>One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.
>>24667644Oh sweetheart, OH YEAH, oh, i completely agree
>>24667644
As it were
>one is not born an adult, at first they are a babysmartest female philosopher
>>24667754*hits vape* damn queen
>>24667644Anons are women. They are the second sex.
>>24667644If she was still alive she would have regretted those words.
>>24669205Why?
>>24667644>be me>*reading The Second Sex for the 5th time, as one does*>the words "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" are literally vibrating on the page>*vision goes blurry*>*I look away from the book and towards my second monitor*>four different 4chan tabs open>a profound and horrifying realization washes over me
>>24669297Anons, listen to me very carefully. You are women.No, I am not talking about biological reality or whatever other low-IQ framework you use to navigate the world. I am talking about the fundamental dialectic of being. Beauvoir posits that Man is the Self, the Subject, the Absolute. He is the default, the one who acts, creates, and imposes his will upon the world. He achieves Transcendence.Woman, she argues, is the Other. She is the inessential, the object. She is defined only in relation to the Subject. She does not act, she reacts. She is doomed to Immanence—the repetitive, passive state of existence.Now think about anons.
>>24669337The "real world" of normies, authors, artists, politicians, Chads—they are the Subject. They write the novels we critique. They produce the movies we screencap. They make the political decisions we impotently rage about. They are the essential actors in the grand narrative.And what are we? We are the Other. Our entire existence is reactive. We do not create; we comment. We do not build; we deconstruct. We are defined purely by our relationship to the content created by the Subject. An anon's identity is a void, a negation, existing only as a response to an external stimulus.Our anonymity is the ultimate proof. We are not essential individuals. We are an undifferentiated mass of Otherness, completely interchangeable. We are trapped in the ultimate state of Immanence, endlessly refreshing the catalog, trapped in the cyclical and domestic task of posting the same Pepe images in the same threads, day after day. We are the housewives of the digital world.Simone de Beauvoir would log on to this website and weep, for she would see her thesis proven more profoundly than she ever could have imagined. We have not been made into the Second Sex by society; we have voluntarily chosen this mode of being. We have embraced our own inessentiality.
never thought about it that way
>>24667644De Beauvoir + Sartre are possibly the worst thing that ever happened to the modern world>one champions leftism>the other champions feminism and sexual liberation
>>24669337>>24669808>being a man is corporate america, the two party system, hollywood, and today‘s items on instagram and tiktokMaybe Beauvoir was full of shit you ever think of that?
>>24669985>No, I am not talking about biological reality or whatever other low-IQ framework you use to navigate the world. I am talking about the fundamental dialectic of being. Beauvoir posits that Man is the Self, the Subject, the Absolute. He is the default, the one who acts, creates, and imposes his will upon the world. He achieves Transcendence.Maybe you aren't even a woman.
>>24669337>Anons, listen to me very carefully. You are women.Then where are all the people that want to fuck me and take care of me?
>>24670045>And what are we? We are the Other. Our entire existence is reactive. We do not create; we comment. We do not build; we deconstruct. We are defined purely by our relationship to the content created by the Subject. An anon's identity is a void, a negation, existing only as a response to an external stimulus.>Our anonymity is the ultimate proof. We are not essential individuals. We are an undifferentiated mass of Otherness, completely interchangeable. We are trapped in the ultimate state of Immanence, endlessly refreshing the catalog, trapped in the cyclical and domestic task of posting the same Pepe images in the same threads, day after day. We are the housewives of the digital world.Because you are a woman. If you were not a woman, there would be people.
>>24670051So women are women without all the advantages and men are men without all the disadvantages? That's awfully convenient.
what is a woman?
>>24670000>No I don‘t mean what words mean I mean what some lady said they meanOk faggot show me your tits if you‘re a woman
>>24669222NTA but why do you think?
are there any female philosophers that actually write about...philosophy? instead of just ranting about what women should be entitled to in society
>>24669971Don't forget>both groomed their students and opposed to the age of consent
>>24670097https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T25LfHJT_y0
>>24670121Trannies?
>>24670072Dude, are you honestly that fucking stupid? This is a book that goes pre-feminism. Why are you guys so fucking retarded?
>>24670157Stupid because I reject your silly reasoning? If we accept your logic that being passive makes you a woman, then most men throughout history were actually women. There were no male slaves ever. No man has ever not mattered because they were women by proxy.Ridiculous.
>>24670160In a free society? Yes, being a slave is emasculating. I would go even as far as saying it is dehumanizing. And slaves are usually treated as a commodity.
>>24670174An emasculated man is still a man.
>>24670187https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j95kNwZw8YY
>>24670195Right back at you.
>>24670196That is not my opinion, dude. We are in the Simone de Beauvoir thread in case you haven't noticed. Not in Anonymous Anon's Opinions thread.
>>24670202So you don't agree with her?
>>24670207Does my opinion fucking matter? Why? I don't care about any of this, I'm just sharing her thoughts. I'm not a feminist, nor a woman. I'm just being honest.
>>24670210Well you said it's not your opinion so I just wanted to clarify what your position even is.
>>24670210You said you were a woman
>>24670211Why does my position even matter? I honestly never thought or spend any time by myself to think about the matter of what is means to be a woman. I don't think I really care about it enough to think about it myself.
>>24670214I said that anons are women. I'm on the driver seat of my life.
>>24670215Why are you in a thread discussing things you don't care about or even think about?
>>24670218You are Anon
>>24670223I don't care about it enough to think about it myself, but I did read about it. So it is not like I completely ignore the question, I do read things about it. This is different. See? But I won't write essays or spend my free time thinking about it, I just check things out and follow other people's thoughts on that matter. And that is mostly because I'm not a woman, so it is not like I think that I can possibly think anything that I would think interesting about being a woman exactly because I'm not a woman.
