Woman, Man, Neither
Far from its roots in the pursuit of liberty, has feminism become an exercise in fragmentation...?
“No man would consent to be a woman, but every man wants women to exist.”
- Simone de Beauvoir
This curious remark may seem to rest upon an error. After all, doesn’t one major front in the culture war spewing forth from the United States concern the idea that there are some people who not only consent to be a woman but insist upon it? But this wording is now deemed troublesome - even ‘woman trapped in a man’s body’ might now be judged offensive. However we word this issue, the existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir appears to be mistaken in her claim. Unless, that is, we are willing to take the time to understand her.
Reading de Beauvoir’s astonishing 1949 book on ‘the second sex’ illuminates the past, present, and future of feminist political conflicts. At the centre of The Second Sex lies an incredibly detailed exploration of sex and gender at a time when the use of the term ‘gender’ in its contemporary sense was still more than a decade away. Yet de Beauvoir explores with great patience and detail both biological sex and sociological gender, without ever needing to draw upon a distinction that soon after became so oddly pivotal.
When de Beauvoir claims that no man would consent to be a woman, she is stating that in 1949, when she is writing, no man would ever accept the constraints expected of women at that time. Men were given the freedom to seek their own transcendence, whereas the role of woman was created for her by the habits of civilisation, beginning with the enormous gulf between the treatment of adolescent boys and girls, and following remorselessly from there. It is a tribute to the success of de Beauvoir’s philosophy that this has changed in ways that would have been inconceivable in her time.
Yet here lies a problem, for talk of ‘feminism’ as if it represents one thing has become preposterous. The feminists of the sixties had radically different concerns from those of the 1990s, and neither are much like the myriad feminist factions of today. Many of those now claiming the name ‘feminist’ denounce their predecessors who strived to open up all these new paths. It is precisely the immense diversity of feminist positions today that has led to this aspect of the culture war becoming so vicious. Out of the skirmishes between classical lesbians and trans activists in the 2010s grew political conflicts within feminism that escalated into a civil war that sundered the Rainbow Alliance. Only later did this political battleground finally and inevitably drag in the Christians - and astonishingly, on the same side as the classical lesbians!
Within this feminist civil war, each faction seeks to assert what is acceptable - and despite the slogans, no-one involved is primarily motivated by compassion. Everyone is fighting about categories, about who is or is not excluded from those categories... Yet curiously, feminist isn’t one of the disputed categories. When J.K. Rowling, Graham Lineham, or Katherine Stock are denounced as ‘TERFs’ (trans exclusionary radical feminists) it is taken for granted they are feminists of a particular kind - one we are instructed we must be bigoted against. But this ensures that whoever brandishes these insults are engaged in hate, not love, and exclusion, not inclusion. Hardly surprising, as this conflict is entirely about excluding certain people, the disagreements concerning who to exclude from where. This entire debacle has become a depressing travesty of social justice.
In order to understand the meaning of what de Beauvoir wrote in 1949, we have to appreciate the great achievements of more than two centuries of women in philosophy, from Mary Wollstonecroft to feminist philosophers today. The ‘second sex’ is freer and more powerful now than ever before, and thus elevated certain feminists have turned some of that power against masculinity, now deemed ‘toxic’. Today, it is not solely gender dysphoric ‘men’ who gladly consent to be ‘women’ under the social conditions of the technocratic nations. Choosing to be a ‘woman’, choosing to be a ‘man’, choosing to be neither, is the enormous luxury of personal identity that has been won in a cultural battle that sadly has unravelled more of the fabric of our liberty than anybody dares to admit.
Hi Chris. I’m going to punt on this one. I really don’t know beans about the issues. I have four grown daughters: two MDs and two journalists. Yes, they’ve had their battles, but any feminist or anti-feminist skirmishes did have much effect. Considering the run-away roller coaster human culture has been on for the last couple of centuries it really is no wonder a lot of stuff is coming unglued. Thanks for shedding a flashlight on some of it.
This comment continues a conversation that began on Notes, here:
https://substack.com/profile/90124001-chris-bateman/note/c-16484454
analogy wrote the following:
"Just quickly here. I am no scholar of feminism and I have not read de Beauvoir, so I shouldn’t be making any claims about her ideas. I can however speak to male experience and I think it’s unfair to suggest that masculinity doesn’t come with its own troubles and disadvantages. To use the term “freedom” as you have here (and as feminists tend to do) is misleading. Sure boys and men experience certain kinds of freedom, but these come at a price, often enough the price of one’s life and limb. I think a case can made that the tradeoff for men is equal to that of women. And I think plenty of men in de Beauvoir’s time would have been happy to trade places. (We can continue this on your Substack if you like.)"
Firstly, thank you for accepting my 'change of venue' request. Greatly appreciated!
You suggest that masculinity comes with its own share of troubles and disadvantages - I not only agree with this statement, I would suggest that one of the two key threads in this very piece is to suggest that by tipping the balance on this issue certain feminist factions have made it so intolerable to occupy any position of masculinity that we are now seeing 'refugees' fleeing across the metaphysical border. So while I accept your position in broad strokes, I'd also suggest that we are somewhat dancing around each other’s perspectives.
I find less plausible, however, your suggestion that "plenty of men in de Beauvoir's time would have been happy to trade places" - where is the evidence to support such a claim...? (And given the state of the non-debate around these issues, such evidence would surely have been put into play by various factions with skin in this game.) Find me the literature, poetry, polemic from the first half of the twentieth century... find me anything at all to support this intuition and I could consider it more credible. Conversely, de Beauvoir’s historical and literary evidence is compelling and thorough - I will not claim it is complete (nor could it be), but her case is better supported than almost any argument I can think of in the history of philosophy. This does not make her arguments undeniable, of course, but whatever issues apply exist in a space far beyond questions of credibility. de Beauvoir did the legwork and then some.
Now I’d love to read a solidly researched counterpoint to The Second Sex, which I think is plausible proposition (at least on paper) - but I don’t believe one exists or is likely to. No-one writing today is likely to tackle de Beauvoir 'head on', they will only recruit her as a retrospective historical vanguard while engaging in skirmishes later in the 'movement'. You earlier cited Janice Fiamengo, which was a case in point: her engagement with de Beauvoir was in the context of opposing Andrea Dworkin. My strong suspicion is that this is the *only* way de Beauvoir will be recruited into any discussion today. Which means in effect that nobody is reading her.
And all this serves to underline my key point: Wollstonecraft and de Beauvoir were in pursuit of liberty - and not just for women I might add. de Beauvoir's arguments around marriage make visible certain practical issues that plausibly bear on questions of why so many marriages fail and flounder. But the feminist movement has fragmented now to the point that even within feminism we are faced with absurd and extreme in-fighting (rising to the level of death threats on nearly a daily basis!). Against this background, engagement with 'anti-feminism' isn't even a possibility, as there are so many heretics and heathens to be cast out *inside* the feminist factions. Fragmentation is nearly all that is left.
I contend that both Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir were crucial figures in philosophy, who engaged with important problems that should not be ignored. Yet, they are. On all sides. Almost zero feminists today care about any of these issues. They have their civil wars to deal with instead. And that, honestly, is the other key thread here, the one foreshadowed by the summary (above). I just find it hard to believe that anyone calling themselves a feminist today is engaged in the pursuit of liberty. On the contrary, it seems to me to be ideological civil war all the way down.
Of course, it is forbidden to say this. Which is why I ran this piece in May, among other pieces stating forbidden ideas.
Many thanks for your engagement, and my apologies for making my reply so very long.
With unlimited love and respect,
Chris.