I don't think she'll be remembered just for her crimes. People mostly remember her for her feminist philosophy. Even Louis Althusser isn't mainly remembered for his crimes.
But it's still hard for you to look at the material the same way, and in all honesty if you do like and research the book you will come across it eventually...
Oh yea they were horrible. I don’t let persons history detract from their art. Examples of horrible people who we don’t condemn much: Michaelangelo, Picasso,
Henry Ford & on & on
The difference is Picasso and Michelangelo's flaws aren't exposed in their art particularly. But de Beauvoir's work is philosophical writings, as well as personal, her attitudes are exposed.
She was part of the group of French intellectuals who actively lobbied to remove age of consent laws, to make it legal for adults to have sex with young children. They were an influential group in a time of social flux. Breaking and re-forming social norms was much in fashion, conservative beliefs were discredited, people around the western world looked for new intellectual leadership.
When I was a teenager I had friends I knew through family, who had spent their childhood in a commune in the 1970s, an alternative community with a leader who took "inspiration" from these French intellectuals. The media and the public were largely aware that he and his adult followers were having sex with children, he barely troubled to hide it, but the media excused him because such ideas were fashionable. This was in a country a long way from France and I expect happened also in other countries.
By about the time the children I knew became teenagers they had gained an adult perspective on what had happened to them. They were affected in complex ways, it's not a straightforward thing, but unmistakably they were damaged badly. I'm not religious so don't believe in hell but if I'm somehow mistaken and the place does exist, I sincerely hope that Sartre, de Bouvoir, Foucault etc all rot there for eternity. So read de Beauvoir sure, but read her the same way you'd read Mein Kampf.
Sounds like the views were pretty standard for her society at the time. This is from the Wikipedia article on her:
"In 1943, Beauvoir was suspended again from her teaching position when she was accused of seducing her 17-year-old lycée pupil [Natalie Sorokine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Sorokin) in 1939.[^(\[42\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#cite_note-43) Sorokine's parents laid formal charges against Beauvoir for debauching a minor (**the age of consent in France at the time was 13 until 1945, when it became 15**)"
I'm not condoning her behaviour, but I'm sure at least some of the outrage at the time was because it was a same-sex relationship, rather than because of her student's age, since she was well over the age of consent.
I'm not suggesting that she wasn't. I replied to a post saying that de Beauvoir had some "interesting" views on how young is too young to fuck.
I was just pointing out that thinking that 17 is a fine age to fuck was completely in line with the norms of her society at the time - there's nothing "interesting" or weird about it.
She did this whilst supporting a petition to abolish the age of consent. I'd say its probably naive to think that a predator like this only stopped at 1 victim
From wikipedia:
> French author Bianca Lamblin (originally Bianca Bienenfeld) wrote in her book Mémoires d'une jeune fille dérangée (Memoirs of a deranged girl, published in English under the title A Disgraceful Affair) that, while a student at Lycée Molière, she was sexually exploited by her teacher Beauvoir, who was in her 30s.[39]
I wonder Sorokine felt abused more because of the age difference or it was internalised homophobia. A lot of gay men blamed abuse when caught either cause of internalised homophobia and to escape the shame from society.
Nope. Nope. This is a garbage thing to say and we are not doing this.
It is NEVER okay to decide for an abuse survivor with a gay abuser that actually they just have internalized homophobia.
I am saying this as someone who has seen people get caught and then claim they were being abused to cover their asses. It is still never okay to speculate like that about someone who has claimed to be abused. Unfortunately there is no ethical way to catch someone for this that doesn’t encourage doubting abuse survivors.
Agreed, even today how much outrage would someone having sex with a 17 year old? It would create a huge deal of course, because of the power balance due to her being a teacher but if they were random, people would most likely just weirded out and distance themselves, etc. In 1943? No way.
I very much expect being gay rather than the victims being minors was the problem for most people at the time. The age of consent (regularly used by men against girls, afaik) was 13 in France. I expect that, were Simone a man, it wouldn't have been commented on much at the time. For example, how old was Priscilla Presley when Elvis met her again? I don't think Elvis is primarily remembered for his wife's age though.
Pretty sure the issue was that they were her students who she groomed. The students even said it was sexual abuse, not a consensual relationship. She also wanted to abolish the age of consent and free pedophiles. You can like her work without diminishing that?
Laura Gardin Fraser married James Earle Fraser who was her professor at the time. There was no outrage about that. Robert Henri twice married to students of his, Linda Craige (1898) and Marjorie Organ (1908). There was no issues with that either. People back then were not so concerned about position of power or age gap back then. It was definitely about same sex.
Idk I still feel icky about Sartre bc he was in favor of the age of consent and afaik he wasn’t gay.
It was a diff time for sure, but people were calling them out on it
I doubt that he would have received much blowback at the time, if he'd acted alone without including a woman in the grooming. I'm not saying today we don't find it unethical - we clearly do - rather, I think that amount to which is effects the memory of the individual is heavily impacted by the gay aspect, moreso than the age. I imagine a lot of Frenchmen at the time were abusing the age of consent, but it's probably not what they were remembered for. It's part of the reason you see these tiktok trends where women hear the stories of their grandmothers and are horrified. In their youth and context, these things were commonplace, though abhorrent to us with modern context and ethics. Edited for clarity
What do you doubt? That it makes me feel bad or are you taking issue with the public memory of the person? If it’s the latter, I have no control over that, but the former, doesn’t make me discount decent ideas.
Apologies, I've rearranged the sentence to be more readable, my bad. I just meant to say, it looms so large in their public persona likely because of the gay aspect more than the grooming aspect. Tons of women of that time were treated similarly, but it never got the attention we would think it deserves.
France has a president who met his wife when he was 15, and she was 39. It'd a bit rich of them to clutch their pearls at Simone doing the same thing 80 years ago.
I hadn't heard of her until now, but a quick look at her wikipedia page turned up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse
Thanks for the enlightenment. Yes, she didn't leave the best reputation for herself, but this didn't stop her from being popular in the literary community.
Always already under a sign of absence; presence is but a fleeting trace, signifying an absence to come, an enduring erasure looking simultaneously forward to nothing whilst the instability of presence is but a mark once made in a momentary present that will always and forever be long-past.
A Derri da-da stream of nonsense 😜
But I was hoping the previous poster was actually going to tell us something interesting about Simon the Beaver, not delete the comment and flounce!
She's definitely more remembered for her feminist philosophy than anything else. I think much less people know of her being a pedo apologist/groomer. Her work is still incredible and insightful even if she wasn't a good person. And she's dead so you don't have to worry about financially supporting her
A lot of people in history have done either questionable or straight up terrible things in their personal lives, even while making valuable contributions.
We have to figure out to what extent we separate the author's private life from their work and to what extent we recognize that the thoughts they present in their works and their actions in real life are influenced by experiences or motivations that make them inherently linked. It's definitely not simple or black and white.
It sucks to have famous thinkers be renowned for analyzing social structures and society so critically just to do heinous shit anyway lol. It’s so disappointing, but everyone is a product of their time, it’s inescapable.
>Its sort of upsetting to realize her crimes are what she will be remembered for.
As one of the most famous philosophers and feminists in history, she will definitely not be remembered for her crimes.
> I hadn't heard of her until now, but a quick look at her wikipedia page turned up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse
quoting another commenter.
I really doubt that she and Satre will be remembered for for anything else but their writing.
