Simone de Beauvoir’s relationship with her readers(bostonreview.net)
bostonreview.net
Simone de Beauvoir’s relationship with her readers
https://bostonreview.net/philosophy-religion-gender-sexuality/vivian-gornick-obligation-self-discovery
1 comments
She was a sharp thinker, keenly introspective and bold. I would have imagined that she would appeal to the HN audience.
Beyond the Second Sex, which has significant status in the history of feminism, her autobiographical Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter and A Very Easy Death are beautiful reads that show her insight and self-awareness; I would recommend them.
For accessible general reading about the existentialists, including Beauvoir, I enjoyed At The Existentialist Café by Sarah Bakewell.
Beyond the Second Sex, which has significant status in the history of feminism, her autobiographical Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter and A Very Easy Death are beautiful reads that show her insight and self-awareness; I would recommend them.
For accessible general reading about the existentialists, including Beauvoir, I enjoyed At The Existentialist Café by Sarah Bakewell.
Seconding your recommendation of At The Existentialist Café.
I've found that HN isn't really great in discussing feminism. While the median reader is, I think, nebulously feminist, there is an extremely vocal anti-feminist contingent, and not a huge number of people talking seriously about feminism. I speak about feminism only by carefully avoiding any of the words they find triggering, and still usually not received well.
Philosophy doesn't get a great shake, either. HN discussion of philosophy seems to concern itself mostly with caricatures of postmodernism and logical positivism.
Philosophy doesn't get a great shake, either. HN discussion of philosophy seems to concern itself mostly with caricatures of postmodernism and logical positivism.
Feminism has the same PR problem as veganism: They're granfalloons. [1] They're hashtags. We can't kick people out of a hashtag, and it's not even clear what ideas fall under a given hashtag.
We could have productive discussion about ideas themselves:
* Should the government subsidize dairy?
* Should the government pay for maternity leave? Should employers?
We can talk about what works in Europe, whether money is really fungible, and how to provide welfare without distorting the market or accidentally causing hiring discrimination.
But it's less productive to discuss people:
* Is Contrapoints right?
* Is Joaquin Phoenix right?
You get sidetracked with "Remember that time she hired Buck Angel? Remember that time Joaquin starred in Joker?" That's not discussion. That's a fan-made tabloid.
And it's useless to discuss hashtags:
* Does feminism??
* Is veganism???
"Remember that blog that said hetero sex is inherently bad? Remember that time a PETA employee killed someone's pet dog?"
Now we're 2 cuils from changing minds.
I am guessing this is a problem on HN, because it's a problem everywhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon
Edit: Formatting trouble. I'm new here
We could have productive discussion about ideas themselves:
* Should the government subsidize dairy?
* Should the government pay for maternity leave? Should employers?
We can talk about what works in Europe, whether money is really fungible, and how to provide welfare without distorting the market or accidentally causing hiring discrimination.
But it's less productive to discuss people:
* Is Contrapoints right?
* Is Joaquin Phoenix right?
You get sidetracked with "Remember that time she hired Buck Angel? Remember that time Joaquin starred in Joker?" That's not discussion. That's a fan-made tabloid.
And it's useless to discuss hashtags:
* Does feminism??
* Is veganism???
"Remember that blog that said hetero sex is inherently bad? Remember that time a PETA employee killed someone's pet dog?"
Now we're 2 cuils from changing minds.
I am guessing this is a problem on HN, because it's a problem everywhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon
Edit: Formatting trouble. I'm new here
> Feminism has the same PR problem as veganism: They're granfalloons.
Are feminism and veganism granfalloons?
I'm not sure the definition of granfalloon even makes sense. I get the humour and the wisdom of granfalloonery... but where does it leave us?
How is the clustering of people who share a common characteristic, such as an interest or an origin, "meaningless"? It depends on what you mean by meaninglessness. If we defer to the notion of Shannon information, the association of people who share an ideal or a belief is not random, is it? So it must have meaning?
Maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what you measure, and what you consider to be meaningful.
