19 Burst results for "Simone De Beauvoir"
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
"We'll talk about that in a second. The genesis of it. What is your dissertation on? How would you classify yourself? Pigeonholed, you put yourself in academically. So there's lots of historians so I I saw. I studied political philosophy. I wrote a dissertation on John Locke's first treatise of government, I mostly stutter studied the tradition of political philosophy from Plato to heidegger. But then my career has been in American political thought because I worked in at the heritage foundation for 9 years, and now the teaching I do at hillsdale is partly political philosophy, but a lot of American political thought. So basically, from the founding until today. So let's put this into the correct historic context. When did this really begin? And when was the acceleration? Because we had the invention of the pill. We had flower power. We had 60s. And then it seems as if we woke up one morning and you'll see our T is being taught in kindergarten. When did the assault on masculinity really begin and when did it accelerate? There are so many ways to answer this question. Let's keep it simple to start. I mean, I think what gets called second wave feminism is probably a good starting point. So the first wave of feminism is in the 19th century. And the main focus is suffrage, culminates in the Nineteenth Amendment in America. Now, that said, that first wave, you know, also changes the character of the regime. And if we accept this conservatives, that there's a fundamental natural difference between men and women. You know, I never hear conservatives shut up about, you know, we believe in nature, human nature, human nature. Well, it's going to change the character of America to grant full civic equality to women. It's going to make the country softer in a certain sense. Now other issues will be emphasized. Exactly. Now, the second wave of feminism is really where I think the big change happens. And Simone de beauvoir writes a book called sex the second sex in 1944 in France. And Betty Friedan writes the feminine mystique in 19 63, I think, and she basically brings the ideas of the beauvoir to America. The book is a massive bestseller. I mean, it's sold over a million copies. And the basic argument of the book is that the domestic life is equivalent to being in a concentration camp. Your prisoner. You're a prisoner. Yes, she's miserable. And that the only way that women can become fully human and find happiness is if they go outside of the home. So the way I'd sum up free Danny and feminism is career first, family second, women can have it all. Now, she is then rapidly outflanked to her left by what she ends up calling the lavender mafia, like the really radical lesbian feminists who say, to hell with the family, women need men like fish need bicycles that famous quote by who was it again. I forget her name now. So Friedan panics and says, oh, well, actually, maybe I take it back, maybe the home is not like a concentration camp. But any case, the damage is done, the consensus shifts, you have a brief period of pushback from the right. I think the unsung hero there is Phyllis Schlafly. Yes. Who is really, what an amazing Gloria Steinem, that's it. What an amazing woman, Phyllis lafley was. Married with 5 kids, and then gets into this fight. She single handedly kills the equal rights amendment. But the Phyllis Schlafly position has since disappeared in America. So her argument was family first work second and there are tradeoffs. Yeah. But you know, I'm in D.C.. I've been in the conservative movement. I think for as long as you have, that message has disappeared from the right. I mean, I tell people your mainstream conservative elected official or intellectual today is basically Betty Friedan minus the overblown rhetoric. The basic message to all the young women on the right is you need to go to college, you need to have a career. You should then also get married. And by the way, there are no tradeoffs. And I think we're doing it all. You can have it all. And the truth is, you know, women can't have it all men can't have it all. No one can have it all. I mean, the human condition is about tradeoffs. So to answer your question, I think the feminization of society is second wave feminism, which is then if you want weaponized through the civil rights regime. Yes. So institutionalized in the government and then through HR departments across the country, creating the monster we have today of lawsuits for disparate impact, affirmative action, workplace harassment. I mean, the death of humor in the workplace because someone's going to get offended. Men walking on eggshells around women, you don't know what you can say, what you can't say. You know, the death of flirting and ultimately to a sad extent, I don't want to say the death of love, but the disappearance of love. Because the sexes develop an antagonistic relationship Vis-à-vis one another. All right, we have only just begun my guest is David asrad PhD from hillsdale college, the D.C. campus, the system professor and research fellow. This is America first. If you enjoy the show, make sure you are subscribed to the podcast. Got your favorite platform Spotify Apple podcasts plugging my name Sebastian gorka America first, leave us a 5 star review and share the links with your Friends. Their friends, the death toll is over 20,000 in the earthquakes in turkey and Syria. We are reaching out to assist those who are so, so much, they're just suffering beyond any belief. It's not in the news, other things are driving it out and pushing it out. If you just look at some of the footage from the region, it is heartbreaking. The amazing people at food for the poor have set up an emergency way to a system like we have done in the past for other natural disasters..
Philosophize This!
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Philosophize This!
"To think about tennis every day, thousands of hours invested into it, but then never playing tennis or playing tennis in just choosing to be horrible at it for some reason. And it's because of this mindset she had, as well as just the short duration of her life, that a lot of people when talking about Simone V will try to describe her by telling anecdotes from her early life. They'll talk about the time she was 6 years old, and she told her mom and dad that she refused to eat sugar or wear socks because she heard about the soldiers on the front line and what they have to go through. Or the time she was a teenager and taught herself Sanskrit so she could read the Bhagavad Gita and its original language. These are supposed to be stories where people say after the fact, wow. Wow, we sure saw the writing on the wall with this one early on, didn't we? But to me, this sort of naturalizes Simone in a way that really isn't fair to her. It suggests that she was just born someone with a genetic predisposition to live in the way she did. Born to be a person some religious people referred to as an actual modern day saint. Born to be what Albert Camus called the only great spirit of our time. To be the person Simone de beauvoir envied for having a heart that could be right across the world she said. No, if we want to understand the incredibly rare exception to humanity that was Simone bay. We have to understand how her life was lived, and all the beautiful changes that go on when you're someone is truly open to what the universe has to offer as she was. And no one is simply born with the genius that she developed. This is going to be a series on the life and work of Simone Wei. And I find myself in a rough spot at the beginning of all this as someone that does a 30 minute podcast for you all to listen to.
Philosophize This!
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Philosophize This!
"Else for that matter. The people leaving reviews of the podcast on their respective apps, thank you. The people liking on Instagram and TikTok lately, philosophize this podcast one word, been making these one minute philosophy videos, trying to get better at it. Philosophize this dot org for everything else. Now, this is a series I've been looking forward to for a long time. This is episode one on the short but incredible life of Simone Wei. I hope you love the show today. So in the year 1928, a young student by the name of Simone Wei applied to one of the most prestigious universities in the entire world. It was located in France, known for its science and philosophy programs. The school was called the occult no mal superior. Or at least that's how we say it here in America at our philosophy hoedowns that we have. Anyway, if you were a kid and you wanted to be a famous philosopher when he grew up. And for some reason it got into this school, you'd fit right in with the people around you. I mean, tons of famous thinkers went there. You got Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques derrida, Michel Foucault, more names than anyone out there really cares to hear right now. Point is. It was a pretty competitive school to get into when Simone applied and eventually got accepted. And when she did, she was one of only 11 people that were accepted in her class. Of those 11 people, she was the only woman accepted, and upon completion of the certificate in general philosophy and logic, she scored the highest marks out of anyone that was taken the test at the time, taking first place. Second place it turns out, went to the only other woman who was going for the certificate at the time, her name was Simone de beauvoir. Simone de beauvoir would later write years later about a conversation she had one time with Simone during their time at the school. There was a famine that happened in China in 1928. Lasted a couple years. The two of them were obviously well informed about all that was going on. And you can imagine them standing in the halls of this beautiful school in France with its archways and its artwork and them having a conversation about what the response should be to this famine that's killing millions of people out there.
