Summary
In the first chapter of this section, de Beauvoir takes for granted her previous conclusion that when one of the two opposed sexes has an advantage over the other, it will prevail and oppress the other. Now, she moves on to consider how men might have gained the historical advantage necessary to impose their domination on women. She concedes that ethnological information about primitive human society is limited, and it is difficult to draw conclusions with certainty. However, she posits that the balance of male production and female reproduction did not naturally lead to one dominating the other, since both were equally valuable to society. Instead, it is because humanity does not seek only survival, but rather to surpass itself, that men eventually came to dominate. This is the core of de Beauvoir’s existential perspective on the dynamics between men and women.
According to de Beauvoir, it is only in surpassing the animal condition that humans can find meaning—by defining their own humanity as separate from the existence of animals. Women’s role in producing children entails a simple, passive submission to biological necessity, one that even animals can perform. However, men’s role in inventing new things and asserting their power over their environment surpasses the capacities of animals and allows men to recognize their own humanity and their future potential. She posits that it is only in risking one’s life on dangerous expeditions, such as the hunting tasks allotted to men, that man can rise above animals. Even though women might contribute new life to the world through reproduction, she dismisses it as a repetition of the same life in different forms. Men, on the other hand, go beyond repetition by taking on new projects and inventions. Their activities create foundational values for society.
In the next chapter, de Beauvoir goes on to consider primitive societies and their valuation of women in order to debunk certain myths about these systems. She describes the advent of institutions, which began only when nomads settled the land and had the need for laws and order. She also explains that certain societies associated women with childbirth, and worshipped women’s role in producing new life. However, she argues that even in these societies, woman was still considered an “Other;” she can only be worshipped in the first place because she is considered to be not a peer, but outside of the human order. This means that society has always been centered around men, rather than an equal consideration of both sexes. It also means that woman is still always defined by men: they created women as idols in the first place, and therefore can also destroy these idols. Furthermore, these female idols were based in male fear, not love or respect. Once agriculture gave way to creative labor, men could reclaim control over both children and crops, and women lost all power they may have had as idols. de Beauvoir concludes the chapter by stating that men would go on to struggle with how women could be both servants and companions. Shifting attitudes about this would shape women’s role throughout history.
In the third chapter, de Beauvoir links women’s role with private property and the question of inheritance. She explains that the advent of private property helped men to define women as property, as well, which led them to value sexual fidelity. If a woman was not a virgin or faithful to her husband, his ability to pass on his property to his own children would be threatened. Thus, women came to be treated as property, as well. de Beauvoir explains that this was true across a number of religions, from Judaism to Islam to Christianity. However, not all societies had the same rules; for example, in Egypt women could maintain equal social standing when they married. Overall, however, the more entrenched a woman is in social structures, the less free she is. It is only by escaping to the edges of society—through “low” professions such as prostitution—that women escaped their role as property, though they had to sacrifice wealth and comfort to do so. She ends the chapter by considering the situation of women in Ancient Rome, who had economic independence but no political power. Thus, they are an example of “false emancipation” because, though they may be economically free, they still have no means of challenging male primacy.
In her fourth chapter, de Beauvoir considers the role of Christianity in shaping women’s position in society. She analyzes Christian demonization of sexuality as the root of its discrimination against women, who represent a temptation. She also describes Germanic traditions in which women are respected and well treated under the law as long as they remain man’s property and give up individual rights. She also dismantles the myth that “courtly love,” meaning more romantic visions of love, improved women’s position; rather, poets still attacked women as lazy, coquettish, and sinful. However, she does point out that in poorer families men are more likely to have reciprocal relationships with their wives, out of necessity.
Nevertheless, over time the position of privileged women did change. In the Italian Renaissance, individualism became celebrated across both sexes. Women could join in freethinking activities and sponsor the arts, or run their own salons. However, they were only allowed to participate in such cultural activities because these did not tangibly change the political landscape. Women who acted as courtesans, lead salons, or worked as actresses gained a foothold in cultural activities previously barred to them. However, this still remained the domain of the elite and was not open to less well-off women. Overall, de Beauvoir concludes that democratic and individualist ideals of the 18th century did somewhat help women’s position in society.