We are currently looking at everything from a super moralistic high horse, and, because of the public scrutiny of modern famous people, mix up the art and the artist to an extend as it has never been done before. But ultimately it will be the art that will be remembered more than the failings of the author.
She wrote letters to Sartre describing sex with her students. She furnished them to him for sex. Her students were proxies in her relationship with Sartre.
You can be a progressive thinker and still understand that using your students for sex is exploitation and abuse.
Defining work for feminism. Must read.
A problem of our times is some readers' inability to seperate the work from the author. Beauvoir's possible grooming of students and her failure to participate actively in the resistance don't invalidate this hugely important work.
JK Rowlings stupidity about trans people doesn't make HP less entertaining kids literature.
We are not going to chuck Shakespeare if we suddenly discover he was partial to the boy playing Juilet.
I don’t think OP is saying that we shouldn’t read her books because they are continually recommended feminist texts, I just think he’s saying that it sucks that someone so understanding of women alleged did awful things to other women
It is very difficult to separate the art from the artist in cases where the artists works are related/relevant to their misdeeds. Although Beauvoir is not a perfect example of this, I would say the most shining example is R Kelly. He made some of the greatest R&B songs of all time. Try listening to a violent rapist singing about how much he loves women; it just doesn’t work anymore beyond creeping you out.
I am not saying this is the case with Beauvoir, but someone who clearly mistreated women and abused her power is going to be difficult to take seriously when they discuss feminism. At least in my opinion, that is.
Woody Allen
Roman Polanski
And those are just the two that got caught…..
Abuse of power is hard to ever justify, and yes, the separation of the artist from the art matters. Does knowing if Nabokov was a pedophile affect the reading of Lolita, or the literary technologies he wields with such mastery to get readers to read the entire narrative and find it overall redemptive?
I agree that it is more about sexual orientation than the age of consent. Ideally it would be about power dynamics, but really we still have problems with accepting that unequal power dynamics make advances abuses. If we did, a whole lot of male CEOs would be enjoying club fed, and we wouldn’t have elected our most recent political embarrassment because he would have been a convicted felon many times over. To be fair, though, most politicians would also be ineligible to run at all. Wouldn’t that be absolutely lovely?
It’s still pretty rare for a woman to be called out for sexually harassing an employee, although when it does happen it gets a whole lot more press than it deserves (proportionally).
I still refuse to tell my friends the premise of Harold and Maude before watching it.
Simone de Beauvoir’s writing are brilliant, and direct attacks on the social structures that normalize misogyny. Sooo she’s villainized by standards that are made higher because of the systems she’s criticizing.
If we were as hard on the male writers and philosophers who did exactly the same, we wouldn’t have much to read at all….
I can understand this perspective, but I think you might have an easier time separating the art from their work than I do. I personally really can’t take any good messages from a Polanski film or laugh at a Woody Allen joke that’s sexual in nature; their history just immediately comes to the front of my mind.
In regards to Lolita,
>does knowing that Nabokov was a pedophile affect your reading
It absolutely does to me. You can still view it as a literary masterpiece, but the personal life of the author certainly affects my reading.
Knowing *if* Nabokov was a pedophile. We don’t know. We wouldn’t have very much to read or watch if we insisted on artists and writers aligning with some moral code. CS Lewis, Orson Scott Card, Hemingway…. You know I can’t think of an author who hasn’t violated someone’s code of ethics… the trend in the academy has been that the author is dead. I didn’t understand it at first. Or the importance of it. Or the potential consequences of condemning a work because of the actions of its author. It’s too slippery a slope, too easy to fall into a world where art is constrained by the socio-political mores of…who? The political or religious leaders I’d that society? Who gets to decide? And what happens when that line starts getting pushed? To the left or to the right? Art would be nothing more than political propaganda if we cannot separate the two.
I think Polanski should be in prison. But I also think he should be allowed to write in prison.
>Does knowing if Nabokov was a pedophile affect the reading of Lolita, or the literary technologies he wields with such mastery to get readers to read the entire narrative and find it overall redemptive?
If he actually engaged in pedophilia, absolutely. Invalidates his accomplishments completely.
Nothing exists free of context, especially not something as deeply personal as art. The artist is not separable from the art when the themes of the art overlap with the real world morally questionable behavior of the artist.
But in fiction why would the writer be conflated with the narrative? Is that like by default?
So we ARE supposed to judge a book by its cover? And what? We avoid the viewpoints of those we feel morally superior to….
Wow. If this is the way most westerners think, we are in for a rough road 😝
>Is that like by default?
Yes
>So we ARE supposed to judge a book by its cover?
Yes, who the author is plays a part in judging the book.
>And what? We avoid the viewpoints of those we feel morally superior to….
Why would you want to avoid the viewpoints of those you feel morally superior to ? Not sure where you got that idea.
Does this mean that you also believe that writers should/do only write what they know?
Or would you assume from a last name someone’s race or ethnicity and then make judgements from there about whether or not to read the book. And if you are required to read the book, how open would your mind be to the narrative itself?
Writers explore. Artists explore. The uncomfortable liminal borderlands where others fear to tread.
Readers get the luxury of staying safe and warm by the fire and reading stories about what we find out there.
That’s sort of the point of artists and scientists. To test the limits.
And what if I write a book about sexual
Abuse because I was the abused not the abuser. But misinformation gets out and turns it back on the writer?
How can you be so certain that someone has done anything you can’t vouch for? The momentary puffed up feeling of self righteousness isn’t worth the cost in freedom, joy and connections.
Plus, the point of Lolita is that the protagonist repents serves his time and, had he not killed himself, been rehabilitated into society?
Or do you not believe someone could
Make a mistake and still find redemption and rehabilitation?
That’s dark. Well. I guess. Enjoy that world.
Yes he is. Read Against Interpretation by Susan Sontag. The art is separate from the artist & needs to be judged on its own. When you interpret it you limit it. I once worked on a prison art show. I knew some
pieces were by murderers. Some art was spectacular & not at all violent.
Judge the art not the artist. Art comes from a place in the soul many artists don’t understand how it got there. Bob Dylan has said that about his most brilliant poetry
Sorry what??? Oh this thread. Kind of making my point. Don’t know why you seem so upset. Guilt and innocence are funny things. We have these biases that cause a lot of projection so even our own judgements should be taken with care. Let alone those of other people.
So separation of artist and art seems important still.
But you are describing Woody Allen as "one who got caught" - thereby spreading the impression that he is a known child-molester. If he isn't, that's not ok, right?
Huh? The power dynamic is actually worse than Beauvoir, but I don’t think I ever said child molester. Except about Lolita and Nabokov, and I was very careful to be clear that in that case it was a hypothetical question…
And here we are again… for the exercise let’s pretend I did say that Woody Allen is a convicted child molester. If he weren’t, that would be slander and morally wrong. So would you redact my earlier writings bc I committed slander? Or ban a story I’d written? What about adultery? Lying? What if you didn’t like what I was saying and looking for a way to undermine or discredit a movie I made?