Encyclopedia Womannica
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Encyclopedia Womannica
"Hello. From wonder media network, I'm Jenny Kaplan, and this is will manica. This month we're highlighting women who let extraordinary lives of resistance. Whether fighting tyranny, oppression, sexism, racism, or reproductive control. These women created paths for change. Today we're talking about a woman whose arguments in court paved the way for abortion rights in France. She also represented revolutionaries fighting against oppression and colonialism. Let's talk about giselle. Giselle was born on July 27th, 1927, in Tunisia. At the time, the country was under French colonial rule. Giselle's family was Jewish and very traditional. After she was born, her father was so ashamed to have a daughter instead of a son that he avoided announcing her birth for weeks. Giselle's parents had a clear preference for her two brothers. As a child, she wasn't allowed to read, and she had to serve meals to her family. Understandably, giselle resented this. So she went on a hunger strike for 8 days. She demanded that her parents treat her as well as they treated her brothers. And it worked. Her father gave in. Later, giselle described it as her first feminist victory. When gisele was still a teenager, her parents arranged for her to be married to a man twice her age. Instead, giselle went to Paris and enrolled at the sorbonne Pantheon college. There, she studied law and philosophy. She also became involved in activism, advocating for Tunisian independence from the French. Gisele graduated in 1949 at the age of 21. She returned to Tunisia to practice law. After Tunisia gained independence from France in 1956, giselle began defending revolutionaries from Algeria, another country fighting for independence from French rule. It was while doing that work that giselle took the case that thrust her into the spotlight, defending Algerian activist jameela bupa. Jameela was accused of trying to bomb a cafe during the Algerian war for independence. The French military raided her home and took jameela and her family into custody. There, French soldiers brutally raped and tortured her. Giselle convinced jameela to take her abusers to court, which was an unprecedented move. Giselle also convinced the writer, Simone de beauvoir, to publish an article about the abuse that jameela faced. The public watched the case closely, and in 1961, jameela was sentenced to death, but a year later, Algeria gained independence from France, and jameela was freed. In the 1970s, gisele turned her attention to abortion. At the time, contraception had only just been decriminalized and abortion was illegal in France. People seeking abortions face dangerous, clandestine procedures, and jail time if they were caught. It was in this atmosphere that gisele cofounded shoes, an organization dedicated to fighting for the right to abortion in France. That same year in 1971, gisele and 342 other women signed a public letter declaring that they had all gotten illegal abortions. The letter was called manifesto of the 343. The next year, gisele took on the case of Marie Claire chevalier. Marie Claire was a 16 year old rape victim who'd been charged and jailed after receiving an illegal abortion. In court, giselle took a passionate calm approach. She captivated the courtroom with her quiet demeanor. In the end, Marie Claire was acquitted. The case was a turning point. It led to the 1975 veil law, which legalized abortion in France. And gisele didn't stop there. In 1978, she took the case of two lesbian Belgian women who were raped in France. Giselle won the case against their accusers, which set an important precedent, treating rape like the serious crime it is. In 1981, gisele took on a new role, a member of parliament. She served in the French parliament as a Socialist Party candidate for three years. She later became the French ambassador for UNESCO. Giselle died on July 28th, 2020 at the age of 93. Up until the end of her life, she was committed to fighting for the rights of women everywhere. Months before her death, she met with leaders in her organization's shoes. She had one question for them. What will be our next fight?.
Philosophy Bites
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Philosophy Bites
"So just because they're not thinking about it in that particular moment, they've still prepared themselves for that time crunch when it happens. Now you've immersed yourself in the world of existentialism. How has it changed your life? It has changed my life a lot. Existentialism came into my life. Actually, from an unusual place, I was studying for an MBA. I had learned philosophy in my undergraduate degree, but it was a very analytical philosophy course, so it didn't grab me then. Yeah, in my MBA, I started hearing about Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de beauvoir and heidegger. And I was blown away. I was like, wow, what is this? And it seems to me that they were asking similar questions as I was about life. In particular, how much freedom should you give up to be with another person? I was in a relationship and, you know, navigating choices to be with another person and navigating my career. And especially Simone de beauvoir, really resonated with me at that time because it's exactly what she talked about in the second sex that women in particular are set off on this path, especially geared towards having children and a family and having their career take a back seat to their partners. And I found myself on a similar kind of trajectory. And beauvoir's philosophy helped me reflect on this situation and understand that it wasn't an authentic choice. I knew there was something not right about it, but I didn't have the language or the framework to think through those decisions I was making and so yeah, but what was philosophy really, really resonated with me at that time that I had all these questions. Sky cleary, thank you very much. Thank you, Nigel. For more philosophy bytes go to WWW dot philosophy bytes dot com. You can also find details there a philosophy by its books and how to support us.
Philosophy Bites
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Philosophy Bites
"The French existentialist Simone de beauvoir thought a lot about authenticity. But what did she mean for an act to be authentic? What does it mean to choose authentically? These are questions that the philosopher sky cleary has chosen freely and authentically to investigate. It's quite clear welcome to philosophy bytes. Thank you, Nigel. Thanks for having me. The topic we're going to focus on today is authenticity. I wonder if you could just begin by saying what you mean by authenticity. Yeah, I see authenticity as a person creating an authentic life. And I'm coming at it from Simone de beauvoir's perspective and she defines it as the process of creating your essence. Okay, so essence in common parlance means the thing at the very heart of something. Is that what you mean by essence? I do, but I mean something slightly different. From an existential perspective, existence precedes essence, meaning that we exist first, we're thrown into the world. There are facts of our lives that we can't change. And it's not that there's an essence inside of us, rather essence is something that we create. And so authenticity is a process of figuring out how to create that essence. How we can transcend the facts of our lives. How we can express our freedom and actively become who we choose to be. So you choose what you are, even though you are thrown into existence you just find yourself existing, there's a sense in which everything after that is a self creation. Exactly. The existential philosophers acknowledge that we can't choose everything about our lives, and there are certain facts of our lives, what they call facticity. And authenticity is the process of figuring out what are the facts of our existence, what can't we change, but also looking for that window of freedom where we can make choices about our lives.
