I feel that Simone de Beauvoir wrote her essay at a good time when there was so much change happening all around the world. (If I'm not mistaken, she wrote it in 1949, which would put it around WWII and the time of segregation in America.) I want to talk more about this history in class tomorrow if any of this is pertinent to de Beauvoir's ideas. Was she a Marxist?
I too enjoyed the excerpt from the Second Sex. I really felt like I agreed with de Beauvoir's concept that woman had to struggle against two selves and that there has to be an open dialogue between the sex's that holds both accountable in terms of what you could call societal expectations or stereotypes.
After reading the excerpts from the Second Sex, I looked more into Simone de Beauvoir and the phrase: "One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman", kept reappearing. I want to discuss this concept in class more. I feel like we have covered it in terms of gender roles and the effects of those roles but could we look at it in terms of French existentialism? What those mean to someone who believes in existentialism.
Also interested to know if de Beauvoir was a Marxist.
I also really enjoyed the Second Sex reading. Aside from her concepts, just her writing style is very straightforward, unlike some of the other more theoretical texts that we have read in class. In regard to the article about Gauguin, I had some problems. I can appreciate Brooks's interpretation, and I think he has some compelling sections, but overall I don't totally buy it. I still think that even if you concede (which I'm not sure I really can) that Gauguin meant his images to be creating a new sexuality that transcended the traditional gaze and was not degrading to women there is still the major issue of his totally Eurocentric views.
It makes no sense that he was creating these images with the idealistic notion of natural nudity and pure eroticism without the aspect of male conquering female when he uses the very act of conquering in his role of domination over a "primitive" woman. I see Brooks's argument as him trying to justify an artist that he likes and cleanse him of some of the negative commentary surrounding him. For there is no way in my mind that Gauguin was not entertaining very destructive views of "primitive" (a degrading and ethnocentric term) peoples and exploiting them for his gain. ( a masculine power exploiting the feminine if we go by Joan Scott terminology)
I would say that Beauvoir was definitely a marxist. For her, the weight of history and contextual circumstances shape our world. This is perhaps why she sees the oppression of women as such a difficult phenomenon to assess; there is no specific reason for such inequality, it seems natural. She ardently sticks to the idea that nothing is natural, and we are all culturally constructed. I believe this is a bonafide marxist notion.
She is perceptive in deconstructing the myths perpetuated by society versus the realities. "she has been deceived in being persuaded that her worth is priceless. The truth is that for man she is an amusement, a pleasure, company, an inessential boon; he is for her the meaning, the justification of her existence. The exchange, therefore, is not of two items of equal value." The importance is placed in exchange, the relationship and not the binaries themselves.
A lot of what she said was right on in my opinion. I struggle with the undeniable fact that we are biologically different, but she contextualized it in such a way that criticized how that difference is manipulated by society, perhaps even institutions. We need to understand the reason for why men are seen as dominant to women, and abolish that inequality. We need to stop buying into formulas for gender, and placing value judgments upon femininity and masculinity.
"One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman". Just like Kelsey, this also stuck with me. It made me consider what that statement means, and ponder it carefully. I think it's interesting, how our culture forms us. How we become what we are told to become. When we deviate from that, we are deemed odd, or queer. Biologically we are a certain way, and nothing can change that, but culturally, we become so much more. That statement says so much without saying much at all.
I really liked Beauvoir's article talking about woman as the Other. Her point that inequality towards women, and other various cases of inequality, such as the cases of racial inequality, are not the same thing. We often look at the feminist movement and the civil rights movement as similar things- they both happened (mostly) in the mid to late twentieth century, they both dealt with civil injustice, and they brought around pretty radical changes in how society acts around the respective groups of each movement. But as Beauvoir points out, the two are radically different. True, blacks were looked down on in society, but this happened due to something in history, namely the enslavement of Africans. But racism hasn't existed forever, where as women, save for the few primitive matriarchal societies found in select cultures, have always been subservient to men. And the fact is, almost every part of our society has been built on the idea that men are the providers, the strong, the ones that rule the world. And where blacks do make up a percentage of the world population, there are just as many women as there are men. To think that women have been held down so hard throughout history is really something, when you think about it- most groups, when oppressed, rise up against that oppression after a few centuries, where as women have only just recently begun to stand up for themselves. I guess it's because of just of how oppressed women have been throughout history, and how much a part of our psyche it's been throughout time. I guess since we assumed thats it's part of how the world works, we didn't give it much thought. I'm curious, how do y'all feel about it?