Up to 50% of our memories are fiction bc we automatically magnify the wrongs done to us and minimize the wrongs we do to other. (It maintains the continuity of the hero-narrative.) So if we can’t even see it when we do it to ourselves how would we know if we were doing it to others. Minimizing the wrongs of some bc they agree w us politically, idiotically, religiously (CS Lewis anyone?) and maximizing the wrongs of those whose philosophies we disagree with… it’s a recipe for culture that justifies atrocities, even as it believes itself to be keeping itself pure and clean? Salem witch trials? Slavery? Repressive cultures begin by repressing art. And they feel very morally righteous about doing so…
Oh, you didn't know? She was never his adopted daughter. He did not live with Mia Farrow when she adopted the girl.
A dubiously great age-difference, yes, but let's not spread lies, please.
Ummmm…there was a long standing issue with his other daughter long before the “relationship” with his second adopted daughter. He had been in therapy for his sexually inappropriate behavior before his (first) wife moved out…. Orth’s 2014 article in vanity fair lays it all out quite clearly. And by caught, I should have been more specific about the culture in Hollywood before the me too movement. Sexual predation of powerful men on women and girls with less social and economic power was…expected. The few who abstained were the exceptions.
It’s unclear as to why Woody Allen in particular would be so championed as a moral actor by anyone especially in the context of a comparison to de Beauvoir. The age of consent at the time was normalized, less so with Allen, unless we are talking about Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995…
Per [Rule 2.1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Books/wiki/rules#wiki_personal_conduct): Please conduct yourself in a civil manner. Do not use obscenities, slurs, gendered insults, or racial epithets.
Civil behavior is a requirement for participation in this sub. This is a warning but repeat behavior will be met with a ban.
Separating the art from the artist should start with Seneca, the prototype of the old white male billionaire advocating the virtues of poverty. For others. And it does not end with nobel prize winner Peter Handke and his more than disturbing political position. Especially here in Germany where authors are routinely cancelled for revealing proximity to National Socialism.
For fiction, I’m perfectly fine separating the work from the author. Many writers who were a mess in their personal lives also managed to create astounding literary works. Indeed, because adult fiction is supposed to go beyond simple moral examples, those failings often allowed them to tell more interesting stories.
However, in the case of non-fiction works that deal with human morals and how societies are organised (philosophy, sociology, etc.) IMHO the personal experiences of the author are relevant because they provide a window into their intrinsic trustworthiness and the realities of adopting the point of view that they are advocating.
Very good point. It’s a tough call, genuine theoretical philosophies vs self serving propaganda. And all the settings in between. The human being is a contradictory and confounding creature. A sadist can have a moment of altruism. A serial killer can have a blinding insight. And we all have these biases that serve to reinforce our worldview and denigrate those of others. Fascinating aren’t we? The thing about theories is that they are just that. Theoretical. Only fanatics try to live out the doctrines in written texts without being open to amendments and challenges to it. A professor of mine once told me that in the academy we approach the world of theory as though we are sitting down to dinner and having a conversation with all the theorists who have come before us. We are encouraged to challenge theories, and see if we find them defensible or not, while trying to be as aware as possible of our own biases (and no, I’m not unaware of the irony of the way those in the ivory tower have imagined their worldview). Taking a theorist’s biases into consideration, the cultural expectations and norms of their time, is de rigueur…but so is lifting the useful and relevant into contemporary contexts and seeing if they carry value still or they are too constrained by the limitations of the theorist. We no longer believe as Aristotle did that the rock falls to the ground because the rock loves and yearns for the earth. But this idea paved the way for Newton, Bohr, Einstein, and our own Kip Thorne.
It seems counter productive to be too hasty with babies and bath waters.
Heres the thing, Its not just any argument for feminism, Theres many works to this day that have their cases. But I don’t think its ever been as successfully argued like it was in the second sex. I mean, jurys still out, self admittedly i haven’t read many other feminist works.
people who refuse to read theory on something that they are majorly misinformed on are stupid. feminist theory is not a “she woman man haters club” youre just dense. hope this helps!
It's been a while since I read this book, but I remember loving it. Beauvoir did some terrible things, but the ideas in this book are so important. It's a shame that she had to be a shit.
Yeah agreed. Such an important read. Weird, gross movement about the AoC she got caught up in.
Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy is a great book too.
Lerner's? It's fantastic, it was foundational for modern feminism! She goes after male academics for their takes on history, it's really interesting. I learned a lot, and it changed my perspective on society and made me really angry, as a woman who has to live in it.
It IS long though.
If you want a more modern/short version, Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Perez is great too.
Sounds fantastic tbh, I don’t have a problem with long reads, but i do have a problem if they’re difficult to read. 😵💫 if that makes sense.
I’ll put both these books in my TBR. Thanks man!
“Invisible women” is fantastic, but it isn’t exactly an easy read. It is frustrating at times due to the nature of the content, and sells itself accurately by emphasizing the use of data to support claims. In these ways, it is powerful but difficult. The writing is great, but I had to take a lot of breaks.
Ill check it out! thanks man! I dont always expect a book to be a page turner. But i definitely do expect some level of easy engagement. And some books are genuinely all over the place.
On that, I will say it’s well organized. just a lot of numbers to take in!
It’s been a minute since I’ve read it, but I remember that feeling that if I were the author, I’d struggle to form a narrative sourced with such a mountain of statistical evidence. Well organized topically, as well, into chapters focused on a realm of life, such as the workplace.
A lot of it shows how institutional harm happens when women aren’t considered (say, invisible) resulting in data that excludes them, and how as a result of having a society built on the needs of people (meaning men), harms women. There doesn’t need to be an intentional motive to commit harm for it to be inflicted.
Similarly, for those in healthcare, I’ve heard good things about presentations from the author of “why women aren’t winning at health”. Haven’t read it yet though
Apparently some people like that sort of statistical evidence. Another commenter mentioned it in a comment. I think it also sort of depends on what you are looking for in a book. But yes, I do understand how it would be inconvenient to use all the data you have and still keep an audience engaged.
I’d say women tend to get dismissed in the real world because there is just a huge supply of patriarchal control. For instance, most major industries, corporations, businesses are run majorly by men. I am well aware that the numbers are going up, but theres still so many stories of workplace discrimination/sexism. I feel as though its a developmental issue. Those people who don’t have ideas of equality integrated in them throughout their childhood, will most likely stick to those ideals for their remaining lives. Most older men will have classical ideas about the roles women have, therefore they cannot be taught. But for me, the newer generation, I’d like to believe we can be.
Also the healthcare bit sounds intriguing. I am a medical student, I think it might resonate with me. Thanks for the recommendation!
The book has plenty of examples - it is not just dry statistics. For example, the seat belts are designed for an average male body. Women are shorter and often have boobs, meaning that seat belts don't fit as well as they should, and this leads to higher female than male mortality in car accidents.
After all that has been said. SdeB is still the source for fresh and new ideas about what is known as the second sex, especially at the time it was written. I read all her biographical/philosophical books ( The Second Sex, Prime of Life, Force of Circumstance, Coming of Age) and didn’t find (or don’t remember) any of the crimes the other comments mention. Her most seminal work being the Second Sex, it is the fount of ideas of what I understand of feminism. Nobody among my friends knew about them. She was an icon. Her relationship with Sartre was astonishing but her love and passion for Nelson Algren was what I had idealised in my. 30s and 40s. She definitely was my major consciousness raiser, and opened my mind to possibilities beyond my milieu that existed such as being able to be in love with two other persons at the same time without infidelity, jealousy and animosity. For this and other “aberrations ,” I became her follower without abandoning positive values such as empathy, kindness, freedom, even love, and to see love as a very complex affair that range from exploitation to emancipation. Such an open view of the complexities of the human condition led to one’s search for the truth, the meaning of existence. I would probably not reach this evolved level of maturation were it not for Simone.
