our society.
The role of woman, thus the associated gendered behaviours, have been purposefully designed to keep females in a inferior position and status in society.
Tildeb says it well here – “She says gender is a social construct used to create The Other, with privileges for the masculine and emasculation for the feminine”
So which part of de Beuvoir’s thesis don’t you agree with and with what evidence do you support your claim?
LikeLiked by 1 person
December 4, 2016 at 9:51 am
roughseasinthemed
@ GC
I have read your comments. And some of your attempts to vilify radical feminists on your blog. Although I’m not sure you understand the difference between second, third and fourth wave feminists.
“Funny?” Tb’s response.
“We aren’t discussing patriarchy?”
OK. For the benefit of …
When we discuss inherent sexism, gender, objectification, we are by default, discussing patriarchy. Without patriarchy, we wouldn’t have those.
So, that’s why a patriarchal system is always, and I mean, ALWAYS, will be relevant to any discussion about feminism, sexism and misogyny.
That’s why femininity is part of the gender social construct. As is masculinity. That’s why, you talk down to me, but are more respectful towards Teh Menz, ie tb and Arb.
Also, women are not sexist, do not mansplain (surely you should have written womansplain?) just as blacks are not racist. Seems to me that the whole idea of class-based oppression doesn’t suit you.
I am.
Again, my comment was not directed towards you, and tb and Arb prob get my sarcasm.
However. I do take issue with a number of your comments:
1) accusing me of mansplaining. No. You are wrong.
2) telling me I am not reading
3) telling me to take my fingers out of my ears
Did, you, ever respond to the male commenters on this post in these terms?
If I put you off feminism, you remind me why it is necessary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 4, 2016 at 11:08 am
tildeb
You’re doing what people like John Baynan does: reformulate the thesis into saying something else. I mean, seriously, it’s a simple question I asked… do you seriously disagree that gender is a social construct. Nowhere in there am I asking about nature versus nurture, nor am I asking about exactly what percentage of this gender construct can be attributed to ‘environment’. These are typical avoidance techniques used by people who don’t want to support their original (and usually incorrect or unsupported claims).
I am not avoiding your questions to be reticent; I am sticking to the thesis de Beauvoir writes brilliantly about, the thesis you say you disagree with, the thesis that lays out in its support why – in this particular case gender (The Second Sex) but a thesis I think is fully applicable to all kinds of creations upon which various kinds of discrimination is built – this kind of construct is the means by which The Other is artificially created. In other words, creating The Other is what I call Bad Thinking. I think you too easily and without due process reject this insight, this thesis, and by doing so then use it to maintain a willful blindness about the insidious and discriminatory effects that reveal our society to be firmly entrenched in patriarchy. You simply wave this insight away by insisting that equality law means it doesn’t exist.
Au contraire, mon ami. It thrives for this very reason: too many people assume this problem doesn’t exist and refuse to honestly and openly consider why there is so much compelling evidence – even in our own behaviour – that it does.
The first step to addressing a pernicious problem is to first identify what the problem is. By denying there is a problem, you commit exactly the kind of Bad Thinking that empowers all kinds of denialism and in effect allows the problem to continue unabated and even advance it by (usually) unwitting and indifferent personal action. That is why I think your opinion of disagreement of the thesis (and not your agreements or disagreements about your very intentional diversions from it) needs challenging here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
December 4, 2016 at 11:12 am
Godless Cranium
@Tildeb
“I mean, seriously, it’s a simple question I asked… do you seriously disagree that gender is a social construct.”
I answered it. It is a combination of factors, which you can’t admit because it destroys your narrative.
“you commit exactly the kind of Bad Thinking”
Haha. I’m engaging in wrong think. So Orwellian.
“That is why I think your opinion of disagreement of the thesis (and not your agreements or disagreements about your very intentional diversions from it) needs challenging here.”
You’ve yet to challenge it. You can’t even answer your own question and refuse to even define gender.
