“One is not born, but rather becomes a woman.”
Out of context, it might be difficult to get exactly what this means. As an Existentialist, Simone de Beauvoir was of the firm believe that external influences – the “other” – are of a direct detriment to authenticity. But what does this even mean in a modern world?
The core belief of this philosophy is that a person is nothing like a windmill, in that they do not have a predetermined purpose to life. When a windmill is constructed, it has the specific function of using wind to create kinetic energy which then works the internal cogs to suit the use it was built for. A human being, meanwhile, is a blank slate heaped with potential to do whatever it is that makes them feel like they have found their place in life. Or as Jean-Paul Sartre would put it, “Existence precedes essence.”
The key term here is “authenticity”, but what does this have to do with feminism? “Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.” Thus, de Beauvoir is implying that idea of womanhood has been moulded and imposed on people from birth purely by external, archaic and irrelevant input.
It is said of an inauthentic living that this causes what can be referred to as existential anxiety. This would mean that as one lives a life dictated by the other, then they are at all times hyper aware that they feel wrong. Harkening back to Sartre for the analogy, let’s consider a husband who believes that his wife is cheating on him in a specific motel room. He looks through the keyhole to confirm his suspicion, but is suddenly entirely overwhelmed by the notion that if someone were to catch him out of context he would be considered the mightiest of peeping perverts.
This, in relative comparison, is the reason why feminism is now more relevant than ever. From the ages of 11 – 18, most young women are fed what they should look like, be like, act like, move like, dress like, dance like, laugh like, take a shit like. Is it any wonder then when it is assumed that any woman fighting for her right to be allowed to be authentic is considered a man-hater if it is predominantly men who lay into these presuppositions?
Of course it is never one-sided or gender-based, and neither is the notion of gender to be considered one or the other in today’s day and age. The issue is that people are still keeping other people trapped based entirely on a predetermined notion of roles based on genitals. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s a little fucked up.
Naturally, following the notion that the binary nature of gender is now rightfully considered ludicrous at best, this is not an exclusively female issue. One is told what they need to do to “be a man” from birth too. The problem though is that when someone perceived as male fights back they are celebrated for their endeavour to retain authenticity, while most people identifying as female are considered to be litigious and hormonal.
From women’s suffrage, to bra burning, to the #MeToo movement, women have been ridiculed for attempting to break out of their imposed shackles for too long. The need for feminism now is not at the level of basic rights on paper, but for the opportunity to be allowed to live authentically. Of course, with freedom comes inherent responsibility, but I don’t quite understand why women taking responsibility for their lives is still considered taboo.
“The point is not for women simply to take power out of men’s hands, since that wouldn’t change anything about the world. It’s a question precisely of destroying that notion of power.”
View this post on Instagram
#MaltaDaily