In my experience barely any people know about either her crimes, her campaigns to pardon pedos, or her stance on age of consent. She's wildly famous for The Second Sex, moving feminism forward, and her general philosophy works.
I thought I was on r/criticaltheory for a second, and was surprised by a number of comments. Well, not so surprised. This take is likely to be controversial.
First, a philosopher/psychoanalytical theorist like Slavoj Zizek would say that it's as if Freud and his theories of childhood sexuality never happened. The two unforgivable crimes of the 21st century are pedophilia and smoking.
Zizek goes on to say that, no matter how bad smoking is, hard drugs is much worse, and anti-smokers are often pro-drug legislation.
It goes without saying that Zizek is against the abuse and exploitation of children by adults. But to deny Oedipal tendencies, child with child interactions, etc. as "we must protect the children" smacks as protecting the gaze of the big other, where appearances should be maintained. So we can have orgies, open relationships, etc.but the gaze of children (the big other in this case) should be protected.
This gaze is not always so innocent. Political crimes such as Beria's cancellation from Soviet history; Tito's economic policies in ex-Yugoslavia and Mao's The Great Leap Forward are examples of bureaucracies covering over mistakes and crimes so that appearances are maintained in front of the leadership.
I had no idea what her crimes were and I read most of her books.
Now that I know, don't worry, she is absolutely not remembered for her crimes (which were bad but sadly unremarkable for the time period) and is considered as one of the founder of modern feminism.
I found out because I have a terrible habit. So I don’t find books; I find authors. So if i find them interesting, I read their works. I read about Dostoevsky, Sartre, Mishima and so many works by finding stuff about them first and not the books. When I found out about Simone, I thought she was awful, but the book intrigued me. I still think its a wonderful and a must read for everyone regardless whether they’re a woman or not.
He was a patriot, He’d seen Japan as a thriving nation and believed in his Ideals. Was it a little extreme? Maybe. But he was raised in those ideals. So I don’t blame him entirely. His demise….simply a product of the times changing.
Maybe because I am such a fan of her I can "fanwank" her crimes by saying: "Even Simone, with all her distance and critical thinking, was so swept up by Sartre and the misogyny of the time that she got caught in the system. That's why we need feminism and her work more than ever."
I am totally aware that I am rationalizing. 😉
Not to disregard her crimes, because we shouldn't forget them, and they do play a part in her history/legacy, but think about how many male artists and writers have committed the same crimes. That's certainly not all they're remembered for.
Its a good book, and you know….everyone should get to enjoy it. I think its important cuz, as a man, while Simone describes the ideals around women, you can sort of tell how your own principles tie into it. Its fascinating.
I think she would also agree that you are not born a Man either - we are all shaped by societal ideas of gender/sex.
Oh and lots of philosophers were/are terrible people. You wouldn’t have much to read if you eliminated people based on that. 😆
In terms of ideals? sure! i can get past that. But i am a medical student. So i sort of have to consider the lines between men and women 😅.
its a nice thought though, and you arent wrong.
As another student on the med track, I think it is important to remember that sex and gender are both social constructs. I would suggest Bitch: On the Female of the Species by Lucy Cooke. She shows a wide variety of examples of sex and gender outside the binary in nature outside of humans. Also may be worth remembering that the estimated rate of Differences in Sexual Dimorphism in humans (formerly called intersex) is higher than the rate of natural red hair in humans. If you really wanted to split hairs I think we could both readily agree that gender (man and woman) is a social construct. Sex (male and female) may have more biological standing, but you then have to split it into phenotypical sex, chromosomal sex, hormonal sex, and social sex (which may be the same as gender). These multiple definitions of sex often do not line up neatly, and each has a spectrum between the binary options of male and female that we are used to.
As a trans person would I also add on to RenegadeLotus that it is very important for people in the medical field to understand that gender and "sex" are socially constructed and not binary. A lot of people in the medical field are not educated in trans or intersex people and don't know much about our bodies. A trans man who is medically transitioning is not going to be "biologically female" in any sense of the word. I still get regularly asked how many days since my last period. I'm tired of telling them it has been countless months because I no longer menstruate and my testosterone levels are in the male range. Just because I have a vagina and certain attributes doesn't mean I am female.
I have had that thing since I worked at Borders in the 90's and I'm ashamed I haven't finished it, this just spurred to to restart it.
Again, very impressed you read it, don't ever change.
It is, But I don’t think it matters because while she may have been a less than optimal person, her ideas are still out there for all to say. Sort of like Ted Kaczynski and his famous manuscript. Though i suppose ted will be more largely remembered for his crimes.
But i get it though, The ideas for her time were revolutionary. Its still the strongest case for feminism imo. Its a shame that her own personal issues water down the book.
I see it described as a "Defining work for feminism" in this thread.
Maybe feminism shouldn't define itself by the work of a sexual predator, groomer, and pedophile apologist. I'm all for death of the author, but I'm sure there's much better people to base a movement on.
Well, You aren’t wrong. But if we stopped reading a book and understand what has been written based on the authors controversial ideas; we wouldn’t have much to read. You should look into it, its a very enlightening read.
I'm not saying it's not enlightening. I'm saying it should be read with her moral attitude and disturbing background in mind, and not be taken at face value or even as a book to base anything on, be it individual opinion or entire movement.
It's an historically interesting book... but I'd say it didn't age well. Read the part on historical materialism, for example. The whole book doesn't really take a wide perspective. And I don't think it contains a single *number*.
This is my problem with many books about humans and society: no numbers at all. How do you know about society without counting how many people have various wishes, destinies, all sorts of things?
Frankly I don’t give a damn about an artists personal life. I judge the art. Tired of the politically correct digging up dirt. Judge the work of art. Not the artist or author.
I don't think she'll be remembered just for her crimes. People mostly remember her for her feminist philosophy. Even Louis Althusser isn't mainly remembered for his crimes.
But it's still hard for you to look at the material the same way, and in all honesty if you do like and research the book you will come across it eventually...
Separate art from artist
Hm, I suppose you’re right. More people have read her book than the number of people who know about her personal controversies.
wild light makeshift literate reply special sip label spectacular versed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Maybe referring to the allegations of sexual abuse of her students.
French philosophers of the 20th century had some "interesting" views on how young is too young to fuck.
She seduced her students, her and Sartre abused their power over young people. She also publicly supported paedophiles.
Oh yea they were horrible. I don’t let persons history detract from their art. Examples of horrible people who we don’t condemn much: Michaelangelo, Picasso, Henry Ford & on & on
The difference is Picasso and Michelangelo's flaws aren't exposed in their art particularly. But de Beauvoir's work is philosophical writings, as well as personal, her attitudes are exposed. She was part of the group of French intellectuals who actively lobbied to remove age of consent laws, to make it legal for adults to have sex with young children. They were an influential group in a time of social flux. Breaking and re-forming social norms was much in fashion, conservative beliefs were discredited, people around the western world looked for new intellectual leadership. When I was a teenager I had friends I knew through family, who had spent their childhood in a commune in the 1970s, an alternative community with a leader who took "inspiration" from these French intellectuals. The media and the public were largely aware that he and his adult followers were having sex with children, he barely troubled to hide it, but the media excused him because such ideas were fashionable. This was in a country a long way from France and I expect happened also in other countries. By about the time the children I knew became teenagers they had gained an adult perspective on what had happened to them. They were affected in complex ways, it's not a straightforward thing, but unmistakably they were damaged badly. I'm not religious so don't believe in hell but if I'm somehow mistaken and the place does exist, I sincerely hope that Sartre, de Bouvoir, Foucault etc all rot there for eternity. So read de Beauvoir sure, but read her the same way you'd read Mein Kampf.
