Male Superiority Over Women Beauvoir

Simone De Beauvoir’s claim that “one is not born but rather becomes a woman” characterizes sex and gender away from historical narratives regarding women as insubordinate to men. Beauvoir’s existentialist theory highlights humans as malleable slates devoid of essence — shaped by society upon birth to fit constructs of femininity and womanhood. In this essay, I will examine de Beauvoir’s claims, the historical implications of male superiority, and gender development. In my approval of Beauvoir’s theory of socialization, I will give examples of personal experience, and my rejection of existentialism.

Finally, I will discuss human responsibility in preserving the fundamental right to human dignity by eliminating the dichotomy enforcing oppression.

In de Beauvoir’s quote, the idea of one becoming a woman instead of inherently being one explores the idea that the “woman” is an abstract concept and social category. De Beauvoir illustrates how women have been previously associated with the womb, and refutes this notion by separating the psychological aspects of being a woman in contrast to biological sex and gender.

Her concept of becoming a woman does not indicate that the mind and body actually transform into a feminine being, as it is evident biological differences exist. Female corporeality remains a mystery even after birth which questions if being born with a female biology coincides with possessing the essence of femininity. The social construct of being a woman is innate to the female biology, yet by claiming one “becomes a woman” rather than already is a woman, de Beauvoir suggests the process of socialization begins at birth.

Get quality help now

writer-marian

Verified

Proficient in: Gender Equality

4.8 (309)

“ Writer-marian did a very good job with my paper, she got straight to the point, she made it clear and organized ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Biologically based gender divisions have isolated women from the social sphere, and de Beauvoir argues that the essence of being a woman is actually a historical idea not natural fact. The idea that gender is something we learn to do goes back to the ideas surrounding the dichotomy between nature and biology. History has justified gender stratifications by the essence of virtue, indicating that women being equal to men contradicts this notion. Historically, one could not define “women” separate from the meaning of being a man. Formerly, scholars such as Plato argued that divisions among men and women are natural and universal. Stemming from ancient societies that favored a public and private dichotomy, a gendered division of labor separated the city from the household. As men remain the standard in a biological standpoint, female subordination in society established the male authority of the patriarchy. By consequence, men gain from women’s disadvantages in society in claiming their natural duties lie in begetting children —forcing women into the passive roles of an androcentric society (Mclintosh 61).

With that evidence, I agree with de Beauvoir that society creates limited patterns of femininity in the journey of “becoming a woman” . I concur based on personal experience with the ideals asserted by Butler from de Beauvoir that “gender is conceived through stylized repetition of acts through time,” because I believe that that socialization can account for vast quantity of gendered traits (Butler 98). In my own experience, I believe my environment helped shape my visions of masculinity. Being an only child, I was taught to play with toys deemed appropriate for boys and not allowed to play with dolls or wear dresses. As a young boy, I relied on the notion that it was normal for boys to play roughly and aggressively, while the girls stayed behind to play house. Gender roles attributed to women often portray them as fragile, passive, and emotional, whereas men are characterized as dominant, brave, and protective. In my own experience, it is clear that there are emotional men and brave women and that biology is not the sole determinant for the personalities of the sexes. For these reasons, I agree that womanhood is performative rather than solely innate.

Conversely, I do not agree with the idea that humans lack essence at birth. De Beauvoir seems to argue that there is no essence given to humans before manhood or womanhood, as one is a blank slate—shaped by societal expectations and gender roles. The idea of becoming a particular gender means that one is not born anything, but that as humans what we are and what we become is the result of what society accords us —what we make of ourselves is a product of our own means. If humans lack essence, that leaves it the task solely up to our environments to shape existence. I oppose the existentialist aspect of de Beauvoir’s argument, due to my beliefs regarding creation.

Further, I believe that genes take no part in shaping masculinity or femininity in regards to gender, and agree with de Beauvoir that humans are mentally and socially conditioned into gender through a constructed identity. In my own experience I have noticed varying ideals of femininity and masculinity across opposing cultures which have been repeated throughout the course of history, which shows that gender is not a concrete universal fact. For example, it is clear that all cultures see beauty through their own lens and some communities idealize different features. Throughout the world, what may be considered as a gender norm or an ideal of beauty in the United States is not the same ideal as what may be considered customary in my home country of Bosnia. I hold the belief that our environment helps shape our identity and cultural norms, but the dichotomies experienced at home or abroad contribute to cultural divisions. When we use dichotomies our “differences seem more interesting than our similarities”, thus dividing and isolating members of society. Dichotomies that put categories around the mind, body, men, women, emotion, culture, contribute to the repressive effect. (Prokhovnik 23).

Similarly, dualist comparisons and dichotomies that create a hierarchy in society that strips the basic rights of human dignity. Therefore, the only way women will be able to eliminate their repression is by eradicating male superiority. Considered the “superior standard”, as a white male, I acknowledge my privilege over others esteeming me as a dominant and more desirable member of society. I understand that it is my responsibility to teach my fellow male peers that not only women, but no other human is subordinate to them, and that it is necessary to use the privilege given to us to help others. Acknowledging the rights and responsibilities one has as a individual means seeking justice and liberating those who are oppressed. Misogyny is embedded into our culture and accept the idea that “Women are not in the wrong to decline to accept rules when men have constructed them” (Butler 106). When man regards woman as inferior on the bases of sex, the dignity of women and of all who fall victim to this false narrative suffer.

Human dignity lies in the fact we not only the right to be born, but as human beings we truly have the right to live. The rights and responsibilities we possess as humans for one another must place limits on denominational attachments and transcend partisan political allegiances. In order for society to develop, we must abandon oppressive habits and destroy the hierarchy that separates us.

All in all, de Beauvoir outlines how one becomes a woman under the auspices of femininity and womanhood, and how conforming to the standards of an archetype created by male authority causes her to surrender her self autonomy, placing man at top of the patriarchal pyramid. The notion that socialization creates a model of identity is a correct approach when discussing gender, but the ideas surrounding existentialism go against my beliefs. Finally, it is the duty of all to come together as humans to put an end to oppression and subordination to ensure a just society where all can coexist in dignity.