Anyways, I’m done here. As long as you refuse to answer the basic question and continue to spout about Others, I have no interest in continuing this discussion. I’ll leave it to future readers to decide which one of us was more convincing. Take care, Tildeb.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 11:27 am
tildeb
Now GC, I am detecting a rather peevish attitude here because your rationalizations are scattered. I note that you are quick to make an opinion – and usually pretty good ones – but why is it suddenly so difficult to reevaluate this one?
You claim, for example, that I’m not answering your questions. This is true. And I explain why your questions – and answering them in this thread – are just diversions, that this is a tactic to avoid seriously reevaluating. There are some good minds here telling you you’re off track and taking the time and making the effort to explain why. Don’t just dismiss them.
You claim I refuse to define gender. This is a little ironic that you would accuse RS of not reading yet fail to note that I do so very early in my explanation why the thesis you disagree with is in fact quite perceptive and illuminating and much more widely applicable than just about gender. I write quite intentionally, “Gender, according to Wiki, means the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.” This is on topic. Environment and nature are not.
This is why I ask you repeatedly about your claim that gender – meaning masculinity and femininity and what these terms describe – is not a social construct. I remain on topic.You do not. I think there’s an underlying reason for you doing this and I think that motivation, my friend, is quite self-revealing and well worth pondering. You might learn something about yourself… even if it’s disagreeable. And that’s okay. Other than me, no one is perfect.
LikeLiked by 3 people
December 4, 2016 at 11:46 am
Godless Cranium
@Tildeb
Okay. Last comment. Then I’m done.
“I am detecting a rather peevish attitude here because your rationalizations are scattered.”
No. I just see this going nowhere because you’re unable to answer the question and I know why.
“There are some good minds here telling you you’re off track and taking the time and making the effort to explain why.”
Where? There is you. Arb and I already agree. Rough has done nothing but make sarcastic remarks. Where are all of these ‘good minds’?
“Don’t just dismiss them.”
I didn’t. I tried to have a discussion with you. I had one with Arb and we agreed. And Rough doesn’t really want a discussion, yet you tribalistically said she made valid points when she did anything but. lol
““Gender, according to Wiki, means the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.” This is on topic. Environment and nature are not.”
Which is a very broad definition and like I’ve already pointed out, this thesis rests on it only being a social construct.
“This is why I ask you repeatedly about your claim that gender – meaning masculinity and femininity and what these terms describe – is not a social construct.”
I answered you repeatedly. I believe it’s more complicated than just learned behavior, which is the basis for my disagreement with the quote.
” I think there’s an underlying reason for you doing this and I think that motivation, my friend, is quite self-revealing and well worth pondering.”
Fair enough. I believe the same of you. :)
So thanks for the convo Tildeb. I really mean that. I hope you have a pleasant day.
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 11:50 am
The Arbourist
Well, justifying sexism is a bit more comfortable if we can point to ‘natural traits’ that make women deserving of second class treatment.
Clinging to the idea that there is a biological reason for sexism (and thus patriarchy) may make it a touch more palatable and absolve one of any personal responsibility to change the current patriarchal status quo – because ‘equality’.
“Because equality” isn’t an reasonable answer. Because one can look at society and see that things are not equal for women and men. The very experience of growing up female or male is markedly different, and that treatment (read socialization) is why society remains fundamentally unbalanced.
If you claim to be skeptic and ‘follow the evidence’ and all the usual rhetoric associated with liberal egalitarian dudes – please show us the evidence of this equal society we live in.
I have already shown you where I empirically base my claims as to why society is structurally unequal and the structures that create the imbalance.
I note there was no reply to the linked comment because there isn’t a strong case to be made for society being equal.
And now a refusal to give evidence for your claims about de Beuvoir’s thesis. It comes across as, I have my opinions and they are based on my strong feelings about the subject…. opinions and feelings are nice, but not an argument do they make.
Tildeb said: “This is why I ask you repeatedly about your claim that gender – meaning masculinity and femininity and what these terms describe – is not a social construct.”
Answering this question should be easy if you believe that you’re correct on the issue.
“Gender, aka masculinity and femininity, are not social constructs because… ”
Heck go for point form if you’d like, but what are your reasons and evidence that suggests that gender is not a social construct?
LikeLiked by 1 person