A room full of feminists, like a room full of vegans, do have at least one thing in common. Getting these people together in a room increases the possibility that they might organise to act in a way that furthers the advancement of their group interest. That seems like it could fit the definition of meaningfulness, does it not?
Still, the insight of labelling these as granfalloons serves to highlight that on any other measure or criteria, the same people might have nothing in common, and might well be adversarial or counterproductively affiliated.
So, a roomful of vegans might also comprise half a roomful of Democrats, and half a roomful of Republicans, right? On diet, they reinforce. But on politics, they cancel out. Is that the wisdom of granfalloonery? I'm not entirely sure, but in the matter of feminism, post Beauvoir, we can see fragmentation, which is the classical dilemma of the movement as a political force. All feminists are not all alike on all measures, and just being feminists is not enough to get a roomful of them to agree to agree on anything.
At the Super Bowl, one of them might root for the Patriots, and the other for the Giants, right? That's the absurdist dimension of the meaninglessness of their clustering. But is that the most salient aspect of their interests?
Amy Coney Barret is not the same as Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The notion that humans of their gender are entitled to serve on the supreme court bench is an ideal of feminism. It does not follow that one woman is substitutable for another woman, just because of her gender. But to exclude people from the supreme court on the basis of gender is to throw out an entire class of people that cuts across all categories of ideology, interest, aesthetics, dietary practice, race, religion and culture. That we can see that now is testament to the work that Beauvoir did to open up our understanding of classifications of people to the nuance of gender.
Are feminism and veganism granfalloons?
I'm not sure the definition of granfalloon even makes sense. I get the humour and the wisdom of granfalloonery... but where does it leave us?
How is the clustering of people who share a common characteristic, such as an interest or an origin, "meaningless"? It depends on what you mean by meaninglessness. If we defer to the notion of Shannon information, the association of people who share an ideal or a belief is not random, is it? So it must have meaning?
Maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on what you measure, and what you consider to be meaningful.
A room full of feminists, like a room full of vegans, do have at least one thing in common. Getting these people together in a room increases the possibility that they might organise to act in a way that furthers the advancement of their group interest. That seems like it could fit the definition of meaningfulness, does it not?
Still, the insight of labelling these as granfalloons serves to highlight that on any other measure or criteria, the same people might have nothing in common, and might well be adversarial or counterproductively affiliated.
So, a roomful of vegans might also comprise half a roomful of Democrats, and half a roomful of Republicans, right? On diet, they reinforce. But on politics, they cancel out. Is that the wisdom of granfalloonery? I'm not entirely sure, but in the matter of feminism, post Beauvoir, we can see fragmentation, which is the classical dilemma of the movement as a political force. All feminists are not all alike on all measures, and just being feminists is not enough to get a roomful of them to agree to agree on anything.
At the Super Bowl, one of them might root for the Patriots, and the other for the Giants, right? That's the absurdist dimension of the meaninglessness of their clustering. But is that the most salient aspect of their interests?
Amy Coney Barret is not the same as Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The notion that humans of their gender are entitled to serve on the supreme court bench is an ideal of feminism. It does not follow that one woman is substitutable for another woman, just because of her gender. But to exclude people from the supreme court on the basis of gender is to throw out an entire class of people that cuts across all categories of ideology, interest, aesthetics, dietary practice, race, religion and culture. That we can see that now is testament to the work that Beauvoir did to open up our understanding of classifications of people to the nuance of gender.
Understanding de Beauvoir requires more than an ideological commitment to feminism. It requires an education in the liberal arts, or at least being well read.
She isn’t Gloria Steinem. She’s an academic writer who uses a technical vocabulary, and assumes familiarity with lots of mid-20th century (and earlier) writers.
One can be a committed feminist, and reject quite a bit of de Beauvoir’s thought.
HN just isn’t the correct forum for a meaningful debate on existentialism.
She isn’t Gloria Steinem. She’s an academic writer who uses a technical vocabulary, and assumes familiarity with lots of mid-20th century (and earlier) writers.
One can be a committed feminist, and reject quite a bit of de Beauvoir’s thought.
HN just isn’t the correct forum for a meaningful debate on existentialism.
