Men verse Women?

Simone de Beauvoir, a French 20th century writer, idealizes women joining forces to retaliate against the universal treatment of them by men. Reading this piece sixty years after its publication makes me believe that some ideas will never be universalized and the idea of the "other" will always stand. This picture of a mother holding a boy depicts women as the "other" that Beauvoir has written a book about. Women are always dragged along, murdered, neglected, and marginalized during tough times of war. They are not included in the action of war, nor are they asked for their opinion on war. They are forced to be engaged in a war that has to do merely with the ego of collective MEN on opposing sides of opposing IDEALS.

In Woman as Other, Beauvoir is concerned with the in-existence of the true essence of women. She aims in educating women to find "the other side of war." The reason I use the term "war" is because it can stand for the change that Beauvoir aims to see in women. A war of the females co-operating against the males. Nations, cultures, and races all determine superiority based on victories in battle. Why is it that women can not collaboratively form a "we"-as Beauvoir states-and lash out against the unequal treatment of men towards women?

Just like the master-slave duality of nature, there is a similar Hegelian ideology behind the relationship between men and women. Michelet writes, "He is the Subject, he is the Absolute- she is the Other" (4). Men can not exist without the procreating ability of women and women, in the eyes of Beauvoir, are not given the chance to exist independent from men. Men do not shine light on that idea. Her goal is to nullify this dual relationship and find a way for women to stand on their own.

Beauvoir writes, "If woman seems to be the inessential which never becomes the essential, it is because she herself fails to bring about this change. Proletarians say 'We'; Negroes also. Regarding themselves as subjects, they transform the bourgeois, the whites, into 'others'" (7). Beauvoir is emphasizing the fact that all inferior races or classes stand up for the better good of themselves. Then why is it that women still seem to live under the shadow of male figures? This is where I need to enter a rebuttal. There is a difference between women , proletarians, Africans, and Jews. The difference is that women are not a separate race, ethnicity or people. Women belong to the African race, the Jewish race, or the Chinese race, etc. It is more difficult for women all around the world to stand up and form a "we" against the men of the world. This is a utopian project and is not as "simple" as one ethnic group standing up against another ethnic group. Though the idea is coherent and well thought out, it is something that can only be done section by section in small women's groups around the world. The idea seems simple, but the action behind it is impossible. Men verse Women? That seems like a problem which will lead to no solution.

Each woman can work to minimize being felt like the "other" in her own relationship with men. It is difficult to universalize Beauvoir's feminist ideology upon billions of women. A woman can practice standing up for her rights by making sure her voice is heard. Today women in post-modern nations are less vulnerable to feel inferior to men. Yes, they are still viewed as a secondary species, but many well taught and educated women are ready to disagree with their counter sex and make sure their voice is heard.

Beauvoir, Simone de. Marxist Internet Archive. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm. Web.