The Philosopher's Zone
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone
"Supposed to be. Before though is still committed to two biological sexes. And I wonder if you see a limit there because for later feminist theorists like butler but there are many others. There could be more than two biological sexes. We could have any number of sexes calibrated along a sliding scale between male and female, and this is often put forward as a very liberating notion in any society where gender roles are determined by biology. What's your take on that? Is that a helpful direction for feminism to be taking, do you think? Well, I think that what unites all feminists and lash line in butler and bogus and myself and whatever is the sense that what we are against is the idea of two simplistic ideological straight jackets call them at the ideology of femininity and the ideology of masculinity, right? But you will notice that people like butler and a lot of modern feminists always posit a super conservative gender norm, like the gender norm is that all women are maternal. They want to get married. They are heterosexual and blah, blah, blah, and something similar to men no doubt. But I think that if you deny that biology can ground social norms, then it doesn't really matter how many sexes you think there are. I believe that the biological facts, in fact, show with falsely understand now. But there is a sliding scale in terms of hormones chromosomes into media sex organs and all these things. There is no such thing as the purely masculine maleness and the purely feminine femaleness even in biology. But how liberating is it to say, in fact, I can now look at the biology and find ten sexes that I make sense if you think that you need to ground the values in biology. I am open to any number of slippery sliding biological scales. But I think that struggle we have is against any kind of gender norms. Anyone who comes and tells me I take you to be a woman. It doesn't matter what my biology is if they believe I'm a woman. And I will hold you to my norms of femininity. That's where we're going to have to oppose them. Well, I just have one final question. And this is this phrase, one is not born, but rather becomes a woman. Read in the light of contemporary debates around sex and gender. Would seem to gesture in the direction of transsexual experience. One can be born, a boy, but become a woman later in life. This, as far as I know, wasn't alive debate in the late 1940s. What might beauvoir's perspective have to contribute to the work of understanding it and normalizing transsexual experience today? Well, first of all, in my long essay about this quite a few examples from what was then called transsexual experience and I believe that the more common way of talking about it is transgender experience. And I should make it very clear that I have no I'm happy to say transgender or transsexual since I think that we overestimate the sextant distinction here. But what can love help us with? Well, first of all, I understand that part of the intense debates here among feminists has been some kind of rather to my mind outlying feminist trends which consistent declaring that transgender people or transsexuals are to women. And this is of course exceedingly hostile and emigrating to people who have taken that long journey from beginning as a boy child and becoming a woman. Now, if forward thinks one is not born, but rather becomes a woman, a whole idea is that there isn't one type of woman of femininity. You never need to prove your true femininity. We all become the women we are as it were in our own specific way. Me growing up in Norway turned me into a woman that's probably different from if I'd grown up in Australia. In the same way, if someone begins surpassing life as being recognized by others as a boy and then figures out that they'd rather be a woman. That person at some point has the right to say I am a woman between me to drop the idea that to say I am a woman. It's to say, oh, and I'm just like all the other women. Now I'm conforming to gender norms. No woman, however, their body should have to do that. My view is that a transgender or transsexual person has become a woman in a very specific way. It's been probably a long and difficult journey. Those experiences shape her sense of what it means to her to be a woman, her lipid experience won't be exactly the same as mine, but no woman's lived experiences are the same as some other woman. This is also true for women of different racism, nationalities, and so I think program it she lived today would be totally open to the idea, but there are many roads to becoming a woman. The woman you become is always interview and that becoming up to be a woman is not to be a static concept defined by traditional norms. It is to shape oneself actively and interacting with the world. And I think people are super useful here. Toro moy Professor of literature and philosophy at duke university in Durham, North Carolina. More info on the website, including publication details of some of toro Moyes work on Simone de beauvoir, and of course you can listen to any and all of our past programs via the ABC recent app or wherever you prefer to source your podcast. And this has been the philosopher's zone with me, David Rutledge, you can find me on Twitter at David P zone, and I hope you can join me again next week. Bye for now.
The Philosopher's Zone
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone
"Well, let's take another look at this insight that one is not born, but rather becomes a woman. Because it has a lot of resonance for anyone who's reading some of the work that came out of the 90s from feminists like Judith butler. But it's a statement that you say has been misunderstood by these feminists. And let's talk about them. I mean, they get grouped together under the banner of post structuralist feminism, which I think in some ways is a unfortunate rubric, but let's go with it. In what ways do these feminists misunderstand beauvoir in your view? Well, first of all, I want to commend you the butlers of great thinker for actually before she wrote gender troubles. She wrote an article about Bourg was the second gender and some of the World War. And I will say, for short hand, if you see what battle is doing in gender trouble, it's a kind of mixture of existentialism when it's not born but rather becomes a woman as a buckler says, you know, it's when the child is born, but in someone says it's a girl that what she calls them the girling of the girl begins. That's straight out of bourgeois, right? What could be? And then you have on the other hand, in butler, a huge influence by Michel Foucault, which means that she finds it very difficult to acknowledge that there are acting subjects in the world, a battle wants to see the subject, the mind, the human being, as an effect of power. That's for cool. And that's not at all more well and softer. There's certainly into analyzing power, but not in quite in that way. So what happens in that kind of feminism is that they begin with the sex gender distinction. So anachronic they projected back to Bohr. But the sex gender distinction encourages you to think of sex as mere sort of scientific facts about chromosomes and hormones. And then gender becomes everything else. And so because this decision, in my opinion, is a very bad theory of what a human being of any sex is. It then produces its own theoretical problems and the theoretical problem that comes up is, well, how can I even talk and say the word woman without falling into biological determinism? And that's the term we should say, Simone de beauvoir and I and butler, we all agree that biological determinism, which is the faith that your biology determines if human capacity is choices and values. We all agree that that's a terrible theory. Modern and feminism started in opposition to that belief. So now I'm going to go back to that. But the problem that the post structure is getting is that they think that once you've split sex from gender, you really have a problem because now sex is inert, almost invisible, chromosomal, something, and gender becomes discursive, historical, social. So then the next problem they get is well, surely I can't believe they think that sex is so that nature is totally like outside everything that has to do with gender. So then you start declaring that, oh, sex is matter and matter is an effect of power and power is discursive and voila. Now you have somehow managed to get to the point where sex and gender are now one yet again, except now they are all disgusted. And now you then persuade yourself that everyone who talked about sex before butler are talking about essences and biology as determining the human being. And so this to my mind is super confusing because that's not the case among the government is using the word sex and because she wrote earlier so is Virginia Woolf and then a few sing it in this very what can I say theoretical sense at all? So although this sounds very complicated, I just think that the very sex gender distinction, which is super useful when it comes to opposing biological determinism, just produce the tongue of extraordinary theoretical complexity that is of its own making as it were. So is what you're saying there that feminists in the vein of Judith butler are they take biological sex to be a problem that requires a solution or at least a radical rethinking. Whereas bavois doesn't take this approach, Bavaria is quite comfortable in saying that a woman can be defined with reference to her primary and secondary sexual characteristics. But that that has no necessarily political or social consequences. Is that the difference there? Yeah, I mean, you can say, I think that's getting very close to it. I think the way I read bogus, this clearly says that for saying that there are intermediate and unclear cases. Simone de beauvoir doesn't think that it's biology. It's self that has any specific social consequences. She thinks about biology much more like apologies. You know, think about it this way. The fact that human bodies are as they are shapes human society. That's an anthropological fact. You know, people talk about the opposable sum. Well, if we didn't have a possible thumbs, we couldn't grasp things. We couldn't hold on. We wouldn't have the same grip on things, right? It doesn't make much sense to talk about biological essentialism or biological determinism. If all you think is that, well, the human body gives the parameters for the possibilities we can have because that's just true. What's not true is the idea that the specific biological setup to do with reproduction lace down limits for what the value so that human being is