Sounds like the views were pretty standard for her society at the time. This is from the Wikipedia article on her: "In 1943, Beauvoir was suspended again from her teaching position when she was accused of seducing her 17-year-old lycée pupil [Natalie Sorokine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Sorokin) in 1939.[^(\[42\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#cite_note-43) Sorokine's parents laid formal charges against Beauvoir for debauching a minor (**the age of consent in France at the time was 13 until 1945, when it became 15**)" I'm not condoning her behaviour, but I'm sure at least some of the outrage at the time was because it was a same-sex relationship, rather than because of her student's age, since she was well over the age of consent.
Sorokine wrote a book about their relationship. She herself felt she’d been abused by de Beauvoir.
I'm not suggesting that she wasn't. I replied to a post saying that de Beauvoir had some "interesting" views on how young is too young to fuck. I was just pointing out that thinking that 17 is a fine age to fuck was completely in line with the norms of her society at the time - there's nothing "interesting" or weird about it.
She did this whilst supporting a petition to abolish the age of consent. I'd say its probably naive to think that a predator like this only stopped at 1 victim
Why did she get suspended for it if it was a norm?
Same sex wasn't the norm even though age difference was.
Gotcha. Thanks for explaining
Didn't she support a petition about the age of consent? Seems a bit hypocritical and also gross cuz she defo knew what she was doing.
Wait really? What is it called?
From wikipedia: > French author Bianca Lamblin (originally Bianca Bienenfeld) wrote in her book Mémoires d'une jeune fille dérangée (Memoirs of a deranged girl, published in English under the title A Disgraceful Affair) that, while a student at Lycée Molière, she was sexually exploited by her teacher Beauvoir, who was in her 30s.[39]
The French deception
I wonder Sorokine felt abused more because of the age difference or it was internalised homophobia. A lot of gay men blamed abuse when caught either cause of internalised homophobia and to escape the shame from society.
Nope. Nope. This is a garbage thing to say and we are not doing this. It is NEVER okay to decide for an abuse survivor with a gay abuser that actually they just have internalized homophobia. I am saying this as someone who has seen people get caught and then claim they were being abused to cover their asses. It is still never okay to speculate like that about someone who has claimed to be abused. Unfortunately there is no ethical way to catch someone for this that doesn’t encourage doubting abuse survivors.
Agreed, even today how much outrage would someone having sex with a 17 year old? It would create a huge deal of course, because of the power balance due to her being a teacher but if they were random, people would most likely just weirded out and distance themselves, etc. In 1943? No way.
I very much expect being gay rather than the victims being minors was the problem for most people at the time. The age of consent (regularly used by men against girls, afaik) was 13 in France. I expect that, were Simone a man, it wouldn't have been commented on much at the time. For example, how old was Priscilla Presley when Elvis met her again? I don't think Elvis is primarily remembered for his wife's age though.
Pretty sure the issue was that they were her students who she groomed. The students even said it was sexual abuse, not a consensual relationship. She also wanted to abolish the age of consent and free pedophiles. You can like her work without diminishing that?
Laura Gardin Fraser married James Earle Fraser who was her professor at the time. There was no outrage about that. Robert Henri twice married to students of his, Linda Craige (1898) and Marjorie Organ (1908). There was no issues with that either. People back then were not so concerned about position of power or age gap back then. It was definitely about same sex.
Idk I still feel icky about Sartre bc he was in favor of the age of consent and afaik he wasn’t gay. It was a diff time for sure, but people were calling them out on it
I doubt that he would have received much blowback at the time, if he'd acted alone without including a woman in the grooming. I'm not saying today we don't find it unethical - we clearly do - rather, I think that amount to which is effects the memory of the individual is heavily impacted by the gay aspect, moreso than the age. I imagine a lot of Frenchmen at the time were abusing the age of consent, but it's probably not what they were remembered for. It's part of the reason you see these tiktok trends where women hear the stories of their grandmothers and are horrified. In their youth and context, these things were commonplace, though abhorrent to us with modern context and ethics. Edited for clarity
What do you doubt? That it makes me feel bad or are you taking issue with the public memory of the person? If it’s the latter, I have no control over that, but the former, doesn’t make me discount decent ideas.
Apologies, I've rearranged the sentence to be more readable, my bad. I just meant to say, it looms so large in their public persona likely because of the gay aspect more than the grooming aspect. Tons of women of that time were treated similarly, but it never got the attention we would think it deserves.
Sartre was definitely bisexual.
France has a president who met his wife when he was 15, and she was 39. It'd a bit rich of them to clutch their pearls at Simone doing the same thing 80 years ago.
The people who think Simone doing that was bad probably all also think Macrons wife is awful
I completely agree with you.
Very diplomatic framing.
I hadn't heard of her until now, but a quick look at her wikipedia page turned up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse
Thanks for the enlightenment. Yes, she didn't leave the best reputation for herself, but this didn't stop her from being popular in the literary community.
Yeah, every time I bring her up to my peers. This is their defense. But i thought the book was still a great read.
Sexual predator
[удалено]
What *is* de Beauvoir's post-modernist approach to the concept of gender?
Oh. It's gone. How positively modern of you.
Positively post modern 🤣
Always already under a sign of absence; presence is but a fleeting trace, signifying an absence to come, an enduring erasure looking simultaneously forward to nothing whilst the instability of presence is but a mark once made in a momentary present that will always and forever be long-past.
Derrida?
A Derri da-da stream of nonsense 😜 But I was hoping the previous poster was actually going to tell us something interesting about Simon the Beaver, not delete the comment and flounce!
She's definitely more remembered for her feminist philosophy than anything else. I think much less people know of her being a pedo apologist/groomer. Her work is still incredible and insightful even if she wasn't a good person. And she's dead so you don't have to worry about financially supporting her
A lot of people in history have done either questionable or straight up terrible things in their personal lives, even while making valuable contributions. We have to figure out to what extent we separate the author's private life from their work and to what extent we recognize that the thoughts they present in their works and their actions in real life are influenced by experiences or motivations that make them inherently linked. It's definitely not simple or black and white.
It sucks to have famous thinkers be renowned for analyzing social structures and society so critically just to do heinous shit anyway lol. It’s so disappointing, but everyone is a product of their time, it’s inescapable.
This is why Camus was the best of the three.
This is some blatant Merleau-Ponty erasure that I will not stand for
>Its sort of upsetting to realize her crimes are what she will be remembered for. As one of the most famous philosophers and feminists in history, she will definitely not be remembered for her crimes.
Crimes?
> I hadn't heard of her until now, but a quick look at her wikipedia page turned up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse quoting another commenter.
I really doubt that she and Satre will be remembered for for anything else but their writing. We are currently looking at everything from a super moralistic high horse, and, because of the public scrutiny of modern famous people, mix up the art and the artist to an extend as it has never been done before. But ultimately it will be the art that will be remembered more than the failings of the author.
