I was nervous, but excited too, to read The Second Sex for A Year of Feminist Classics. When the book arrived in my mailbox, I admit I had to do a double take: that many pages?! But still: nerves and excitement about finally reading this.
Here is the thing though: it is not just a tome of a book, but it is slow reading too. Now, having read the first 300 pages, which means I have finished Part I, I am not all that excited anymore. Reading as few as 20 pages feels like a true accomplishment with this book, and yet, when you sit down to report your progress on GoodReads, you notice that you’re still only 10% done after five of such 20-page-sessions.
Simone de Beauvoir is smart, alright. Often, she makes me feel stupid. I have an okay-ish background in philosophy, but she appeals to so many different concepts all the time that I find it hard to follow. Also, the pace of the book, the style, it feels I am only reading as a passive observer, never really engaging with the text.
I did enjoy the Introduction. I made notes. Lots of them. I could have copied the whole introduction as one long note. So interesting, so sharp, so smart.
Something else I liked? How she rejects Freud. Ah, I have a feeling I simply like reading how Freud was wrong.
But then the problematic analysis started. Perhaps I simply misunderstood, perhaps I am stuck in my academic mindset of my specific “brand” of historical research, but generalisations about history get on my nerves. Especially the part about prehistory, which such bold assertions about a society we know so little about..
I know that books about grand developments deserve a place in the canon of history books too. Often, they make for much more interesting reading than the detailed analysis of one group, at one period, through one theoretical framework.. But De Beauvoir goes beyond that. I am not saying I discard her conclusion that women have always been cast in the role of The Other, or that they have been oppressed for most, if not all, of history. It is the manner in which she sets about proving this, that I couldn’t go along with. It got on my nerves. What do we know about the developments back then? Sometimes, her theories read like Hegel’s ideas on the development from Subjective to Objective mind, pointing with such seeming effortlessness to ‘grand changing points’ in the history of the world. I don’t know.. I just don’t know..
And the part about literature? I can see how it shows how in any system that reduces women to “nature”, “fertility”, etc. How any reductionist thinking, in the many forms it took, fashioned women into something not-completely-human-like-men. At least, I think that was what De Beauvoir was trying to tell me, because I admit her thorough analysis of authors and their work were so detailed as to bore me a little, which led to skimming at times. I wish I did not have to admit this. I often had to remind myself that I am reading this to “finally read this classic” and that skimming is not exactly to that purpose. But.. but.. I have no excuses really, I just skimmed, I felt it was alright to skip over some lines hoping I still got the general gist.
I will persevere with this book, and I do plan to finish Part II eventually. But it may take me until December (since this part is another 500 pages). I have heard that it becomes more interesting from here on out. Perhaps that is true?
I feel so ignorant and dumb and as if I am missing out on something important about this book. Oh, I know about its importance, I had just hoped against hope that it would be easier to read.
good luck Iris sounds like a truely challening and thought provoking book ,all the best stu
Don’t feel dumb. You’re 300 pages ahead of most of the rest of the world. I’ve never read The Second Sex myself – perhaps I should add it to my list of books by women to read for this year, although it might slow me down quite a bit!
I’m totally with you. Personally I have still only gotten through the introduction. heh. I’m glad that I’m not the only one!!
Good on you Iris. I was planning to join you guys in reading this book but never got near the book. Oops. But I still plan to read it at some point although I doubt I can get to it this year. But reading your posts will spur me on, so I look forward to your thoughts!
The thing about this book is, being dated hurts it. When it first came out, it was absolutely revolutionary. And so mind-blowing for women who never considered any alternative to the fifties-housewife role model. So I really think it’s not you at all, but the fact that it seems dated and even slow now is a testament to how far we have come!
Oh, goodness! I don’t think I could handle this book, really. I like feminist history, but I don’t like overly-long, very esoteric feminist history!
Blech, I hate Freud! I slugged through that first part too. I definitely thought the second part was much more interesting and a little easier to get through. Good luck! You can do it!
It happens with books. I understand your feeling but I hope you persevere. Sometimes it is after this that the whole intent dawns on you. Yet, I like the matter-of-fact way you have presented it. Not hiding behind ‘non’ interesting pages and telling people how much fun you had when there is no fun.
This book scares me.
I am terrible about reading the Great Feminist Classics! I haven’t read this or The Feminine Mystique or anything. Sounds like I should give this one a miss, or at least continue procrastinating. :p
I feel the same way on many of these points. She’s brilliant, but confusing and sometimes boring. Also, the generalizations: yes. And, her tendency to use the most extreme examples to prove her points…not really that helpful! And yet: I LOVED the section on myths, perhaps because that material was the newest to me. Liked the Freud-bashing, too. I’m almost done now (I’m allowed to read at my summer ice-cream scooping job when it’s slow, if I hide my book under the counter
) and I can tell you that I DID find the second half more accessible and was newly interested when I started the section on Lived Experience. Some of the stuff she says about sexuality, particularly about “frigidity” and lesbianism make me really uncomfortable, as I don’t really understand/buy the psychoanalytic approach, but the stuff about girlhood rang SO true for me, so I must admit there might be something in it. I encourage you to keep on keeping on with it, so we might be able to chat about it more!
I admire anyone who actually reads this book and can follow most concepts and toughts of her! I collcted this from the library and nearly fainted when I saw the size of that book. I only read the admittedly great intro and then felt it was okay to read it some other time
Also, since philosophy classes in school, I bolt at the mere mention of Hegel.