Second Sex by Simone De Beauvoir: Disparity Between Men and Women

The Situation of Woman

Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex is a keystone narrative that addresses and posits the disparity between Man and Woman. Due to different sexual characteristics, de Beauvoir states that the issue at hand arises from the ideological impositions that society creates—primarily, the subjugation of Woman under the control of Man. Using The Second Sex as the basis of critique, the solution to balancing the gender gap of power will be explored through ontological, self-reflective, and normative means.

While there are only two main characters being studied, it is the Woman’s inadequacy in regards to Man that provides the basis of the problem. However, while most problems arise from an event, according to de Beauvoir, there was no occurrence that spurred the ranking of the sexes: “Alterity here appears to be an absolute, partly because it falls outside the accidental nature of historical fact” (de Beauvoir 8). Though there is an argumentative flaw in the way de Beauvoir disregards history and other possible matriarchal cultures, her main point is that Woman has, as far back as human history lends itself, always been lower than Man. Therefore, while there is no point in time that Woman was put in this state, the fact that Woman remains in this position is that, “Women lack concrete means for organizing themselves… they have no past, no history” (8). The effect of this mindset is that Man has become the benchmark for society. Woman is now compared to Man, in all aspects, no matter if it is positive or negative: “She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her” (6). There is no individuality for the Woman, instead she is always going to be a shadow to the Man—sometimes she will be larger in size and encompass the Man, but nevertheless she will always remain attached and lesser like a shadow.

The Man and Woman dichotomy largely affects the attitudes that are created towards this sexual separation. Regardless of the fact that the only difference between the two is merely biological, the Woman is still oppressed by this ideology. She has been categorized as the “Other” while Man, who was uplifted by the separation, “is the subject, he is the Absolute” (6). This distinction, as characterized by Hegel’s master-slave dialectic, puts the Man into the position of master and the Woman in the position of a slave. Furthermore, the same distinction of the One versus the Other is an example of a clean cut between male and female, respectively. Due to the nature of what the cut divides, the cut itself has significant depth because of the long lasting hegemony between sexes: “The devaluation of femininity was a necessary step in human development” (756). In this case, the development is necessary for Man because, without the subjugation of Woman, the Man would have no source of recognition that is vital to maintain his position as master. However, as de Beauvoir points out, there is a solution to remedy this incision: “Woman is defined neither by her hormones nor by mysterious instincts but by the way she grasps… her body and her relation to the world” (761). In other words, the liberation of Woman is brought about by the redefinition of the obligations placed on her, thereby also allowing her to redefine her entire situation and escape from the cuts created by society.

Ultimately, it is this liberation of Woman that will give rise to the role reversal between master and slave. As Simone de Beauvoir expresses, the switch allows for a power balance through the ascendancy of potential for Woman and the opportunity of humility for Man. This not only diminishes the idea of the One and the Other, but also redefines the “necessary step in human development” from the denigration of females to the equilibration of the sexes, making it an issue important to everyone—Woman or Man.