Although Simone de Beauvoir is widely considered a major influence on contemporary feminism, she notably criticizes women in her most famous book, The Second Sex. By illustrating the history of female oppression, Beauvoir highlights all the character deficiencies that result from mistreatment. She accuses women of narcissism, irrationality, indecision, emotionality and selfishness. Despite her harsh criticism of her own sex, Beauvoir strives to assert that it is the woman's situation, and not her essence, which is responsible for her inferiority. Women suffer from these character flaws according to Beauvoir because male domination has prevented them from developing normally within society. Although women are “free and autonomous human beings” like men, society dominated by men forces them to assume the role of the Other. Her freedom and chances of success are limited, and she is thus forced into immanence. Despite the emphasis on social causes, Beauvoir's explanation of the female character's flaws seems inadequate in light of her biological arguments. Reading The Second Sex, it becomes clear that Beauvoir views nature as a serious disadvantage to the female sex. She establishes that menstruation and childbirth temporarily disable women and that they confront their bodies as something other than themselves (20, 29). If, as Beauvoir asserts, the body is a primary tool of transcendence (38), then it is difficult to accept her assertion that women can become equal to men. Despite the lucidity of her arguments about gender relations, Beauvoir fails to separate a woman's social difficulties, which are remediable, and her biological difficulties, which are irremediable. Thus, Stevie Smith is correct in asserting that “it soon becomes clear that she does not like them [women], and that she does not like being a woman either” (xiv). Even if she attributes the inferiority of women to their situation, Beauvoir expresses several doubts about the possibility of feminine transcendence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The woman Beauvoir describes in The Second Sex is never completely in control of herself. Unlike that of a man, a woman's body suffers periodically and presents several obstacles to transcendence. Beauvoir argues that menstruation and childbirth inhibit a woman's ability to work to some extent and that, naturally, a woman has less control over her emotions than men. “From puberty to menopause, the woman is the theater of a play which takes place within her and in which she is not the main person concerned,” writes Beauvoir (27). Thus, it is difficult to separate the effects of societal oppression from those of biology in explaining the feminine character. Throughout The Second Sex, Beauvoir states that women are alienated from their bodies in a way that men are not, but if this is true, this alienation must hurt women psychologically. If the body is a primary means of transcendence according to Beauvoir, then it becomes impossible for women to face the world with confidence. Thus, The Second Sex questions the capacity of women to achieve transcendence even if they claim to do the opposite. Although Beauvoir downplays the role of biology in explaining female inferiority, she highlights important natural disadvantages for women. Beauvoir emphasizes that the nature of sexual relations cements the inferiority of women. She writes: “Even when it is intentional or provocative,it is undoubtedly the male who takes the female – she is taken” (21). Beauvoir argues that the act of penetration asserts the dominance of the male. Although the female is just as important as the male for fertilization, the latter plays the more active or transcendent role during sexual intercourse. Because the nature of coitus plays a role in establishing female immanence (22), it is difficult to accept Beauvoir's claims that a woman's situation can explain her passivity (597). This feeling of acquiescence is responsible for the irrationality of women and prevents them from accessing transcendence according to Beauvoir. She argues that a woman's biological and social situation leads her to believe in magic rather than reason. She states that "the world does not appear to women as an 'assemblage of instruments' intermediate between her will and her objectives... it is dominated by fatality and shot through with mysterious caprices" (598). For Beauvoir, women have mysterious experiences that confirm their passivity. Like a magic wand, the physical presence of a woman activates an inexplicable force that attracts the male sex. Beauvoir says pregnancy is another mysterious experience. Even if a woman has sexual intercourse, the development of a child in her womb seems mysterious to her (599). Thus, a woman's passive role in life leads her to believe in magic rather than reason and has deleterious effects on her character. Having an aversion to male logic, she accepts authority without question. This affinity with male power pushes women to be conservative in politics and to submit in the face of difficulties. Beauvoir admits that women revere the government and the law almost to the point of fanaticism (600). Thus, Beauvoir believes that even if they can complain about male domination, women do not have the conviction to challenge it (617). She sees that the contradictory nature of feminine behavior causes their immanence. Because women admire masculine transcendence, they are prevented from transforming their complaints into actions. Describing the contradictory attitudes of women towards men, Beauvoir writes: “He is undoubtedly a child, a needy and vulnerable body, he is a simpleton, a troublesome drone, a petty tyrant, a vain egoist; but he is also the liberating hero, the divinity who confers values” (617). Because Beauvoir confuses natural and social factors affecting a woman's character, it is difficult to discern her attitude toward women. Although she hates their belief in magic and their blind respect for male power, she establishes that the awkward relationship between women and their bodies is partly responsible for these character deficiencies. This fact suggests that women's irrationality is partly inherent and thus demonstrates Beauvoir's aversion to her own sex. Because women cannot change the world dominated by men, they are irrational in their action and in their thinking according to Beauvoir. She argues that women behave emotionally and engage in powerless protests. “The fact is that woman is always ready to adopt an attitude of frustration towards the world because she has never frankly accepted it,” writes Beauvoir (608). Faced with injustice, a woman cries and her tears offer her consolation and a certain satisfaction if they annoy men. When tears are no longer enough to express their resentment, women resort to ineffective displays of violence according to Beauvoir (609). Their theatrical attempts to inflict pain on men result from their inability to take real revenge for their subordination. Incapable of imposing their will on otherslike men do, women express their negative feelings about