In her fifth chapter, de Beauvoir points out that the French Revolution did not actually change the fate of women. It was run by men and focused on bourgeois values, leaving working class women behind. In the anarchic phase of the revolution, women enjoyed some kind of freedom, but this ended when society was reorganized; the Napoleonic Code reinstated old ideas of women as primarily wives and mothers. By contrast, the reform movement of the 19th century did seek justice in equality, though Proudhon proved an exception. These movements tended to recognize that women were most exploited by the capitalist system: employers could afford to pay them less than men, which in turn inflamed the anger of the male workers they displaced.
de Beauvoir also considers the dilemma of balancing reproductive work with productive work. Women’s fertility was variously controlled by the state over the course of history. Christian morals helped to make abortion a crime, which in turn forced women to focus more on reproduction than production in the labor force. In the 19th century, being able to work and having more freedom to control their reproduction helped change women’s condition. Nevertheless, the feminist movement advanced slowly because of the class divisions that split the women involved. de Beauvoir thus believes feminism made its greatest advances in Soviet Russia, because these class divisions were also addressed.
In conclusion, de Beauvoir points out that men have written all of women’s history. Even the feminist movement is not autonomous, but has often been affected by politics and social context. Throughout history, women mostly could not or would not act for their own benefit. She condemns anti-feminism’s false conclusions about history: that “women have never created anything grand” and “woman’s situation has never prevented great women personalities from blossoming.” In fact, de Beauvoir points out that circumstances have prevented women from rising to their potential greatness, and reiterates that women need both abstract rights and concrete possibilities in order to have true freedom to create. The burdens of marriage are still heavier on women, since it is more difficult to balance work with domestic duties. However, marriage still represents the best way to advance a woman’s situation, which means women turn to marriage over advancing in their careers, thus perpetuating the cycle of less skilled women workers. Women thus have to exert greater “moral effort” to choose independence, since the path of independence is more difficult for them than it is for men.
Analysis
de Beauvoir begins this section with a declaration. She writes that “this world has always belonged to males, and none of the reasons given for this have ever seemed sufficient.” Once again, she reiterates her central thesis that men have controlled women’s narratives. In this section, however, she takes a stronger stance on previous explanations for gender dynamics. While her first section considered alternative explanations for differences in gender, this section dismisses earlier theories as insufficient. Instead, de Beauvoir intends to provide her own take on history, without consulting others’ work as heavily as she did in the previous section.
The tone of this section reflects the fact that de Beauvoir is now writing her own version of events, as opposed to critiquing others’. She writes more assertively, making declarative statements and crafting her own narrative. For example, she begins her third chapter by stating, “Once woman is dethroned by the advent of private property, her fate is linked to it for centuries: in large part, her history is intertwined with the history of inheritance.” By beginning this sentence with “once woman is dethroned,” de Beauvoir indicates she is jumping straight back into the historical narrative she is weaving for her readers across the chapters of this section. She is also making connections between different concepts, building her analysis of the situation.
In this section, de Beauvoir also includes many historical references. It is clear that she has researched the history of women’s treatment across cultures and times very closely. She provides detailed examples from Ancient Rome, Egypt, and Greece in order to support her hypothesis that living on the outskirts of society historically equates with more abstract power for women. These examples reveal certain patterns that de Beauvoir draws on to support her claims. Her use of these examples also supports de Beauvoir’s efforts to construct her own theories, by providing her with new evidence to build on. They form the basis of her contributions to feminist theory, as they differ from those of previous theorists.
Moreover, de Beauvoir’s choice of examples from history helps to illustrate the ambiguities and nuances of women’s place in history. These varied examples show that no woman’s situation was exactly the same across place and time. For example, she discusses Goddess Mothers in Egypt maintaining their status after marriage, as well as hospitality prostitution in Greece. As such, these details prevent de Beauvoir from making any generalizations that seem too sweeping or unfounded. This in turn ensures that she follows her own advice not to oversimplify women’s conditions the way that theorists like Freud and Hegel tended to do. She fulfills her initial promise to readers to deliver full information and consider all facets of a situation.
In her last chapter, de Beauvoir concludes the section by tracing the history of the feminist movement up to the present and shifting to a broader discussion of theory. Across these chapters, she has provided a largely chronological account of women’s place in history. Thus, it makes sense for her to conclude with the most recent session at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. After summarizing this event, de Beauvoir goes on to point out what kinds of work she believes is still left undone. By providing a factual history first, she is able to better support her theoretical assertions about the present moment. In conclusion, she provides a bold statement on the entire history she has summarized up to this point: men have written all of it. This statement indicates a shift toward the broader theorizing she will be doing in the rest of the book.