The Philosopher's Zone
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone
"Could still have been thinking in those terms. And I think that you will find endless numbers of quick overviews of bogus work, which claim the following. When bogus says one is not born, but rather becomes a woman, to me is to draw the distinction between biology and social construction or between sex and gender. When I think that's actually wrong, it's anachronic and it doesn't help us to see what was actually doing. The set of drawing that distinction between sex meaning pure biology and gender that tends to mean social norms and sometimes personal gender identity. She is actually interested in bodies and subjectivity and in ideologies, which is, as you can hear already, totally different terms. And central to the book is her insight that the body is a situation. I'm really interested in your take on that because you have written about how this insight apart from just being fascinating in and of itself can offer some helpful correctives to contemporary feminism, which has gone down a few blind alleys in your view. Let's talk about that and just beginning with what means when she writes that the body is a situation. What the situation is, this is sort of almost technical existential philosophy. For the existentialist, the friendship essentialist, a situation, is a kind of synthesis of consciousness. Now, my mind, if you like, consciousness for them was always free. There's a kind of element of freedom in my own consciousness. The freedom to project myself into new projects and actions. So on the one hand, you have consciousness. When the other hand you have with subsequent statistic, the factions of things in the world, so you can see already with that setup. But a situation is synthesis of those two. So instead of having mind here and the body as a thing over there, the body is the embodiment of my consciousness. It's a factual thing in the world that I have to take into account in my life. But at the same time, it's not reduced simple in my lived experience to a mere thing. We don't feel about our hand as if it were the cup of coffee we're holding in it. Right. And so does this then speak to what you were talking about earlier where we were talking about how beauvoir is not making a distinction which can be reducible to the distinction between sex and gender because the understanding of sex and gender is often that sex is biological, sex is sort of a natural law, where gender is concerned with the human production of meaning. But when beauvoir says the body is a situation. She's really collapsing that distinction that there's a sort of an ambiguity there where the body is subjective and objective at the same time. Is that part of what she's getting at? Yeah, that's actually really a good way into it. So if the tradition of the crew member, this extended distinction was worked out later. So I couldn't even have related to it. But it's that latest gender distinction. That has a huge problem, which is that sex in one sex is reduced to the body. It doesn't take many steps in theory before people stop reducing it to things like chromosomes and hormones. And then if a human being is seen as a combination of sex plus gender, then suddenly you have transformed that rest of the body, the body that lives and walks and talk into gender. So when you start reading feminist theory, you realize that the way they used the term sex and the term gender is actually quite unstable and emigrates and changes a lot over the decades. But I won't go into that. I will just say that for bourbon, the body as an object. That's the concept that's the closest to sex. But to look at the body as an object, it's not always wrong. Like if you're a scientist and you want to understand how cancer propagates in the human body, you'd better consider the molecules and the cells as object. You're not going to ask about their lived experience, right? So the idea then is that to see the body as an object can be legitimately used for certain purposes. But it's a useless when it comes to understand the meaning and value of a human life. So both of us theory is that the body has a situation. It's a starting point for what she calls some lived experience. I go out in the world and my body produces certain responses in the world. They treat me as being in this category of that category. And as a result, I respond to that. Now, I have some examples that will help us to understand this. One example is simply this. The body, if we think of the body as situation, you don't have to think just about the gendered body or the sex body. Think of what it means to, for example, having to use the wheelchair. Or being of minority race in a country. That's also a situation that falls under the umbrella of the bodies, the situation. This is the philosopher's zone on RN with me, David Rutledge, and my guest this week toro moy. She's written widely on feminist theory in general and Simone de beauvoir in particular. And this week, we're talking about one of beauvoir's most quoted claims that one is not born, but rather
The Philosopher's Zone
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone
"Hello from David Rutledge, you're in the philosopher's zone, welcome to the program, and another episode where we take a close look at a philosophical fragment or aphorism. Because philosophy mostly comes to us these days wrapped up in a book or a grand system of thought or even a whole tradition, but then there are those catchy little sayings that somehow get out into the world on their own and they can often take on a very interesting independent existence. The one we're looking at today comes from Simon de beauvoir, who published her most famous book the second sex in 1949. That's a pioneering feminist classic that contains the following much quoted line. One is not born, but rather becomes a woman. And when I think about that statement, I immediately start thinking about contemporary transgender issues, but of course the whole transgender debate was not a hot topic in 1949, and I find myself wondering how Simon de beauvoir would have felt about being roped into it. I also find myself thinking about the familiar distinction between sex and gender that's been so foundational to so much feminist philosophy and wondering again if that's what beauvoir was getting at. While helping me out this week is toro moy, whose Professor of literature and philosophy at duke university in Durham, North Carolina. The second sex which was published in France in two volumes in 1949, the first volume was in, I think, May and the second in November was utterly unique. There was no book like it then, and there wasn't to be one for 30 years, 25 years when the new women's movement really erupted in France around 1968, 70. So what's inspired Simon the bogus, I think there were two things. She was interestingly enough a woman who never felt that she had been discriminated against as a woman. In her diaries in the 1920s when she's a young brilliant student that is so university, she writes, I don't feel that I am a woman. I am me to feel she's a human being in the world and the world is open to her and she can forge ahead. So that's what she thinks in the 1920s. And with fast forward the Second World War happens, fascism arises in Europe. Under the Nazi occupation of France and when they emerge from the occupation, the French intellectuals are chasing and rather much more aware of the fact that social and historical phenomena really make a difference to a human being's life. So what happens is that before I want to write autobiography. She's too sad to she says I want to write about myself and start the sense. Well, Simon shouldn't you look into the fact that you were born a woman and both were answered well, I'm not sure that matters. I mean I've never been discriminated against. So, you know, I could study and do all these things. So I'm not sure that's relevant. And then selfless as well, all the same, you want brought up in the way a boy would have been. I think you should look into it. So that process in her memoir success well, I thought mom, maybe he has a point. I went off to the bibliotheque nationale in Paris and started reading up on myths about women. And I was blown away. I realized that I was born into a man's world that I had no way had the same treatment opportunities as a man. And I sat put aside the project for a memoir and started