Simone De Beauvoir Duality Of Gender

I identify as human because another human said I was one. That human was told she was human by another human who was told she was a human by the human who gave birth to her. With that in mind, it seems arbitrary for a human to define what a human is, mainly because the umbrella of humanity is diverse phenotypically, genetically, and culturally. Alas, the wide ambiguous definition of “human” is perplexing for the species that decided it was their duty to define everything on the planet. Out of desperation and ignorance, people resort to distorting the definition to what individuals know best-their own reflection. Historically, those in power decide which interpretation are given more weight than others. Some examples of this duality are seen

in the deconstruction of gender and race. To solve this problem, we need to release the need for symbolic “others” by emphasizing that contrasting characteristics are a part of commonality. These topics are debated today, because in a world where some people believe equality has already been achieved; the “others” still search for more equity. Nevertheless, the counter arguments do not negate the fact that social identities, taken for granted as the “truth,” still exist and continue separating humanity.
It is essential that as a species we move away from this, because constructed social identities such as gender are too controlling.

Consider, before a fetus is born, it is given a gender, not to mention all the preconceived nuances of identifying with that gender. Hence gender becomes the first way in which to define a human’s identity, an effect of duality. Simone De Beauvoir explains how this duality between men and women has been pounded into humanity, down to the etymology of “men” and “women.” In her book, The Second Sex, she writes “the man represents both the positive and the neuter to such an extent that in French hommes designates human beings, the particular meaning of the word vir being assimilated into the general meaning of the word “homo.” Woman is the negative, to such a point that any determination is imputed to her as a limitation, without reciprocity” (25). Here Beauvoir explains how gender has transcended being positive and negative. Instead, the way we talk about gender gives men privileges in defining themselves, that women are not granted. What is more frustrating is the origin of this stalemate, the fact that “no one is more arrogant toward women, more aggressive or more disdainful, than a man anxious about his own virility” (Beauvoir 34). This explanation, is an example of how fear of not having a substantial identity causes humans to create “others” as subordinates. Not only is this selfish, but futile in the

end.
Similarly, humans often identify with social constructs of race, fruitlessly creating symbolic “others” to reinforce problematic ways of deeming some people more human than others.

Incontestably, groups of people that have commonalities in their race share a cultural bond because of common experiences-some of which pertain to the way they look. Today, we still live in a world where those lines are drawn abusively, perpetuating inequality. The root of a lot of these inequalities is a tendency for the majority to deal out decrees of inferiority amongst minorities. One of the Civil Rights Movement’s leaders in the 1960’s, Martin Luther King Jr., wrote about the discrimination facing African Americans in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” amplifying an infamous example of inequality. The leader wrote that his community was “forever fighting a degenerating sense of ‘nobodiness’” (King 3) being treated as second class citizens. MLK’s words imply that duality has the power to negate an entire population, a dangerous consequence of ignoring the problem of using fabricated definitions of symbolic “others” to define the majority. By refusing to confront this issue, everyone loses. Following, inequality for the sake of fictitious self identification leads to segregation, which “distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority” (King 4). Ultimately, encouraging these false identifications,

is irrational considering that they are born out of insecurity. Again, we find ourselves back at the point of origin: humans are uncomfortable with not knowing how to define who is a human.
Since we keep returning to this point, the solution to the problem of using “others” to characterize ourselves, is far more complicated than humanity’s drive to define humans. Therefore, instead we should focus on eliminating dualistic mentalities. First, humans should accept a more fluid identity of oneself, so tolerance of diversity and a concrete notion of self can coexist. If humans “resist efforts to compartmentalize experiences” (Crenshaw 73) the world of commonality opens up, and the “true” self is freed from needing a singular definition that can never be expanded. With individuals more flexible in what they identify with, the tendency to compartmentalize on a larger scale can dissolve. This coincides with the idea that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King 1); as a result of people having wider identities, they relate to more human experiences and can sense injustice being perpetrated more effectively. After all, to be interconnected by the things that we have in common, while brought together by our differences, is what exemplifies humanity.
Some may disagree with the claim that gender is a constructed social identity that is dangerous today. First, the counter argument begins by calling gender a necessary way to give humans characteristics that are recognized by everyone. Since, no one can deny the biology of determining the sex of a child, gender is one of the first things that identifies humans. Secondly, some people see the duality between men and women to be a natural consequence, because “anyone can clearly see that humanity is split into two categories of individuals with manifestly different clothes, faces, bodies, smiles, movements, interests, and occupations” (Beauvoir 24); these differences should not be ignored or falsified. Nature made men and women dimorphic, hence dualistic mindsets are seeded in biology. Therefore, the privileges that men receive have legitimacy. Finally, some place the fault of inequality on the perceived inattentiveness of women, asking “why she does not bring about this transformation herself” (Beauvoir 28). When anti feminists use this point, they criticize women for using men as a scapegoat. All these points fuel the debate on feminism today, but also challenge the assertion that gender is a construct that forces women to be defined as the “other.”