New encounters with les demoiselles d'avignon- Chave talks a lot about the the fears and anxieties these woman in this painting create for men "deep seated loathing" "anxiety about distinguishing decent women from indecent ones" what i found most interesting about this article was the discussion of visual penetration that the art of painting and viewer are both viewed as phallic but this painting the space is flat with and sealed off with no entrance or exit this contradicts the erotic subject matter the most penetrable of women made impenetrable.
I think Beauvoir touched on a very simple idea about the battle of the sexes. When anyone comes into conflict over transcendence they seek priority for themselves. Being concent with being the other should mean happiness but that means accepting there is nothing left to strive for. As it is is how it should be. Something most would think of as silly if framed in certain context but is essentially always true.
Having read Beauvoir for other gender-related coursework in the past, I decided to focus on the Gauguin article and how problematic I found it. Brooks's whole argument is that even though Gauguin is sexualizing these Tahitian women, it's okay because it's all about finding the purity of sexuality away from Western ideas of women as negative, evil sexual objects. Not only that, but he refuses to acknowledge that colonialism is what allows these Tahitian women to be viewed in this way, whereas he just sees colonialism as a way to get to the island, going so far as to imply there is some sort of equality in the trading of "goods".
Everything about this is problematic for me. We have discussed earlier in the class how Orientalism is what allowed foreign women to be acceptable erotic subjects, and I find this instance no different. Gauguin uses the Tahitian female body to seek out the "animalness" of female sexuality, which can be easily seen as sexualizing of the other, no different than all the naturalist painters before him. These Tahitian women are still objects in these paintings, and it should not be seen as under some guise of free sexuality.
I'll talk some about "hysteria" after reading Freud's studies. I like to look at words and origins. "Hysteria" is like hysterical. It is a feminine word. I think about "hysterectomy." Associated with the uterus is an uncontrollable outburst of emotion. Laughter or anger stems from the vagina apparently, which is ridiculous. It is an unrestrained condition, so men thought the women needed to be controlled in the hospital. They were "treated" using different techniques like medication and electric shock therapy to the frontal lobe. This is just another way to sedate women. Anything to do with sexuality was ridiculed by men. It was embarrassing to have someone in an insane asylum. These women were hidden away and eliminated from society's view. They weren't "safe" for the public to view.
I feel that Simone de Beauvoir wrote her essay at a good time when there was so much change happening all around the world. (If I'm not mistaken, she wrote it in 1949, which would put it around WWII and the time of segregation in America.) I want to talk more about this history in class tomorrow if any of this is pertinent to de Beauvoir's ideas. Was she a Marxist?
ReplyDeleteI too enjoyed the excerpt from the Second Sex. I really felt like I agreed with de Beauvoir's concept that woman had to struggle against two selves and that there has to be an open dialogue between the sex's that holds both accountable in terms of what you could call societal expectations or stereotypes.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the excerpts from the Second Sex, I looked more into Simone de Beauvoir and the phrase: "One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman", kept reappearing. I want to discuss this concept in class more. I feel like we have covered it in terms of gender roles and the effects of those roles but could we look at it in terms of French existentialism? What those mean to someone who believes in existentialism.
ReplyDeleteAlso interested to know if de Beauvoir was a Marxist.
I also really enjoyed the Second Sex reading. Aside from her concepts, just her writing style is very straightforward, unlike some of the other more theoretical texts that we have read in class. In regard to the article about Gauguin, I had some problems. I can appreciate Brooks's interpretation, and I think he has some compelling sections, but overall I don't totally buy it. I still think that even if you concede (which I'm not sure I really can) that Gauguin meant his images to be creating a new sexuality that transcended the traditional gaze and was not degrading to women there is still the major issue of his totally Eurocentric views.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense that he was creating these images with the idealistic notion of natural nudity and pure eroticism without the aspect of male conquering female when he uses the very act of conquering in his role of domination over a "primitive" woman. I see Brooks's argument as him trying to justify an artist that he likes and cleanse him of some of the negative commentary surrounding him. For there is no way in my mind that Gauguin was not entertaining very destructive views of "primitive" (a degrading and ethnocentric term) peoples and exploiting them for his gain. ( a masculine power exploiting the feminine if we go by Joan Scott terminology)
I would say that Beauvoir was definitely a marxist. For her, the weight of history and contextual circumstances shape our world. This is perhaps why she sees the oppression of women as such a difficult phenomenon to assess; there is no specific reason for such inequality, it seems natural. She ardently sticks to the idea that nothing is natural, and we are all culturally constructed. I believe this is a bonafide marxist notion.