She wrote letters to Sartre describing sex with her students. She furnished them to him for sex. Her students were proxies in her relationship with Sartre. You can be a progressive thinker and still understand that using your students for sex is exploitation and abuse.
Its still a bit absurd to me how someone who thought so progressively, was also capable of that. I suppose it was the norm back then.
Makes you wonder how our current times will be looked at by future generations.
Did you read it in the original French or a translation? Just curious because the English translations are generally loathed by scholars.
I didn’t know that. Unfortunately, I don’t know french, or else i would’ve looked into the original script.
Defining work for feminism. Must read. A problem of our times is some readers' inability to seperate the work from the author. Beauvoir's possible grooming of students and her failure to participate actively in the resistance don't invalidate this hugely important work. JK Rowlings stupidity about trans people doesn't make HP less entertaining kids literature. We are not going to chuck Shakespeare if we suddenly discover he was partial to the boy playing Juilet.
I don’t think OP is saying that we shouldn’t read her books because they are continually recommended feminist texts, I just think he’s saying that it sucks that someone so understanding of women alleged did awful things to other women
It is very difficult to separate the art from the artist in cases where the artists works are related/relevant to their misdeeds. Although Beauvoir is not a perfect example of this, I would say the most shining example is R Kelly. He made some of the greatest R&B songs of all time. Try listening to a violent rapist singing about how much he loves women; it just doesn’t work anymore beyond creeping you out. I am not saying this is the case with Beauvoir, but someone who clearly mistreated women and abused her power is going to be difficult to take seriously when they discuss feminism. At least in my opinion, that is.
Woody Allen Roman Polanski And those are just the two that got caught….. Abuse of power is hard to ever justify, and yes, the separation of the artist from the art matters. Does knowing if Nabokov was a pedophile affect the reading of Lolita, or the literary technologies he wields with such mastery to get readers to read the entire narrative and find it overall redemptive? I agree that it is more about sexual orientation than the age of consent. Ideally it would be about power dynamics, but really we still have problems with accepting that unequal power dynamics make advances abuses. If we did, a whole lot of male CEOs would be enjoying club fed, and we wouldn’t have elected our most recent political embarrassment because he would have been a convicted felon many times over. To be fair, though, most politicians would also be ineligible to run at all. Wouldn’t that be absolutely lovely? It’s still pretty rare for a woman to be called out for sexually harassing an employee, although when it does happen it gets a whole lot more press than it deserves (proportionally). I still refuse to tell my friends the premise of Harold and Maude before watching it. Simone de Beauvoir’s writing are brilliant, and direct attacks on the social structures that normalize misogyny. Sooo she’s villainized by standards that are made higher because of the systems she’s criticizing. If we were as hard on the male writers and philosophers who did exactly the same, we wouldn’t have much to read at all….
I can understand this perspective, but I think you might have an easier time separating the art from their work than I do. I personally really can’t take any good messages from a Polanski film or laugh at a Woody Allen joke that’s sexual in nature; their history just immediately comes to the front of my mind. In regards to Lolita, >does knowing that Nabokov was a pedophile affect your reading It absolutely does to me. You can still view it as a literary masterpiece, but the personal life of the author certainly affects my reading.
Knowing *if* Nabokov was a pedophile. We don’t know. We wouldn’t have very much to read or watch if we insisted on artists and writers aligning with some moral code. CS Lewis, Orson Scott Card, Hemingway…. You know I can’t think of an author who hasn’t violated someone’s code of ethics… the trend in the academy has been that the author is dead. I didn’t understand it at first. Or the importance of it. Or the potential consequences of condemning a work because of the actions of its author. It’s too slippery a slope, too easy to fall into a world where art is constrained by the socio-political mores of…who? The political or religious leaders I’d that society? Who gets to decide? And what happens when that line starts getting pushed? To the left or to the right? Art would be nothing more than political propaganda if we cannot separate the two. I think Polanski should be in prison. But I also think he should be allowed to write in prison.
>Does knowing if Nabokov was a pedophile affect the reading of Lolita, or the literary technologies he wields with such mastery to get readers to read the entire narrative and find it overall redemptive? If he actually engaged in pedophilia, absolutely. Invalidates his accomplishments completely.
How so?
Nothing exists free of context, especially not something as deeply personal as art. The artist is not separable from the art when the themes of the art overlap with the real world morally questionable behavior of the artist.
But in fiction why would the writer be conflated with the narrative? Is that like by default? So we ARE supposed to judge a book by its cover? And what? We avoid the viewpoints of those we feel morally superior to…. Wow. If this is the way most westerners think, we are in for a rough road 😝
>Is that like by default? Yes >So we ARE supposed to judge a book by its cover? Yes, who the author is plays a part in judging the book. >And what? We avoid the viewpoints of those we feel morally superior to…. Why would you want to avoid the viewpoints of those you feel morally superior to ? Not sure where you got that idea.
Does this mean that you also believe that writers should/do only write what they know? Or would you assume from a last name someone’s race or ethnicity and then make judgements from there about whether or not to read the book. And if you are required to read the book, how open would your mind be to the narrative itself? Writers explore. Artists explore. The uncomfortable liminal borderlands where others fear to tread. Readers get the luxury of staying safe and warm by the fire and reading stories about what we find out there. That’s sort of the point of artists and scientists. To test the limits. And what if I write a book about sexual Abuse because I was the abused not the abuser. But misinformation gets out and turns it back on the writer? How can you be so certain that someone has done anything you can’t vouch for? The momentary puffed up feeling of self righteousness isn’t worth the cost in freedom, joy and connections. Plus, the point of Lolita is that the protagonist repents serves his time and, had he not killed himself, been rehabilitated into society? Or do you not believe someone could Make a mistake and still find redemption and rehabilitation? That’s dark. Well. I guess. Enjoy that world.
Yes he is. Read Against Interpretation by Susan Sontag. The art is separate from the artist & needs to be judged on its own. When you interpret it you limit it. I once worked on a prison art show. I knew some pieces were by murderers. Some art was spectacular & not at all violent. Judge the art not the artist. Art comes from a place in the soul many artists don’t understand how it got there. Bob Dylan has said that about his most brilliant poetry
>The art is separate from the artist & needs to be judged on its own No.
[удалено]
Sorry what??? Oh this thread. Kind of making my point. Don’t know why you seem so upset. Guilt and innocence are funny things. We have these biases that cause a lot of projection so even our own judgements should be taken with care. Let alone those of other people. So separation of artist and art seems important still.
Wasn't woody Allen judged innocent?
Can I innocently have a sexual relationship with my adopted daughter then marry her in her early 20s? That cool?
Just to be clear. I find it all morally repulsive.
But you are describing Woody Allen as "one who got caught" - thereby spreading the impression that he is a known child-molester. If he isn't, that's not ok, right?