Perhaps especially HN. The language of philosophy isn't just unfamiliar, it's specific to particular authors. You can't discuss de Beauvoir without reading de Beauvoir herself, and the things that de Beauvoir was reading.
HN readers tend to be inspired by the model of science, which is more settled in its vocabulary, and concepts are less immediately tied to the speaker. That is, you can study relativity without knowing a word of German. It would sound absurd to tell somebody to read Einstein in the original in order to understand it. Quite the contrary: later re-formulations are preferred, as they benefit from later developments in framing the questions. The numbers it yields are identical and therefore at least as good.
This is a challenge for anybody studying any philosophy. HN readers are generally smart enough to understand it and even be interested in in it, but the way discussions are framed tends to put them off.
HN readers tend to be inspired by the model of science, which is more settled in its vocabulary, and concepts are less immediately tied to the speaker. That is, you can study relativity without knowing a word of German. It would sound absurd to tell somebody to read Einstein in the original in order to understand it. Quite the contrary: later re-formulations are preferred, as they benefit from later developments in framing the questions. The numbers it yields are identical and therefore at least as good.
This is a challenge for anybody studying any philosophy. HN readers are generally smart enough to understand it and even be interested in in it, but the way discussions are framed tends to put them off.
> HN just isn’t the correct forum for a meaningful debate on existentialism.
What is the gender composition of HN readers? Do we have any information about that?
What is the gender composition of HN readers? Do we have any information about that?
I read HN almost every day, going on 10 years now. I have a sense, judging by when gender issues get discussed and women such as myself pipe up obviously, it's in the low 10s or at best 20% but more likely on the lower side.
My note on Beauvoir, I read plenty of her when younger and her mix of intellectual rigour with fierce independence was illuminating for me, definitely she influenced how I live as an independent thinker. She focused on facts and historical analysis to get her arguments across, without appeal to emotion. She also lived a true life of love and courage, and fought hard for her beliefs. Would recommend her biography to anyone interested in the history of 20th c feminism.
My note on Beauvoir, I read plenty of her when younger and her mix of intellectual rigour with fierce independence was illuminating for me, definitely she influenced how I live as an independent thinker. She focused on facts and historical analysis to get her arguments across, without appeal to emotion. She also lived a true life of love and courage, and fought hard for her beliefs. Would recommend her biography to anyone interested in the history of 20th c feminism.
I’m more interested in how many people have a background in philosophy, existentialism, and psychoanalysis.
How many folks on HN have strong views on whether “existence precedes essence?”
How many folks on HN have strong views on whether “existence precedes essence?”
It would be interesting to have an HN census
Honestly filologically Simone de Beauvoir presents very complex philosophical ideas. She was at the forefront of feminism and made the original philosophical case. That's pretty much the gist if what I can remember. Here are the elements: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauvoir/
Also worth noting, she was in love with Jean Paul Sartre whom used cafes as his office. They were regulars at a certain cafe and would sit there for days.
Pics or it didn't happen? https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/featu...
Okay that's all I had.
Also worth noting, she was in love with Jean Paul Sartre whom used cafes as his office. They were regulars at a certain cafe and would sit there for days.
Pics or it didn't happen? https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/featu...
Okay that's all I had.
Montparnasse cemetary is worth a visit. Dreyfus is there as well, if you hunt a bit further afield than Simone and Jean-Paul. And the Cartier-Bresson museum is nearby.
I assumed all the french writers hung together, but my favourite of these times after Camus is Raymond Queneau, who wrote "zazie dans le metro" and he was an almost exact contemporary of De Beauvoir, in time. They just seem to have led parallel, unrelated lives. Both communist, but no strong linkages.
here's a pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/381891243372004539/
thats about it. Amazing to plug two contemporary French modernist writers in the same time interval into search and come up with basically, only friend-of-a-friend.
I assumed all the french writers hung together, but my favourite of these times after Camus is Raymond Queneau, who wrote "zazie dans le metro" and he was an almost exact contemporary of De Beauvoir, in time. They just seem to have led parallel, unrelated lives. Both communist, but no strong linkages.
here's a pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/381891243372004539/
thats about it. Amazing to plug two contemporary French modernist writers in the same time interval into search and come up with basically, only friend-of-a-friend.