writing the second sex. And it's from the second sex that we have this insight, this resonant aphorism, if you like, that one is not born, but rather becomes a woman. And we'll get on to the history of interpretation of that phrase in a minute. Because that's an interesting story in itself. But first of all, what exactly is beauvoir saying here? One is not born but rather becomes a woman. The idea is first of all that woman and of course man, but she isn't writing about men for once. I mean, the whole of philosophy is full of men who use men as examples. But the idea is that we are creatures in constant becoming. And the idea that you try to impose a women as notion of femininity is to freeze them into a kind of static object, consider accepting that women like men are constantly making something of what the world makes of them. There's an endless sort of pulsating becoming in every human being that will walk existence. And can you speak a little bit more about the normative version or the patriarchal version of femininity that beauvoir is referring to? What's she arguing against? So when one reads the second sex, she used to tell me to femininity over and over again and it takes a bit of focus to see that what she means by that is not just anything to do with women. She is constantly arguing against citizens showing how oppressive it is. But we have to bear in mind that what she means by femininity in all those passages is something but today we could call patriarchal femininity or we could call it sexist ideology about what women should be like. That's what she means when she says that femininity is a straight jacket. She doesn't mean that to be born a woman is a straight jacket. She means that when you are born at someone says, oh, it's a girl, then the case of the other is starting a long process, which consists in imposing quotes, femininity, which we should translate this patriarchal femininity. So that process is against at first, as soon as someone recognizes your body as female, rightly or wrongly, it's not really about biology. It's that song takes you to be a girl child, and then the process begins. So when beauvoir writes about becoming a woman and femininity, what sort of distinction is she making between biological essence and social construction? Is this what we would today understand as the distinction between sex and gender or is it something different? The first thing we need to realize is that the modern sex gender distinction was only shaped and came to the fore in the 1960s in anglophone societies. American psychiatrists and doctors really shaped that distinction. So when robots writing in 1949 and she's writing in French, obviously, she can not have had the contemporary extended distinction in mind. But one might value she
The Philosopher's Zone
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Philosopher's Zone
"Between the aphoristic style of philosophy and the more systematic style, and we'll go on to talk further about that in a minute. But if we look at something like Descartes, I think therefore I am. That looks like an aphorism. It's dense and it's elusive. It invites interpretation, but at the same time, it's part of a grand system of thought from one of the great philosophical systematizes. So given that provenance, can we call that an aphorism? It's certainly a short saying, right? And maybe where we can say it's a proposition, right? And the strength of the proposition lies in this grammatical word, the right, therefore ergo, right? So that's the pivot. And certainly it demands interpretation and demands expectation, which is why he spends the entire discourse in the method. And meditations on first philosophy in it. So maybe you can say that Descartes is a maximus, right? That he is very good at creating maxims and maxims are basically rules and directions for the proper thinking of a mind. And indeed, one of his first works is called the regulate, right? Rules for the directions of native intelligence. And there, you have lots of maxims. You have lots of rules. And he gives you lots of formula of how we can arrive at clear and certain thoughts and knowledge. Another interesting point, I think, to make about aphorisms is the way that they pick up meaning as they proceed through time. And the one that I like to think about at the moment is Simone de beauvoir in the second sex, she writes that one is not born, but rather becomes a woman. That is highly opposite to contemporary debates around sex and gender that weren't being had when she wrote the second sex. Do you have any other examples of aphorisms that travel through time in that way and perhaps get more interesting as they get older?
The Eric Metaxas Show
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"I want to remind people and I've written about this. It's streamed out art. The first thinker since like 8300 when Rome converted to Christianity. The first think to suggest that abortion was justified. Was the Marquis de Sade? And his arguments in the midst of all his pornographic fantasies about child molesting and incest and torture and murder. Which he wrote in prison when he was in prison for torturing prostitutes. His reflections on this were simply as Cruz this. Nature doesn't even want you to reproduce. Now, that's funny. You could have fooled me biology seems to want people to reproduce. Certainly, that's what Darwin said. We live in order to reproduce ourselves, but decide said, no, nature doesn't want us to reproduce. We have the absolute rights of anything that comes out of our body. You fetuses like it's like a turd or a fingernail clippings or menstrual blood. It's your, it's your product. You can do whatever you want with it. That and it's important that women be able to do that so that they can walk away from sex the way men can walk away from sex. So in order to make women equal the men equally promiscuous, we have to legalize abortion and unborn babies are no more than poop. Those are the marquee decides, grand total of two arguments. Simone de beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre picked up those arguments and popularized them and Ruth Bader Ginsburg was citing them in her legal opinions. The only arguments for abortion really are those of the Marquis itself. Okay, again, you're not going to hear this stuff. Other places, I don't know why. I mean, I sort of know why, but please folks share these things. Share these videos. Obviously, if you have my newsletter, if you get my newsletter every week, we send out these videos. But this is vital that we understand the rudiments of this situation. These are the rudiments of the situation that there is no actual argument. There never was. And that you have to go to somebody like Marquis de Sade. And again, John, you've shared this on the program. Marquis thought it was one of the most evil human beings who've ever existed. The idea that some people think like, oh, it's sort of sexy. Ladies and gentlemen, it is as evil as anything you have ever seen. We're talking about the torture and killing of children. Innocent people, I mean, things that I wouldn't even talk about on this program, frankly. When you look into it, it's way more horrifying. It's serial killer stuff. It's torn for serial killers. Precisely, precisely. The origin of the pro choice position. And now that the legal fiction that the rube Bader Goldberg constructions of Kim crack duct tape and gorilla glue pasted together garbage of roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey. Alito just you just looked at it like an Italian stonemason that said, what is this crap? And smashed it. Nobody is even trying to glue that crap back together. They're just saying, okay, we're going to smash your face. We're going to burn your churches. To which the answer is, try it. See what happens. If the police won't protect us, we need a thousand or 10,000 Kyle rittenhouse's to protect our churches and our pro life pregnancy centers. It may be that the Biden administration just says, we're not going to protect you because we don't agree with you and you live in un America. This is post America. This is a narco tyranny. We do whatever we want. We're the woke fascists deal with it. And in which case, we all have to use force ourselves. And I'm ready to do that. My slogan for Christians is fight fire with napalm. I mean, look, there are a lot of people that they don't, they just can't fathom that we are where we are. And it's why I feel a compulsion to talk about it because I think people need to understand if you don't know where we are in this culture right now. If you don't stand up and push back against it, you're part of the problem, folks. I want to be very blunt. There are many pastors that will never speak about these things. They could be nice people. They could be good people. They don't want to worship the devil. They don't believe in abortion, but they are participating in evil. And I mean, we know this, the famous quote, I don't believe Ben hoffer said it, but it's attributed to him silence in the face of evil, is itself evil, not to speak, is to speak, not to act, is to act, God will not hold us guiltless. That is a warning that don't think that you can get out of this by being neutral. If you think you're neutral, you're like Sweden. I'm sorry, you're like Switzerland in World War II. You are a coward. You are guilty as sin. If you think that you can be neutral, when babies are being killed and when people like the pregnancy centers that advocate for women try to help women do the right thing, sacrificially, they help them..