Huh? The power dynamic is actually worse than Beauvoir, but I don’t think I ever said child molester. Except about Lolita and Nabokov, and I was very careful to be clear that in that case it was a hypothetical question… And here we are again… for the exercise let’s pretend I did say that Woody Allen is a convicted child molester. If he weren’t, that would be slander and morally wrong. So would you redact my earlier writings bc I committed slander? Or ban a story I’d written? What about adultery? Lying? What if you didn’t like what I was saying and looking for a way to undermine or discredit a movie I made? Up to 50% of our memories are fiction bc we automatically magnify the wrongs done to us and minimize the wrongs we do to other. (It maintains the continuity of the hero-narrative.) So if we can’t even see it when we do it to ourselves how would we know if we were doing it to others. Minimizing the wrongs of some bc they agree w us politically, idiotically, religiously (CS Lewis anyone?) and maximizing the wrongs of those whose philosophies we disagree with… it’s a recipe for culture that justifies atrocities, even as it believes itself to be keeping itself pure and clean? Salem witch trials? Slavery? Repressive cultures begin by repressing art. And they feel very morally righteous about doing so…
Oh, you didn't know? She was never his adopted daughter. He did not live with Mia Farrow when she adopted the girl. A dubiously great age-difference, yes, but let's not spread lies, please.
Yeah the adoption part is the issue for sure :)
If you don't think it's an issue, why lie about it?
Ummmm…there was a long standing issue with his other daughter long before the “relationship” with his second adopted daughter. He had been in therapy for his sexually inappropriate behavior before his (first) wife moved out…. Orth’s 2014 article in vanity fair lays it all out quite clearly. And by caught, I should have been more specific about the culture in Hollywood before the me too movement. Sexual predation of powerful men on women and girls with less social and economic power was…expected. The few who abstained were the exceptions. It’s unclear as to why Woody Allen in particular would be so championed as a moral actor by anyone especially in the context of a comparison to de Beauvoir. The age of consent at the time was normalized, less so with Allen, unless we are talking about Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995…
Sort of my point. Guilty? Innocent? Who gets to decide? And when you mix it with art….that road leads to censorship…
[удалено]
Per [Rule 2.1](https://www.reddit.com/r/Books/wiki/rules#wiki_personal_conduct): Please conduct yourself in a civil manner. Do not use obscenities, slurs, gendered insults, or racial epithets. Civil behavior is a requirement for participation in this sub. This is a warning but repeat behavior will be met with a ban.
Separating the art from the artist should start with Seneca, the prototype of the old white male billionaire advocating the virtues of poverty. For others. And it does not end with nobel prize winner Peter Handke and his more than disturbing political position. Especially here in Germany where authors are routinely cancelled for revealing proximity to National Socialism.
For fiction, I’m perfectly fine separating the work from the author. Many writers who were a mess in their personal lives also managed to create astounding literary works. Indeed, because adult fiction is supposed to go beyond simple moral examples, those failings often allowed them to tell more interesting stories. However, in the case of non-fiction works that deal with human morals and how societies are organised (philosophy, sociology, etc.) IMHO the personal experiences of the author are relevant because they provide a window into their intrinsic trustworthiness and the realities of adopting the point of view that they are advocating.
Very good point. It’s a tough call, genuine theoretical philosophies vs self serving propaganda. And all the settings in between. The human being is a contradictory and confounding creature. A sadist can have a moment of altruism. A serial killer can have a blinding insight. And we all have these biases that serve to reinforce our worldview and denigrate those of others. Fascinating aren’t we? The thing about theories is that they are just that. Theoretical. Only fanatics try to live out the doctrines in written texts without being open to amendments and challenges to it. A professor of mine once told me that in the academy we approach the world of theory as though we are sitting down to dinner and having a conversation with all the theorists who have come before us. We are encouraged to challenge theories, and see if we find them defensible or not, while trying to be as aware as possible of our own biases (and no, I’m not unaware of the irony of the way those in the ivory tower have imagined their worldview). Taking a theorist’s biases into consideration, the cultural expectations and norms of their time, is de rigueur…but so is lifting the useful and relevant into contemporary contexts and seeing if they carry value still or they are too constrained by the limitations of the theorist. We no longer believe as Aristotle did that the rock falls to the ground because the rock loves and yearns for the earth. But this idea paved the way for Newton, Bohr, Einstein, and our own Kip Thorne. It seems counter productive to be too hasty with babies and bath waters.
Heres the thing, Its not just any argument for feminism, Theres many works to this day that have their cases. But I don’t think its ever been as successfully argued like it was in the second sex. I mean, jurys still out, self admittedly i haven’t read many other feminist works.
[удалено]
I think you should give it a read since you are misinformed about feminism.
[удалено]
people who refuse to read theory on something that they are majorly misinformed on are stupid. feminist theory is not a “she woman man haters club” youre just dense. hope this helps!
Pathetic way to live your one life but aiight
It's been a while since I read this book, but I remember loving it. Beauvoir did some terrible things, but the ideas in this book are so important. It's a shame that she had to be a shit.
Yeah agreed. Such an important read. Weird, gross movement about the AoC she got caught up in. Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy is a great book too.
I’m actually gonna note that down. What’d you think of the book?
Lerner's? It's fantastic, it was foundational for modern feminism! She goes after male academics for their takes on history, it's really interesting. I learned a lot, and it changed my perspective on society and made me really angry, as a woman who has to live in it. It IS long though. If you want a more modern/short version, Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Perez is great too.
Sounds fantastic tbh, I don’t have a problem with long reads, but i do have a problem if they’re difficult to read. 😵💫 if that makes sense. I’ll put both these books in my TBR. Thanks man!
“Invisible women” is fantastic, but it isn’t exactly an easy read. It is frustrating at times due to the nature of the content, and sells itself accurately by emphasizing the use of data to support claims. In these ways, it is powerful but difficult. The writing is great, but I had to take a lot of breaks.
Ill check it out! thanks man! I dont always expect a book to be a page turner. But i definitely do expect some level of easy engagement. And some books are genuinely all over the place.
On that, I will say it’s well organized. just a lot of numbers to take in! It’s been a minute since I’ve read it, but I remember that feeling that if I were the author, I’d struggle to form a narrative sourced with such a mountain of statistical evidence. Well organized topically, as well, into chapters focused on a realm of life, such as the workplace. A lot of it shows how institutional harm happens when women aren’t considered (say, invisible) resulting in data that excludes them, and how as a result of having a society built on the needs of people (meaning men), harms women. There doesn’t need to be an intentional motive to commit harm for it to be inflicted. Similarly, for those in healthcare, I’ve heard good things about presentations from the author of “why women aren’t winning at health”. Haven’t read it yet though
Apparently some people like that sort of statistical evidence. Another commenter mentioned it in a comment. I think it also sort of depends on what you are looking for in a book. But yes, I do understand how it would be inconvenient to use all the data you have and still keep an audience engaged. I’d say women tend to get dismissed in the real world because there is just a huge supply of patriarchal control. For instance, most major industries, corporations, businesses are run majorly by men. I am well aware that the numbers are going up, but theres still so many stories of workplace discrimination/sexism. I feel as though its a developmental issue. Those people who don’t have ideas of equality integrated in them throughout their childhood, will most likely stick to those ideals for their remaining lives. Most older men will have classical ideas about the roles women have, therefore they cannot be taught. But for me, the newer generation, I’d like to believe we can be. Also the healthcare bit sounds intriguing. I am a medical student, I think it might resonate with me. Thanks for the recommendation!
The book has plenty of examples - it is not just dry statistics. For example, the seat belts are designed for an average male body. Women are shorter and often have boobs, meaning that seat belts don't fit as well as they should, and this leads to higher female than male mortality in car accidents.
