Vagina Monologue: The Second Sex Dissected by Alison Ross

Vagina Monologue: The Second Sex Dissected
by Alison Ross

Any review of a feminist tome must invariably involve some sort of disclaimer. Because these days, "feminist" is such a loaded term, weighted with almost sinister sociopolitical subtext. If you call yourself a feminist then you set yourself up for derision, especially from benighted types (male and female alike) who view the label as something that purposefully and pettily excludes the other gender. Of course, they forget, or rather do not discern, that history is built upon the foundation of patriarchy, which has myopically and cruelly rendered the female of the species an inferior incarnation.

Now, to be fair, I don't disagree that feminism can be an exclusive brand. I do, of course, understand and endorse the impetus of the movement's existence. What I don't value in the movement is some adherents' elevation of the female above the male. For this is merely plagiarizing patriarchal tenets. In order to be truly feminist, we must wholeheartedly embrace gender equity.

Which is why ultimately I call myself a humanist. It's not so much that I disavow feminism as I want to be all-inclusive. Make no mistake, I believe the feminist movement SHOULD exist in order to ensure facile access to our birth-endowed rights and to toil toward derailing gender discrimination. And I will gladly partake in that movement, just as I will gladly partake in a gay rights movement, an immigrant rights movement, and so on.

But I do not DEFINE myself by feminism alone, and this is where I might differ from some who ardently advocate for female rights. Of course I believe in equal rights, but I don't think of myself as female first. I identify as human first and simply believe in a level playing field for both genders. Furthermore, men are discriminated against in society as well, and this is something that some, perhaps many, who identify as feminists fail to grasp. But you cannot be truly feminist without aknowledging this truth.

All of that said, I find Simone de Beauvoir's book, "The Second Sex" a brilliantly insightful and empowering read. It reinforces my humanism toward the most discriminated gender, the female. The title, of course, refers to the fact that females are relegated by society to "second sex" status as opposed to being viewed and treated as equal among the species. This may be a waning truth in today's western world, but it still holds true to a certain, perhaps even intense, degree - and in other parts of the world, it holds very true. In any event, de Beauvoir's book, written in 1950, on the cusp of the woman's liberation movement, continues to resonate in the modern world.

"The Second Sex" painstakingly syntheizes every facet of oppresed female life, from the physical, to the psychological, to the economic, to the historic. De Beauvoir's book weaves research, interviews, literary excerpts, and her own searing insights to create an impossibly rich tapestry that radically revolutionizes the way we think about ourselves as humans, and as women. It's a truly heady concoction that both intoxicates and sobers. It intoxicates us with its cyclonic whirl of facts and ideas, and then sobers us up to the sometimes brutal reality of living life as a female.

My favorite parts of the book include those that discuss the sexual dynamics of being female, and which delve into woman's tragic emotional and financial dependency on males. Naturally the latter is societally enforced. Because woman bears the birthing burden, society has decreed that her contribution must be domestic in nature, while her husband's work is external to the home. Because man's work is "out" in the world, he is therefore more integrated into society and hence his soul is vital, transcendent. On the other hand, woman is sequestered from society and hence her soul is stagnant. Of course, de Beauvoir states these things far more eloquently than I can. And, of course, more and more women work outside the home nowadays, but the noxious idea that the domestic is woman's domain prevails. One only need to refer to TV adverts to elucidate this fact.

Sexually speaking, females have rich erotic potential. So much so that it seems that she has almost boundless sexual energy, as de Beauvoir observes. Of course, her eros is often repressed - her psyche represses it because society fears it. If the fact of woman's sexual potency is widely exposed, society would have to subvert its expectations of her, and it's far more psychologically convenient to just go with the status quo. The status quo being, of course, that sexuality is a man's province and that women are the suppliers of erotic pleasure for the male.

Granted, these attitudes have changed a bit and women have gained a certain amount of sexual freedom. But the pernicious idea persists that promiscuous women are harlots and that females should remain more chaste, while sexually indulgent males are regarded as simply indulging their primitive instincts. They are not branded in a derogatory manner.

But true equality means that women should be just as "free" to have promiscuous sex as men. Whether or not promiscuity is healthy is not the issue. If women want to indulge their erotic desires to their heart's content, they should be able to without reproach from anyone. The existence of this dangerously dichotomous attitude - man's unrestrained sexuality is an extension of his natural proclivities, whereas the same in woman is an abominable aberration from her true nature - creates a toxic climate for women and men both. The ideal for both genders might be monogamy, but double standards debase us all.

Furthermore, if women's sexuality manifests itself so strongly, then that might mean that women are capable of infidelity. We already know of women's capacity to stray, but often people dismiss it as an emotional thing. It may be true that generally speaking, sexuality and emotion are more strongly fused in women than in men (of course, this may be another societally-generated phenomenon), but it may also be true that women seek extra-marital liasons for the sake of sexual adventure alone. And society cannot countenance that, because of her long-cherished image of chastity, crudely reinforced by religion. If man is primitive and lacks a spiritual core, then we must counterbalance that with woman, whose spirituality is imbued by a sexual purity. Or, at least that's how society constructs it.

Some of the above musings are my extrapolations from de Beauvoir's tome, and not necessarily her own assertions. And that is what makes the book such a compelling read; its arguments induce us to explore our own theoretical tangents.

The book is so rife with details and insights that de Beauvoir leaves no stone uncovered. It's though she were held in the grip of a fervent quest to set things right overnight with the publication of her book. And it is true that her book dramatically altered how many people think about women, and perhaps even led to concrete (if nuanced) changes in society, much as Sinclair's book The Jungle did for the meat-packing industry.

But, of course, there is so much more work to be done, all over the world. I say that de Beauvoir's book be required reading in every high school and college; the more sensitive among both sexes are sure to take its thesis to heart and be impelled to act in order to metamorphose gender relations.

The book's basic treatise is that women have passively accepted the second-status role that men have aggressively imposed upon her. Therefore, women and men work in a kind of unconsciously conspiratorial tandem to ensure that women are "objects" with no tangible idenity outside of men, while men are "subjects," infused with a viable identity. Women passively play into their role because in order to avoid upsetting the established patriarchy; men aggressively enforce the role because they do not want to relinquish their patriarchal privilege.

So, in other words, until women are fully freed from the patriarchy, we cannot intimately know her true nature and character. We always view women through the prism of her servitude.

And, of course, this is a very distressing truth, one that I have a hard time accepting. I like to think of myself as fully emancipated, but the fact of the matter is, I am as much a victim of society's crass constrictions as anyone else. I might be somewhat more consciously liberated than some women, but this does not negate the raw reality that most women are not absolutely free.

And in this way, de Beauvoir's book is a painful pill to swallow, because it forces us to confront ourselves as men and women. The book is an exhaustive treatment of gender themes, and exhausting emotionally and psychologically.

And yet, De Beauvoir's monumental feminist manifesto is not an anti-male diatribe by any means. It is, rather, a sly, thoughtful, creative plea for women to be fully emancipated from her societal shackles so that her "otherness" is obliterated in favor of her uniqueness. For the sexes, de Beauvoir is saying, are inherently equal, but manifestly different. It's woman's and man's differences that delineate them from each other, but that also define their interdependence.

Society is doing itself a grave injustice by subjugating woman to secondary status. In doing so it is cutting off one of its vital limbs, and de Beauvoir's text provides a bold remedy to counteract that fatal move.



--