You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.11 AVERAGE
4.11 AVERAGE
Dear existentialists, enough with the angst already. The underlying idea of the book painting men as the oppressors and women as the oppressed doesn't really do good to either women or men in terms of philosophy of the society. It puts us both into a kind of situation where no one really acts or reacts, we all just simply abide by these written and unwritten rules and sail on. In reality, most people aren't that inactive. What I mean is, this definitely pivotal text on its original publication, feels antiquated in this day and age. Categorizing women as victims who should not be victimized, is still a categorization and reeks badly of essentialism. People do not have a single unchanging essence, enough already. De Beauvoir eventually loses herself in her own philosophy by way of repetitions and aggression.
Having said that, I do still believe everyone should read at least parts of this excruciatingly long book. It can be useful for academic purposes or merely for good debates. It is important for the overall feminist thought, however Eve Ensler or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie are in my opinion much more applicable and open-minded and their writing beautifully thought-provoking.
Having said that, I do still believe everyone should read at least parts of this excruciatingly long book. It can be useful for academic purposes or merely for good debates. It is important for the overall feminist thought, however Eve Ensler or Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie are in my opinion much more applicable and open-minded and their writing beautifully thought-provoking.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Will come back later. Reading too many scientific stuff and need a break from that type of writing.
As a fundimental feminist text, this was actually a surprisingly interesting read. I disagreed with so much of it. Mostly I don't support the general idea that "liberty" and "what is natural" is always positive. In my opinion, women by nature of their biological position are always at a slight physical and general disadvantage (based on their need to undergo pregnancy, for example). Creating a system in which this basic problem is removed is an important step, but to call this new system "natural" was frustrating to me. This is not "liberation" in the sense that she means it, but the creation of equality. It is not our social systems that cause inequality, but biology. Our social systems must correct for biological inequity, and blaming them for causing or widening the biological issues is sort of silly. Not to mention that I felt her entire interpretation of the biological differences were silly (men and women put in an equal amount of effort in the creation of a child? really?).
informative
slow-paced
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
An answer to the despondent highschooler, sitting on the floor of my brothers room, asking why there were no great women philosophers as widely-known and referenced as Aristotle or Nietzche.
This is a tackling of the history of woman, her biology, body, advantages, limitations, disadvantages, the courtesan, the prostitute, the mother, the daughter, the adolescent, the asexual, the sexual, and where she’s sat in society, viewed as the ‘other’ and ‘object’ to the extent that it hurts both herself and men. Published in 1949, I like to think significant progress has been made, and yet I’m still floored by the relevance and meaning of this book.
Great texts on humanity sometimes are in a grey area, where mankind instead means “man”. This text on women positions women as a necessary equal rather than the exploited, necessarily parasitic being she becomes without freedom and the ability to be subject in her life rather than object.
I wish there were an updated chapter with modernity taken into context, to see how well de Beauvoir thought we were fairing.
I would also appreciate a general update of facts and statistics. In 1949, gynecologist believed 80% of patients had no physical defect when they came in with a complaint, which we know today to be the fault of the physician rather than a truth. Even until recently, male bodies were presented in med school as “the human body” and women were then taught as the deviation.
This is a tackling of the history of woman, her biology, body, advantages, limitations, disadvantages, the courtesan, the prostitute, the mother, the daughter, the adolescent, the asexual, the sexual, and where she’s sat in society, viewed as the ‘other’ and ‘object’ to the extent that it hurts both herself and men. Published in 1949, I like to think significant progress has been made, and yet I’m still floored by the relevance and meaning of this book.
Great texts on humanity sometimes are in a grey area, where mankind instead means “man”. This text on women positions women as a necessary equal rather than the exploited, necessarily parasitic being she becomes without freedom and the ability to be subject in her life rather than object.
I wish there were an updated chapter with modernity taken into context, to see how well de Beauvoir thought we were fairing.
I would also appreciate a general update of facts and statistics. In 1949, gynecologist believed 80% of patients had no physical defect when they came in with a complaint, which we know today to be the fault of the physician rather than a truth. Even until recently, male bodies were presented in med school as “the human body” and women were then taught as the deviation.