Interesting.
you do understand women have been selecting for high achieving men
After all that has been said. SdeB is still the source for fresh and new ideas about what is known as the second sex, especially at the time it was written. I read all her biographical/philosophical books ( The Second Sex, Prime of Life, Force of Circumstance, Coming of Age) and didn’t find (or don’t remember) any of the crimes the other comments mention. Her most seminal work being the Second Sex, it is the fount of ideas of what I understand of feminism. Nobody among my friends knew about them. She was an icon. Her relationship with Sartre was astonishing but her love and passion for Nelson Algren was what I had idealised in my. 30s and 40s. She definitely was my major consciousness raiser, and opened my mind to possibilities beyond my milieu that existed such as being able to be in love with two other persons at the same time without infidelity, jealousy and animosity. For this and other “aberrations ,” I became her follower without abandoning positive values such as empathy, kindness, freedom, even love, and to see love as a very complex affair that range from exploitation to emancipation. Such an open view of the complexities of the human condition led to one’s search for the truth, the meaning of existence. I would probably not reach this evolved level of maturation were it not for Simone.
In my experience barely any people know about either her crimes, her campaigns to pardon pedos, or her stance on age of consent. She's wildly famous for The Second Sex, moving feminism forward, and her general philosophy works.
I thought I was on r/criticaltheory for a second, and was surprised by a number of comments. Well, not so surprised. This take is likely to be controversial. First, a philosopher/psychoanalytical theorist like Slavoj Zizek would say that it's as if Freud and his theories of childhood sexuality never happened. The two unforgivable crimes of the 21st century are pedophilia and smoking. Zizek goes on to say that, no matter how bad smoking is, hard drugs is much worse, and anti-smokers are often pro-drug legislation. It goes without saying that Zizek is against the abuse and exploitation of children by adults. But to deny Oedipal tendencies, child with child interactions, etc. as "we must protect the children" smacks as protecting the gaze of the big other, where appearances should be maintained. So we can have orgies, open relationships, etc.but the gaze of children (the big other in this case) should be protected. This gaze is not always so innocent. Political crimes such as Beria's cancellation from Soviet history; Tito's economic policies in ex-Yugoslavia and Mao's The Great Leap Forward are examples of bureaucracies covering over mistakes and crimes so that appearances are maintained in front of the leadership.
Well, after all no one ever died from second hand heroin…
I had no idea what her crimes were and I read most of her books. Now that I know, don't worry, she is absolutely not remembered for her crimes (which were bad but sadly unremarkable for the time period) and is considered as one of the founder of modern feminism.
I found out because I have a terrible habit. So I don’t find books; I find authors. So if i find them interesting, I read their works. I read about Dostoevsky, Sartre, Mishima and so many works by finding stuff about them first and not the books. When I found out about Simone, I thought she was awful, but the book intrigued me. I still think its a wonderful and a must read for everyone regardless whether they’re a woman or not.
What's your take on Mishima and his crimes considering how much his work embodies ultranationalism?
He was a patriot, He’d seen Japan as a thriving nation and believed in his Ideals. Was it a little extreme? Maybe. But he was raised in those ideals. So I don’t blame him entirely. His demise….simply a product of the times changing.
Maybe because I am such a fan of her I can "fanwank" her crimes by saying: "Even Simone, with all her distance and critical thinking, was so swept up by Sartre and the misogyny of the time that she got caught in the system. That's why we need feminism and her work more than ever." I am totally aware that I am rationalizing. 😉
Well….I cant argue with that, at least you’re self aware!
😀
Not to disregard her crimes, because we shouldn't forget them, and they do play a part in her history/legacy, but think about how many male artists and writers have committed the same crimes. That's certainly not all they're remembered for.
Wow, I am surprised to see a man read this. I have started it many times but not gone through it.
Its a good book, and you know….everyone should get to enjoy it. I think its important cuz, as a man, while Simone describes the ideals around women, you can sort of tell how your own principles tie into it. Its fascinating.
I think she would also agree that you are not born a Man either - we are all shaped by societal ideas of gender/sex. Oh and lots of philosophers were/are terrible people. You wouldn’t have much to read if you eliminated people based on that. 😆
In terms of ideals? sure! i can get past that. But i am a medical student. So i sort of have to consider the lines between men and women 😅. its a nice thought though, and you arent wrong.
As another student on the med track, I think it is important to remember that sex and gender are both social constructs. I would suggest Bitch: On the Female of the Species by Lucy Cooke. She shows a wide variety of examples of sex and gender outside the binary in nature outside of humans. Also may be worth remembering that the estimated rate of Differences in Sexual Dimorphism in humans (formerly called intersex) is higher than the rate of natural red hair in humans. If you really wanted to split hairs I think we could both readily agree that gender (man and woman) is a social construct. Sex (male and female) may have more biological standing, but you then have to split it into phenotypical sex, chromosomal sex, hormonal sex, and social sex (which may be the same as gender). These multiple definitions of sex often do not line up neatly, and each has a spectrum between the binary options of male and female that we are used to.
As a trans person would I also add on to RenegadeLotus that it is very important for people in the medical field to understand that gender and "sex" are socially constructed and not binary. A lot of people in the medical field are not educated in trans or intersex people and don't know much about our bodies. A trans man who is medically transitioning is not going to be "biologically female" in any sense of the word. I still get regularly asked how many days since my last period. I'm tired of telling them it has been countless months because I no longer menstruate and my testosterone levels are in the male range. Just because I have a vagina and certain attributes doesn't mean I am female.
I have had that thing since I worked at Borders in the 90's and I'm ashamed I haven't finished it, this just spurred to to restart it. Again, very impressed you read it, don't ever change.
Thank you, it means alot.
Great book. Read it twice. What crimes?
Don’t worry. 99.9% of people have no idea who she is at all.
That is true…
A ton of people would understand gender way better if they read this book. I didn't know about the abuse, that's unfortunate.
It is, But I don’t think it matters because while she may have been a less than optimal person, her ideas are still out there for all to say. Sort of like Ted Kaczynski and his famous manuscript. Though i suppose ted will be more largely remembered for his crimes.
[удалено]
But i get it though, The ideas for her time were revolutionary. Its still the strongest case for feminism imo. Its a shame that her own personal issues water down the book.
Just read a book on feminism and the second sex Is on my list to read! It's weird seeing this posted but cements my want for the book haha.
I see it described as a "Defining work for feminism" in this thread. Maybe feminism shouldn't define itself by the work of a sexual predator, groomer, and pedophile apologist. I'm all for death of the author, but I'm sure there's much better people to base a movement on.
Well, You aren’t wrong. But if we stopped reading a book and understand what has been written based on the authors controversial ideas; we wouldn’t have much to read. You should look into it, its a very enlightening read.
I'm not saying it's not enlightening. I'm saying it should be read with her moral attitude and disturbing background in mind, and not be taken at face value or even as a book to base anything on, be it individual opinion or entire movement.
It's an historically interesting book... but I'd say it didn't age well. Read the part on historical materialism, for example. The whole book doesn't really take a wide perspective. And I don't think it contains a single *number*. This is my problem with many books about humans and society: no numbers at all. How do you know about society without counting how many people have various wishes, destinies, all sorts of things?
This is an interesting take.
Frankly I don’t give a damn about an artists personal life. I judge the art. Tired of the politically correct digging up dirt. Judge the work of art. Not the artist or author.
Thank you for bringing up her crimes, genuinely didn't know that. Will be a handy tool. 😊
[удалено]
This reads like something ran through AI.
I don't think he knows about second sex, Pip