Alongside the progress of social reform, new modes of interpreting gender constructs rise to the surface. This has gradually chipped away at the preconceived notions of what differentiates men and women. One such query tackles the seemingly fundamental characteristics that are assigned to womanhood: Why are women expected to be nurturing, emotional, and self-sacrificing, while men are seen as rational and assertive? Do our biological differences inform these social divisions? Simone de Beauvoir, a prominent existentialist philosopher, social theorist, and feminist activist, analyzes the condition of the female sex as a societal construct, rather than a biological identifier, in The Second Sex. 

Beauvoir has famously asserted that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” With this, she identifies women’s roles and characteristics that have been falsely predetermined from a patriarchal lens. This boils down to a critique of “essentialism”—an acknowledgment of the primacy of essence of a thing, such as Plato’s forms, rather than “being” itself being the fundamental basis of reality. With this line of thinking, we ascribe a definable set of attributes to a thing, making it essential to its identity. Beauvoir critiques society’s essentialist view of a woman, positing the “feminine” as a construct made up of cultural and ideological frameworks, while the “masculine” is simply an innate biological state. 

Beauvoir points out that “Man is defined as a human being and woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.” Patriarchal societies identify “man” as being the universal standard of humanity, while the “female” is secondary. This emphasizes her point that these categories are constructed, rather than natural. Beauvoir terms women as the “Other” in contrast to the universal “Man”: “He is the Subject, he is the Absolute—she is the Other.” This Other is ascribed roles and characteristics based on the biological differences that make them secondary to man.

Such characteristics include submissiveness and obedience, which reinforces the power dynamics that establish men as the dominant decision-makers in society. Being nurturing and care-giving also fall under the umbrella of womanhood, further reinforcing the expectation that women offer unyielding support to their child or husband while being unable to claim full autonomy over their own position in life. These associations stem from a woman’s biology, namely, her reproductive capacity. Beauvoir highlights the irony in taking such a powerful and natural force—the ability to create life—and using it to subjugate an entire gender. 

A woman’s pursuit of autonomy or intellectual expansion would be deemed as an attempt to become masculine, as the basic standard of being human (or male) is the ability to think rationally and critically. Thus, another set of characteristics attributed to womanhood is that of emotionality and irrationality, or a deficiency of reason and logic. This immediately removes women from the sphere of political or domestic leadership, as well as intellectual pursuits. 

Lastly, Beauvoir emphasizes a key driving factor in male and female power dynamics: female beauty and sexuality. In reducing women to objects of male desire, society adheres them closely to their reproductive roles, ascribes value to their physical appearance, and thus removes their active agency. This also creates an impossible double standard, from which there is no escape: the virtuous “madonna” and the morally degraded “whore”. This allows the patriarchy to police female sexuality in a manner that punishes women for expressing their feminine desire while also holding them to a high standard of desirability. 

From childhood, women are conditioned into attempting to fit themselves into this artificially woven construct. Girls are given dolls and miniature household items, rather than toys that stimulate drive and passion. They are discouraged from being outgoing and adventurous, and encouraged to assist with domestic tasks and maintain their physical appearance. As they approach early youth, they are made to feel shame regarding their sexuality and the development of their body, while their male counterparts are exempted from feeling shame for their objectification and predatory gazes. This is where the “male gaze” develops—a mode of perception that objectifies and sexualizes the thing being perceived. Girls and women are taught to view themselves through the eyes of others, and in accordance with the male gaze, thus losing their autonomy and self-governance. When they are introduced to marriage prospects, they lack the freedom of choice and are introduced to the notion that self-sacrifice is inherent to womanhood, as their only roles in marriage will be constrained within the domestic sphere. 

Laying out these clearly artificial and ultimately meaningless constructs leaves women with the dreaded question: What is it to be a woman outside of the imposition of patriarchy? If it is simply being human, then why do we feel tempted to define the “feminine”? Why is masculinity allowed to be without definition, and immediately attached to the word “human”? Beauvoir makes a point of not defining the “feminine”; by doing so, she would admit that it needs a definition apart from existing simply as a human. By refusing to acknowledge the never-ending attempts to define what it means to be a woman, she reinforces the notion of the “feminine” as simply being “human”. 

Citation: Beauvoir, Simone De. The Second Sex. Vintage Classic, 2015.