I found a brilliant article in our SPS book "Civilization in the West" concerning gender. It was written in 1949 by Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986), one of France's leading intellectuals. Her famous article, The Second Sex "has served as a call to arms for the feminist movement, provoking debate, controversy, and a questioning of the fundamental gender arrangements of modern society." (Kishlansky et al., 2003, p968). Here are some thought-provoking quoted passages...
"...Woman has ovaries, a uterus; these peculiarities imprison her in her subjectivity, circumscribe her within the limits of her own nature. It is often said that she thinks with her glands." (p968)
"(Men) thinks of his body as a direct and normal connection with the world, which he believes he apprehends objectively, whereas he regards the body of woman as a hindrance, a prison, weighed down by everything peculiar to it." (p968)
Until now it may seem that she has been exaggerating the gender conflict, but...
" 'The female is a female by virtue of certain lack of qualities,' said Aristotle; 'we should regard the female nature as afflicted with a natural defectiveness.' And Saint Thomas for his part pronounced woman to be an 'imperfect man,' an 'incidental' being. This is symbolized in Genesis where Eve is depicted as made from what Bossuet called 'a supernumerary bone' of Adam. " (p969)
Her criticism is not limited to "men-the-sovereign" (p969):
"...Woman may fail to lay claim to the status of subject because she lacks definite resources, because she feels the necessary bond that ties her to man regardless of reciprocity, and because she is often very well pleased with her role as the Other." (p969)
Whether she has reason or not, she definitely is not very well pleased with her role as the Other, is she?
Any reactions/comments?
(Kishlansky, M. & Geary, P. & O'Brien, P. (2003). Civilization in the West. USA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.)
102-14. Our Blogging Queen
14 years ago
"The Second Sex" this book was a high school present for me. Sometimes Simone de Beauvoir exaggerated a lot but overall when you finish reading the book you understand better about the role as the OTHER. I was going to read it again but I was waiting for sps 102. Anyways it was really nice to read your post. thanks.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting thing I have discovered recently about this classic book is that its translation into English greatly affected its reception, i.e. the understanding of de Beauvoir was conditioned by how it was rendered in English.
ReplyDeleteIn general, translation of feminist works from French to English suffered from a lack of corresponding 'sexual' vocabulary in English; French feminists borrowed heavily from psychoanalysis and literary criticism, whereas new words had to be coined in English or simply toned down for Anglo-American tastes.
de Beauvoir's first English translator was a man, Howard Parshley. It seems he deleted (without notifying the readers) about 10% of the original text; these passages recounted the achievements of women in history, made reference to lesbian relationships, and complained of the tedium of being a woman. Due to these cuts, de Beauvoir's thought in English can seem convoluted and incoherent.
Strong attacks on de Beauvoir have been made on the basis of the *translation*, and thus a tradition of scholarship has been built around what are in fact Parshley's rather than de Beauvoir's words.
At least one of her books was banned by the Catholic Church in France due to its sexual imagery, and her English translators also diluted these scenes.
Source: Translation and Gender by Luise von Flotow
We will read part of this book in ENG 102, and yes, as Elif mentions, you will also work on gender in SPS 102.