Counter Apologetics
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Counter Apologetics
"And so at least it seems plausible that human technology can increase over time, or even other creatures besides humans, could bring about greater and greater states of affairs in which we don't see these sorts of horror sufferings that are always taking place. So with that I'll end. Yep, that works. And for your closing statement, Emerson. So yeah, I've enjoyed this, but I should say I feel like I've kind of had the easy role when it comes to the problem of evil. So I'm glad I'm not in the position of having to excuse why I got a lot of cancer and torture and animal predation. I'm glad I don't have the impossible task of finding some kind of rationale behind the degree kind and distribution of suffering in the world. Part of why I don't think the world looks much like I'd expect it to look if God existed is because I have a pretty high opinion of a perfect being an unsurpassable great being of perfect love. I think that a lot of Christians sell God short. It's weirdly seems like I have a higher opinion of God than they do. But yeah, I mean, if you think about a simulation of a world like ours, if you found out I was running a simulation in my garage with sentient creatures. And you found out kinds of things that were going on in my simulation where the kinds of things that go on in our world. You would presumably want to know why I was allowing that if I had the power to prevent it. And yeah, I think that those would be valid concerns. Even in my limitations, you know, I'm not morally perfect. I'm not omniscient. I can't bring about any logically possible state of affairs, even in the simulation. Even given those limitations, I really can't think of a good excuse for allowing torture rape genocide animal predation or birth defects and so on. So and that's just in the case of my limited capacities. So in short, the world just doesn't seem like it's the product of an unsurpassable great being of perfect love. Like my intuitive reaction to the claim when you just kind of gesture it nature and say, is this the product of an unsurpassable great being a perfect love? It's like, no, of course not. What are you talking about? And then we can engage in arguments and probe past our initial intuitive reaction, but the more I think about it, the less plausible it seems. And it's not to say the universe is totally indifferent. Maybe it's not totally indifferent. I don't know. But is it the product of an unsurpassable great being a perfect love and goodness? Seems as though that's not true. The world seems more or less morally random. It doesn't seem fine tuned for moral development or anything like that. The only moral non randomness I see is that which is created by us by human beings. So I guess I'll just end with this. It's just that one practical implication of atheism, one of many, is that the only semblance of moral order to the universe is the moral order that we create. It's a lot of responsibility, but I think it's a responsibility we ought to take seriously rather than be lulled into complacency that a sovereign perfect being is ensuring that justice love and goodness will prevail. So just let me end with a quote from Simone de beauvoir. Far from God's absence, authorizing all license, the contrary is the case, because man is abandoned on the earth, and because his acts are definitive, absolute engagement. He bears the responsibility for a world which is not the work of a strange power, but of himself, where his defeats are inscribed in his victories as well..
The Eric Metaxas Show
John Zmirak Zooms Out of Uvalde to See the Bigger Disturbing Picture
"John, I have to ask you, what's happening in America? It's happened gradually. But we're now at a point where the breakdown of the family, what happened in the 1960s, the breakdown of the family has led to this. In other words, it takes time, but now you have the mother of this shooter is a drug addict is a confused person. There is no father. The 18 year old is deeply disturbed. When we were kids in school, you'd say, well, he's a weirdo. You'd be kind of worried about him or something. They're just something they're not socially fitting in. But now, as you said earlier, it's out of bounds to point that out. It's out of balance and say, something's wrong with that person. Now you have to sort of celebrate their madness. You said it's been cross pressure. I don't know what else was going on. But the point is that you're not allowed to talk about that until he kills 19 children. And then when he kills the 19 children, it's the fault of law abiding gun owners in Wyoming. You see, it is part of a program. These antique family laws were put in place for a reason to break down the family, so that everyone is just an isolated individual, an electron whirling around the nucleus federal government. The goal, the goal of the sexual revolution was always more sexual liberty for wealthy good-looking people, more power for the government and the power of the government will be will be wielded by the aristocrats. The song comes from the Marquis de Sade, a perverted aristocrat who came up with the ideology that became the sexual revolution. Popularized by Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de beauvoir, it is now the official religion of the west
Backlisted
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on Backlisted
"And roll is perceived as a boy thing. And. Despite my lifelong battle, not to be seen as a bloke, I read this book and thought, um, I am guilty of some of the behaviors within this. And even at the HS Nikki's nodding, you are Andy. At the age of like 53, I thought you can always get you can always do better, right? I don't really like the go betweens, so it might be easier for me than it might be for some of our listeners to take this book on its own terms because one of the things it does is it talks about Robert forster and grant mclennan. And who were the songwriters in the go betweens, but it tries to recontextualize them, not as the leaders of the group, but of two of the members of the group. Trying to say the go betweens would not have been the go betweens. Without the chemistry influence, musical contributions, of Lindy Morrison. But it's in the nature of how we talk about rock and roll, or many art forms, to marginalize not just women, but also drummers. This is a very pro drama book. So really Tracy's book is a sort of very witty readable polite corrective. It's telling the story of a group that you think you might know about and the role of a woman within a group that you think you might understand in a different way. And I found it incredibly thought provoking. Also, I've got to say in the chapter good girl, Tracy quotes from the following authors in this order, Claire deidre, Deborah levy, Ricky Lee Jones, Simone de beauvoir Andes Vader and nita bruckner and Kim Ada. Wright, so she is very much in the Andy Miller zone of interest there, so thank you very much, Tracy Thorne..