I suppose there were intellectual / philosopher. And "having strong opinions losely held" was not a thing back then (certainly in France), so I guess it is easy to understand why they didn't hang out together.
Sartre and Camus were friends for some time, but that changed when Camus published "L'homme révolté" in 1951, and they became bitter enemies.
But in a sense all the existentialists did hang out, because this whole époque is linked to the "rive gauche" (left bank), an area of Paris.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/11/left-bank-agne...
And mind you, Simone and Jean-Paul were married, but I guess you knew that.
Sartre and Camus were friends for some time, but that changed when Camus published "L'homme révolté" in 1951, and they became bitter enemies.
But in a sense all the existentialists did hang out, because this whole époque is linked to the "rive gauche" (left bank), an area of Paris.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/11/left-bank-agne...
And mind you, Simone and Jean-Paul were married, but I guess you knew that.
De Beauvoir is a controversial figure. She undoubtedly had a major influence on feminism but it is also firmly established that she abused her position as a teacher and a famous writer to groom some of her teenage students into sexual relationships with her before tossing them to her boyfriend.
Geez, I knew that France has had a...different relationship with age of consent laws, but I didn't know so many of their "great thinkers" were against the idea completely [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...
She's also controversial (to say the least) for her smear campaign against Albert Camus, who didn't publicly endorse hers and her boyfriend Sartre's pro-Soviet politics.
From the header of the article:
"Gender and sexuality"
"Simone de Beauvoir’s relationship with her readers was a mutually demanding collaboration."
I do love talking about gender and sexuality. I just don't know who Simone de Beauvoir is. The headline is about Simone, not about gender or feminism.
It's like if there was a biography of Steve Klabnik. He's got something to do with Rust. I'd love to talk about Rust. I don't have any useful opinion on Steve himself.
"Gender and sexuality"
"Simone de Beauvoir’s relationship with her readers was a mutually demanding collaboration."
I do love talking about gender and sexuality. I just don't know who Simone de Beauvoir is. The headline is about Simone, not about gender or feminism.
It's like if there was a biography of Steve Klabnik. He's got something to do with Rust. I'd love to talk about Rust. I don't have any useful opinion on Steve himself.
What do you love about talking about gender and sexuality?
Would you consider than any part of your interest has anything to do with your lived experience as a gendered human?
If not, then I can understand the analogy you enjoin when you draw a line between Rust and Steve Klabnik. Nobody has to know anything about Steve Klabnik to be able to parse Rust or a syntax guide to Rust.
Feminism is different when you consider that each of us experiences the world through a gender lens, particularly when you consider that many of us are unaware that the lens exists and occludes our vision as well as forms it.
How do people of a gender you don't share experience the world? I'm not sure how you'd know until you listened to them describe their lived experience.
In the case of Beauvoir, you are fortunate. Her life bridges a gap between pre-feminism and post-feminist worlds. If you love talking about gender and sexuality, Beauvoir's life is fertile grounds for many interesting conversations you may enjoy with other people of all genders for the rest of your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTdTNr1-y-c
Would you consider than any part of your interest has anything to do with your lived experience as a gendered human?
If not, then I can understand the analogy you enjoin when you draw a line between Rust and Steve Klabnik. Nobody has to know anything about Steve Klabnik to be able to parse Rust or a syntax guide to Rust.
Feminism is different when you consider that each of us experiences the world through a gender lens, particularly when you consider that many of us are unaware that the lens exists and occludes our vision as well as forms it.
How do people of a gender you don't share experience the world? I'm not sure how you'd know until you listened to them describe their lived experience.
In the case of Beauvoir, you are fortunate. Her life bridges a gap between pre-feminism and post-feminist worlds. If you love talking about gender and sexuality, Beauvoir's life is fertile grounds for many interesting conversations you may enjoy with other people of all genders for the rest of your life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTdTNr1-y-c
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...