their situation through tantrums and tantrums. Overall, Beauvoir believes that these forms of protest show women's theatricality and affirm their complacency. According to her, women believe that the manifestation of the protest is more significant than its results. To support this assertion, Beauvoir highlights the fact that even if suicide is more common among men than among women, suicide attempts are more frequent among the latter (609). Beauvoir says that even though women complain about their situation, they don't want to part with it. Women choose to continue in a life that harms them, because they do not desire “permanent solutions” like men do (610). As with many of his critics, Beauvoir gives natural and social reasons for women's impracticality. Beauvoir believes that education and lower nervous control affect their emotionality. She focuses on the effect of education by pointing out that it was common for men to cry in the past (608). Despite the reasons for female emotionality, Beauvoir describes the woman as a child and thus shows her desire to escape her own gender. Forced to accept a situation with which he does not agree, the child resorts to crying and theatrical forms of protest. Often, this protest achieves nothing and only serves to demonstrate its powerlessness in the face of those who make the rules. Like other flaws of the female character, Beauvoir emphasizes that women's self-indulgence has its roots in their social situation, particularly in their childhood. . While a little boy identifies with his penis and makes it a symbol of his autonomy, a little girl associates herself with a passive object, the doll. Just as a little girl dresses the doll and admires its beauty, she too wants to be admired according to Beauvoir (278-9). To satisfy the male sex, women learn that they must give up their autonomy and transform themselves into beautified objects. So, narcissism arises in women, because they have been taught to please others since childhood. By dominating his peers and conquering nature, the male feels that his body affirms his own transcendence (280). On the other hand, the woman considers herself as the “Other” whom the male dominates. Her body does not represent strength, but acts like a “living doll” (279). Beauvoir argues that women cannot produce work of great value until they give up their complacency. “Among the legion of women who play with the arts and letters, very few persevere,” Beauvoir asserts, “and even those who overcome this first obstacle will very often continue to be torn between their narcissism and an inferiority complex” (706). She argues that instead of using art to reveal some truth about the world, women view art as a means of personal expression. Their attention is not on the art itself, but rather on the recognition it brings. Thus, women writers do not have the determination necessary to contemplate the world in the same way as Fyodor Dostoyevsky or Leo Tolstoy do. Beauvoir even claims that the novels of female writers like Virginia Woolf or Jane Austen are inferior to those of great male authors (709). Even though Beauvoir disapproves of narcissism and its effects on women's work, she is keen to emphasize that the situation of women is at the origin of their artistic inferiority. She argues that women's inferiority in the past reflects their situation and not their essence. But Beauvoir's quick dismissal of female authors and her criticism of the superficiality of women's literature indicate her aversion to herown sex. She argues that once liberated, women will produce transcendent work. However, she also notes that their biological disadvantages are a significant source of their enslavement. Alongside his confusion between the biological and the social, Beauvoir adopts a strange perspective in writing The Second Sex. Beauvoir criticizes women by assuming that she is separate from them. To some extent, this separation is necessary to write a book about the history of female oppression and its consequences. If Beauvoir were guilty of the narcissism, the irrationality, the passivity that she finds in other women, then she would discredit her own work. However, the idea that she is a unique woman who has overcome social difficulties confirms her aversion to her gender. Commenting on women writers, Beauvoir writes "women do not challenge the human situation, because they are barely beginning to assume it... their works for the most part lack metaphysical resonances and also anger... they do not pose it no questions, they do not expose its contradictions” (711). Although she does not explicitly do so, Beauvoir references the goals of the Second Sex in the quote. It is therefore evident that Beauvoir sees herself as distinct from typical women in terms of intellectual ability and freedom. In discussing her criticism of the female sex, Beauvoir does not consider herself to be affected by the alienation of women from their bodies or by male domination. Perhaps she leaves aside any personal references to give The Second Sex a feeling of objectivity and accuracy. However, Beauvoir's choice to separate herself from other women makes her criticism more malicious and indicates her dislike of being a woman. Although Beauvoir does not like the qualities displayed by all women, she criticizes some women more harshly than others in The Second Sex. Beauvoir totally disapproves of women capable of improving their situation, but who choose a domestic life. Regarding the French Revolution, she asserts that upper-class women chose to protect their economic privileges instead of fighting for equal rights (112.626). According to her, women could have achieved equality if the more political working-class women had been in power (110). Speaking about the present, she calls upper-class housewives “parasites” and claims that they demoralize women who aspire to independence (699). According to Beauvoir, their comfortable status tempts the independent woman who faces the difficulty of succeeding herself. She argues that this temptation to give up independence for a domestic life prevents women from achieving great achievements. Because Beauvoir believes that most men find an intelligent woman unattractive, women are caught between expressing their ambition and their femininity. This indecision pushes them to make half-hearted efforts to succeed in their career, because they do not want to lose the opportunity to become a housewife. Beauvoir writes that “she [the woman] advances, not with her eyes fixed directly on a goal, but her gaze wandering around her in all directions; and his approach is also timid and uncertain” (699). For this reason, Beauvoir believes that women will settle for mediocre achievements rather than great ones. Unable to pursue their goals with confidence, most women will settle for trying something rather than excelling at it (701). Thus, Beauvoir believes that upper-class women inhibit more independent women in their struggle for transcendence. Because it is more difficult for women to dedicate themselves to a task, the achievements of great women.