The Rich Roll Podcast
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on The Rich Roll Podcast
"People as enormous buttons and it has an emergency button so that if you fall over it or call the nearest hospitals, I thought, that is win win. And it's funny I would open that phone in those other days and just sort of stab at the buttons couldn't do edit the phone. Literally does nothing. And I reminded me of when I was a kid, I saw maybe some David Attenborough wildlife documentary of a mother penguin whose baby has died and she just keeps nudging it to try to get it to do something. And I kept thinking of that. And then I had a real crash, a terrible crash. It was, it was interesting. I remember I was walking down the beach in provincetown behind the West End of provincetown for people who know it. And I was seeing what I'd seen in Memphis, right? People just promised I was one of the most beautiful places in the world. And people were just looking at their phones. People with kids weren't even looking at their kids. It was driving me insane. Normally it would drive me insane, but this time, instead of saying to them, oh, you're not present in your lives. You're not, I wanted to go up to them and go, give me that phone. I want it. Right? I wanted to, and it was interesting. This tremendous hunger because I realized for 15 years prior to that throughout the day I had been completely climatized to receiving the kind of thin insistent signals we get from the web, which are designed as rewards to keep us coming back, retweets, hearts, likes, we all know how they work. And when they were gone, this is a sound a bit pretentious. It is a bit pretentious. But Simone de beauvoir, the great French philosopher, said that when she became an atheist, it was like the world had gone silent, and that's how I felt. I felt like the world had gone silent, right? Like these signals I was so used to were gone. And no normal social interaction, and even though I was meeting amazing people, they don't flood you with hearts, the minute you meet them, that would be a very weird social interaction, right? And that was when I realized a big part of this, if you just extricate yourself from that, that creates a vacuum, you need to then fill that vacuum. And that was when I started to read a lot more on later interview the leading scientist in the world on flow states and that that was how I kind of got out of it. We could talk about that a bit if you like. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to unpack there. But I think the lesson that I think is powerful for anybody who's listening to this is over that course of three months through that detachment process, you were able to kind of restore your sleep like sleeping better than ever, repair your ability to sit down and work on a book and focus. Be tuned into the news by reading a newspaper every day. And then that being that for the rest of the day, connect with friends, be present in your life. And you explain this time of waking up and not feeling like you needed to drink coffee and feeling just awake in a way that you hadn't since you were a young boy. And a lot of this is about returning to a more natural state of man, right? Like we live in the modern world. We're not going to go live in caves or anything like that. And it's unrealistic that we're going to be luddites, but to the extent that we can exert some control over these tectonic forces that are driving us to this exhausted state, there are things that we can do. And your experience as an example of how these natural states that have eluded us can be restored. Yeah, yes, you put it really well. It was one of the things that amazed me was I thought you know I was nearly 40 at the time. I thought, I maybe what's happened is I've just got older, right? Maybe brain just gets deterrence. My intention went back to being as good as it had been when I was 17. You know, I could sit and read a book for 8 hours a day and focus deeply. And I like to realize that wasn't just about the tech withdrawal. That was many things, many changes that happened. I could change the way I ate. These none of these things were conscious at the time. It was when I later interviewed the scientists who have researched this sort of thing that I realized how much those changes are weighed on me. My sleep you mentioned lots of factors. But I think you're right that there's two ways we have to respond to this crisis or two kinds of way we've got to respond to this crisis. I think of them as defense and offense, right? We've got to defend ourselves and our children as much as possible from these forces that are pouring acid on our attention. And I took a lot of dozens of examples in the book about things we can do. But I want to be honest with people about this. That will hugely help. I'm passionately in favor of those things. I try to do all of them myself. But they will only get you so far because at the moment it's like someone is pouring itching powder over us all the time. And then leaning forward and going, hey, buddy, you might want to learn how to meditate, then you wouldn't scratch so much and you want to reply going well. Screw you, I'll learn to meditate, you stop pouring inching powder on me, which is why we're going to have an element of offense. We've got to take on the forces that are doing this drug. Now, that can sound very fancy and grand, I can talk about lots of practical ways that can be done and ways it has already been done in many parts of the world and weighs it was done in the past in the United States. But you're right that we've got to get when you say this about the way we live, you're absolutely right, even as I was doing that, I thought, well, this is not sustainable. And I remember so of course what I was asking was, well, how can we integrate some of these insights into our normal lives? And I remember the last day I was in Providence town, going to what's it called by the lighthouses. There's a spot where you can look back over the whole problem. I hadn't left provincetown the whole three months. I haven't been in a moving vehicle for three months. So I could see the kind of whole landscape of where I had been. And remember thinking, well, I'm never going to go back to living how I live before. Why would I do that? This has been amazing, right? The joys of deep thought of reflection, a mind wandering of the joys of being present in your life. They're so profound. Why would I go back? And I got the boat back to Boston. I got the ferry back to Boston. I got horribly sick on the journey. My friend shailene gave me back my laptop.
What Works
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on What Works
"Own goal setting because the market tells us what we should want and what we're supposed to do. And that means we're going to have a hard time getting ourselves to do the things we think we want to do in the first place. And I think that just about sums up the existential crisis of the 21st century, right? Because just wait for it. After the new year, new you headlines start to subside, we'll start to see the headlines about how to not lose our motivation or how to stick to the plans we made in January. Our sense that we lack motivation persistence or discipline brings us back to the moral dilemma. We hold up those who are willing to strive, deprive and push through as paragons of virtue. While bemoaning our own inability to get things done. So what are we to do? Is there a way to reclaim our desire for growth or expansion and quiet the outside influence of the marketplace and the social order it's created? Yes. I believe so. First, we need to closely examine the discrepancies we feel in our own lives. Did I create the discrepancy or was it created for me? Are the circumstances I desire based on my own will or the will of the market? Second, anytime we find ourselves comparing or ordering others, we need to examine the rule that's creating that hierarchy. Why do I believe this person's action is better than my own? Why do I think I'm better than this other group of people? Third, we can take charge of our own discrepancy production. For me, that doesn't just mean setting goals. It means creating a strong personal vision that's not so much based on material conditions as it is personal growth and my experience of life. And finally, we can create a personal ethic, our own system of morality that will influence our actions and shape our lives and stand in contrast to systems that try to impose their will on us. And that might seem like a tall order. Especially, given the context of a business podcast. But I don't think this needs to be difficult. It can be as simple as spending some serious time on your personal values and how those values operate in the world. How does one act in alignment with those values? How does one set goals within those values? How does one structure their life within those values? That's the essence of a personal ethic. And it's probably already something you're working on. I want to leave you with this. The existentialist philosopher Simone de beauvoir wrote a book called the ethics of ambiguity, in which she lays out a guiding ethic in response to the philosophy of existentialism. It might be somewhat familiar to you already. She writes, quote, to will oneself free is also to will others free. This is not an abstract formula. It points out to each person concrete action to be achieved. In other words, to act toward my own freedom, I must act towards the freedom of others. When we make goal setting a moral issue, we use it to rank ourselves and others into a moral hierarchy. We deny ourselves and others. Freedom. In letting go of this moralizing and social ordering, we're taking a step toward greater freedom for all. And that's a moral system I can get behind. So how would your goals or commitments for this year be different? If you put this ethic of freedom at their center. What outside influences could you free yourself from this year? And in so doing, help others realize their own freedom. Thanks for listening. Next week, the question we're exploring is, what is the creator economy? And why is it making so many people miserable? I'm sending out each what works podcast episode in essay form right now. Every Thursday in my newsletter what works weekly. Plus, I include what I'm reading and listening to, as I navigate the 21st century economy. To get it free of charge, go to explore what works dot com and sign up. What works is produced by yellow house media, our production coordinator is Lou blazer. Our production assistant is Emily killed off. This episode was edited by me, Tara mcmullin, and Marty seafood. Our executive producer is Sean McMullen..