ReplyDeleteShe is perceptive in deconstructing the myths perpetuated by society versus the realities. "she has been deceived in being persuaded that her worth is priceless. The truth
is that for man she is an amusement, a pleasure, company, an inessential
boon; he is for her the meaning, the justification of her existence. The
exchange, therefore, is not of two items of equal value." The importance is placed in exchange, the relationship and not the binaries themselves.
A lot of what she said was right on in my opinion. I struggle with the undeniable fact that we are biologically different, but she contextualized it in such a way that criticized how that difference is manipulated by society, perhaps even institutions. We need to understand the reason for why men are seen as dominant to women, and abolish that inequality. We need to stop buying into formulas for gender, and placing value judgments upon femininity and masculinity.
"One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman". Just like Kelsey, this also stuck with me. It made me consider what that statement means, and ponder it carefully. I think it's interesting, how our culture forms us. How we become what we are told to become. When we deviate from that, we are deemed odd, or queer. Biologically we are a certain way, and nothing can change that, but culturally, we become so much more. That statement says so much without saying much at all.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Beauvoir's article talking about woman as the Other. Her point that inequality towards women, and other various cases of inequality, such as the cases of racial inequality, are not the same thing. We often look at the feminist movement and the civil rights movement as similar things- they both happened (mostly) in the mid to late twentieth century, they both dealt with civil injustice, and they brought around pretty radical changes in how society acts around the respective groups of each movement. But as Beauvoir points out, the two are radically different. True, blacks were looked down on in society, but this happened due to something in history, namely the enslavement of Africans. But racism hasn't existed forever, where as women, save for the few primitive matriarchal societies found in select cultures, have always been subservient to men. And the fact is, almost every part of our society has been built on the idea that men are the providers, the strong, the ones that rule the world. And where blacks do make up a percentage of the world population, there are just as many women as there are men. To think that women have been held down so hard throughout history is really something, when you think about it- most groups, when oppressed, rise up against that oppression after a few centuries, where as women have only just recently begun to stand up for themselves. I guess it's because of just of how oppressed women have been throughout history, and how much a part of our psyche it's been throughout time. I guess since we assumed thats it's part of how the world works, we didn't give it much thought. I'm curious, how do y'all feel about it?
ReplyDeleteNew encounters with les demoiselles d'avignon- Chave talks a lot about the the fears and anxieties these woman in this painting create for men "deep seated loathing" "anxiety about distinguishing decent women from indecent ones" what i found most interesting about this article was the discussion of visual penetration that the art of painting and viewer are both viewed as phallic but this painting the space is flat with and sealed off with no entrance or exit this contradicts the erotic subject matter the most penetrable of women made impenetrable.
ReplyDeleteI think Beauvoir touched on a very simple idea about the battle of the sexes. When anyone comes into conflict over transcendence they seek priority for themselves. Being concent with being the other should mean happiness but that means accepting there is nothing left to strive for. As it is is how it should be. Something most would think of as silly if framed in certain context but is essentially always true.
ReplyDeleteHaving read Beauvoir for other gender-related coursework in the past, I decided to focus on the Gauguin article and how problematic I found it. Brooks's whole argument is that even though Gauguin is sexualizing these Tahitian women, it's okay because it's all about finding the purity of sexuality away from Western ideas of women as negative, evil sexual objects. Not only that, but he refuses to acknowledge that colonialism is what allows these Tahitian women to be viewed in this way, whereas he just sees colonialism as a way to get to the island, going so far as to imply there is some sort of equality in the trading of "goods".
ReplyDeleteEverything about this is problematic for me. We have discussed earlier in the class how Orientalism is what allowed foreign women to be acceptable erotic subjects, and I find this instance no different. Gauguin uses the Tahitian female body to seek out the "animalness" of female sexuality, which can be easily seen as sexualizing of the other, no different than all the naturalist painters before him. These Tahitian women are still objects in these paintings, and it should not be seen as under some guise of free sexuality.
I'll talk some about "hysteria" after reading Freud's studies. I like to look at words and origins. "Hysteria" is like hysterical. It is a feminine word. I think about "hysterectomy." Associated with the uterus is an uncontrollable outburst of emotion. Laughter or anger stems from the vagina apparently, which is ridiculous. It is an unrestrained condition, so men thought the women needed to be controlled in the hospital. They were "treated" using different techniques like medication and electric shock therapy to the frontal lobe. This is just another way to sedate women. Anything to do with sexuality was ridiculed by men. It was embarrassing to have someone in an insane asylum. These women were hidden away and eliminated from society's view. They weren't "safe" for the public to view.
ReplyDelete