Historical Influence

I think it is interesting how in the above discussion you both used the word "historical". While it is important to acknowledge and understand the historical-religious influences on the images of women, I think we also need to understand that Beauvoir is suggesting that the woman's identity and perpetual subordination is void of any historical consequences.

With historical events like the Adam and Eve temptation scenario, something happened. Beauvoir makes a few comparisons--first about the Jewish Diaspora, then about proletarian minorities, then about women. It is with this last comparison where she explains how women are subordinated not because of some event, but because of their physiological structure. If I understand the Lemert passage correctly, women's subordination did not happen as a consequence but it's always been there as such. It has always been there and it will always be there.

I find this point troubling to grasp. How can Women's subordination be just so? Beauvoir seems to touch on points of biological determinism/social darwinism to put them in the Other position.

I agree Barbara, that Beauvoir brings up the story of Adam and Eve as part of her explanation why women are not subordinated due to some specific event, rather than offering religious tales as historical justification for women's situation. However, although Beauvoir does seem to touch on points of biological determinism/social Darwinism I interpreted this (perhaps incorrectly) as her critically evaluating arguments that dominate in society in attempts to justify women's subordination. I feel that Beauvoir was touching on these arguments to show the reader that such explanations are inadequate, that a woman's subordination is not intrinsically linked to her biological state, although this is what we may have been led to believe. Ultimately what I derived from Beauvoir's piece was that women must contest their subordination, that they must align themselves with each other and posit themselves as subjects, effectively turning men into the "other".

I agree with the points that both of you have made. From my interpretation of of Beauvoir, she consistently stresses the need to realize that no event created this subordination. She does state "If woman discovers herself as inessential and never turns into the essential, it is because she does not bring about the transformation herself." (Page 270). Through this quote, I believe Beauvoir is emphasizing that women must take on the problem of subordination and change it themselves. Like Madeleine stated, women need to work together to overcome this. I do not think Beauvoir is trying to say that nothing will ever change, but that we should look at these historical cases for motivation to change and to learn from them.

I agree with your point Vanessa because I think Beauvoir is trying to show that women cannot change how they are labelled as the "Other" if they do not actively seek to redefine and reconstruct this definition themselves. In this sense, it must be women to change how women are perceived and not men or else there will be little improvements. Furthermore, women in contemporary times are clearly more assertive and vocal about their rights and opinions than previous generations but more is still needed to reach true equality between the sexes. Women need to show that they are "humans" first and "females" second; everyone is human at the end of the day and thus, no one should not be judged or discriminated on the basis of biological differences. This idea is illustrated with the Women's March on Washington 2017 wherein women's rights were framed as human rights.