790 KABC
"simone de beauvoir" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Since 1968 Wednesday nights on KBC breaks the mold joined Candidate for Congress Joe Collins on the new Black Republicans show Wednesday nights at seven on Lee on 7 90 k A. B C BLACK Republicans show Pete for my Joe Collins 4321 of the favorite son of L. A. Ben Shapiro. It's Prevention Bureau show and you can get it right. Mm. Welcome to the bench Bureau show. I am not been Shapiro. I am Michael Knowles. You confined me if Michael Knowles show podcast on the daily wire. You can find me at Twitter at Michael J knows she could find me all over the place. You know? One topic that conservatives and leftists have been talking about incessantly for years and years and years is what do you think? Gender ideology, Right? That's this is the top It effects you know, in terms of an actual psychological disorder effects of very small number of people, and yet it seems like this topic has dominated. The news has dominated political discourse. I gave us speech actually at the University of Missouri Kansas City couple years ago, called men are not women and other uncomfortable truths and I was attacked at the speech. E was screamed at by all these people, and then someone actually jumped in and tried to attack me. Now I think it's very easy for conservatives to just throw up our hands and say, Man, he's left us to completely insane. They can't even admit that men are not women. And it's very easy for leftists who believe in this ideology to say that not only are we wrong, but we're really vile, wicked people if we're so cruelly going to deny the lived experience of some poor guy who thinks that he's actually woman trapped inside a man's body. And you know, we never really seem to talk to one another. We just have our own positions, and they seem completely irreconcilable. I actually think it is worth listening to the arguments that the gender ideologues make Because it shows you that this this idea that men could be women and women could be meant It didn't just spring out of the air. One day it didn't just pop into existence. You know a couple of years ago or something like that. This has been building for years and years and decades and decades and actually this transgender radiology. Comes naturally from the left longstanding opinions on sex, gender. Biology nature itself. There's a video that's gone viral on Tic Tac. I'm not a member of Tic tac myself, but you see these things go around the Internet, and it's a guy who's wearing very over the top sort of clownish makeup. You know, Red eye Shadow and He's got big lipstick on and very curly blond hair, and one imagines. He's a sort of Some form of transgender person, But he's definitely definitely guy. And he's arguing that certain feminists are really wrong and violent bone headed for believing that men cannot identify as women and well, his argument doesn't make any sense by the standard of reality. When you compare his argument to other arguments, the left makes He's not totally wrong. Before I get some turfs up in my comment sections being like women means adult human female. First off you second of all. Y'all don't even know your family's history. Second wave feminism was about relieving women from their reproductive roles and duties. It's regressive to reclaim female as this like in And I'll be all term for what womanhood is like, literally know your history. Feminism was not About that feminism was about alleviating Thies gender roles and general duties based on reproductive capability. It was about getting rid of it. And that's why feminism belongs to us queers and trans people now because It began us off half turfs. When he's referring to church by the way, he's referring to what's called trans, exclusive, exclusionary radical feminists that basically women who think that women are actual group of people and men can't be women. The thing is, this guy is almost entirely correct about second wave feminism. There's a famous debate between Betty Free Dan The very famous American feminist and Simone de Beauvoir, the French feminist and strumpet of jumble. Sartre in which free dances well, women can do whatever they want, right and c'mon, divorces. No, we can't let women stay home and raise a family because if they have that choice, they'll take it and we need to force women out into the working world. So much of second wave feminism was about Convincing women that there was no special category of femininity that actually, if women wanted to matter and have value they needed to take on male roles and responsibilities, they had to hold themselves up to male standards, and that basically the only legitimate virtues were male virtues. Why they a lot of these activists said. Now forget about your kids. Forget about your family. You need to go out. You need to go work. You need to go drinking. You need to treat sex the same way Men treat sex. Because the the idea here while so many conservatives say, you know, third wave feminism. The new feminism is really wrong. But second wave was okay. First week was really good. Maybe the problem is just feminism itself. Maybe the problem is that the feminist ideology Posits that there's no difference between men and women. Men and women are maybe you know, they look a little different. I got a few different organs. But there's no significant difference between men and women. And what this guy this gender ideologue is saying is okay. Feminists. I believe you. There's no difference between men and women. So then I who am a man, my biology. Everything about me. Says I'm a man. Maybe I could be a woman too. Maybe this actually is the logic. Of these leftist ideologies coming to fruition. And.
BBC World Service
Paris conference seeks political roadmap for lawless Libya
"Development of existentialist thinking and feminism her views advanced considerably towards group solidarity and action after france was occupied in world war two she was still selling revolutionary newspapers on street corners in her sixties and politically active till she died and then remained controversial afterwards i'll be joined by a biographer of simone de beauvoir a close friend of hers and a leading philosopher to examine this fascinating enigmatic character so please join us after the news bbc news hello i'm gary spano a close aide of the north korean leader kim jong un is reported to be on his way to the united states kim yong shows visit could be another sign that preparations for a summit between north korea and the united states are moving ahead laura bicker is in so kim yang chow was seen boarding a flight to the us according to the news agency yonhap although his exact destination isn't yet clear he's really far from kim jong inside he was on both of his trips to china and during his meetings with the south korean president moon jaein mr kim has also met the us secretary of state mike pompeo in pyongyang he is the regime's former spy chief and a key strategist if north korea and the us are to reach any deal on denuclearization he will have a major part to play a conference aimed at agreeing a roadmap to reunify libya is being held in paris today fronts hopes the two sides will will commit themselves to hold nationwide elections roger walker has more details under president emmanuel mccall has tried to expand its role as a peacemaker in libya nastier mr mac hall convene rare talks between fires suraj who heads the un backed unity government in western libya and the militia leader holly hunter whose forces dominate the east of the country the two men will feature prominently at the paris conference but there has been criticism of the format the international crisis group an ngo which works to prevent and resolve conflicts said negotiating through individual personalities without ensuring a broader consensus was likely to be counterproductive the hungarian government is placing a new set of laws before parliament today targeting civil rights groups which help silom secrets the legislation could make printing leaflets with information for asylum seekers and offering them food or legal advice.