>>24667644Wrong.
>>24670232You read things but never think about them or care enough to form your own opinion? >or spend my free time thinking about itAre you being paid to be here in this thread?
>>24670236>You read things but never think about them or care enough to form your own opinion?I could come up with a critique of it, but why would I bother? What is the practical use of having an opinion when I can read her thoughts on a subject and craft lenses that I can use anytime I want to see things that she never saw before but through her eyes? Isn't this cool? I love this kind of shit.>Are you being paid to be here in this thread?I'm too sick to do anything else. So I'm here instead of playing games or reading books.
>>24670246huh
IWNBAW :(
>>24670246>What is the practical use of having an opinionWhat is the practical use of reading things you never form opinions for?>I'm too sick to do anything else.So since you spend your free time in this thread, does that mean you are not thinking about any of your posts? Cause you said otherwise before.
>>24670252>what is the practical use of understanding how other people thinkGame theory. You can understand how people will do things and act accordingly for the better.When I said thinking I meant by myself. I'm not counting talking to other people.
>>24670257So you just want to understand how people look at the world without ever considering whether they are factually correct or not. Is that it?
>>24670260Yes, is there any other good reason to bother reading a book on humanities if you don't want a degree in some bs?
>>24670263Then why did you make affirmative claims throughout this thread and why did you get emotional about people disagreeing with this woman's opinions?
>>24670264I'm having fun, anon. Can't you tell that while I do have the impression that she would think that of a lot of anons in here, I'm just messing up with you guys? Are you autistic or something?
>>24670266So you were....le trolling?
what the fuck is going on in this thread, seriously
>>24670269No, not really, can't you read? I'm having fun. I did post a funny thing about her thought that relates to 4chan and dudes were all being anti-fun in the most stupid fashion. As in being anachronistic, completely dismissing the point that she goes on the book over dictionary or common sense definitions of things when the whole fucking book is about defining something. I'm in pain, anon. OK? I'm just trying to have some fun with people that have read the same fucking book that I did. Is that some kind of crime?
>>24670281How is it "not really" when you're describing trolling? You're posting things you don't mean to get a reaction out of people because you find it fun. That's trolling.
>>24670283It is not trolling. How does that doesn't relate to her book? It is a fun and unusual statement and it goes as far as including 4chan. I'm the soul of this thread if anything, I made this thread alive, it was dead before me. If anything, dudes who are trolling are people who obviously haven't read the book (maybe haven't read any philosophy at all) and are talking all sorts of things that aren't really pertinent to this thread.
>>24670290It is trolling because you've already admitted you don't actually agree with what you're posting and are only doing it to pass the time by getting reactions out of people. You aren't simply posting some quotes to get a discussion going, you are actively arguing in bad faith.
>>24670296I don't agree with what I'm saying, but I agree that it is somewhat accurate and aligned with something that she would say and think. How is that trolling? If anything, I'm one of the most valuable posters in this thread.And how my posts don't address things in her book? Being a woman for her is about being the Other.
Wow thanks, anon. You made me realize that I'm the MVP of this thread. This gave me a nice idea.
>>24670305I already explained how it's trolling. You have already admitted you are only posting to get reactions out of people. You literally said that you care so little about this woman's books that you don't even spend the time to think about whether or not you agree with her.
>>24670309Why does it matter what me, Anonymous Anon, think of Simone de Beauvoir in a Simone de Beauvoir thread? Enlighten me.
>>24670311Why does it matter what anyone ITT thinks about her?
I wonder what people outside are doing right now.
>>24670312It doesn't necessarily matter, but it can be interesting what they have to say about it. And I just said that I haven't thought about any impressions, because I didn't bother thinking about any. I've just read her book and learned her thought.
>>24670318Why can it be interesting?
>>24670322Because they are someone else that ain't me. And I can think anything that I can possibly think, so if I'm interested in my own opinion on any subject or matter I wouldn't really bother being here and reading things here. I would just sip tea and sit on my chair while entertaining my own thoughts, which I do frequently but only with subjects that I'm actually interested.
>>24670329If you don't care enough to even form your own opinion, why would you care about other people's opinions?
>>24670333How can I possibly care or not about someone's else opinion if I haven't known them? And I already said why I don't really think that my opinion is interesting in this specific subject: I'm not a woman. But anons are women, so their opinion is somewhat interesting.
>>24670338You didn't just say your opinion is not interesting, you said you didn't care enough to even form it.
>>24670342What makes the opinion of what some dude what he thinks about what being a woman means interesting? It is like women talking about what it means to be a man, would you bother really listening to it and taking it seriously? Even if you think that everything is a social construct, people still have their social constructed starting points of being man or woman.
>>24670352Again, you said you don't even care about the subject material enough to form it.
>>24667667idciywiw
Flash of understanding muddled by too much emotion, as is typical for the weaker sex.Of course women are to be most properly socialized by other women. That is why all sane societies have enforced separation of men and women in public spaces.What she misunderstands is that this is inevitable. It is the definitive basic fact of the human condition.
>>24670355You don't understand the argument. It's not about whether I agree or disagree. My post isn't a statement of my own personal belief; it's a commentary on the original text. I am an observer, a deconstructor, using a philosophical framework to analyze the world around me. My function is reactive, not active. My post is nothing more than a link between an idea and a new context, and my identity is a void that only exists in relation to this link.In your mind, my identity—my "self"—is a Subject. You believe I must be an active, essential individual who holds and imposes beliefs on the world. You think I am wrong because my words don't align with an external, fixed identity. You are trying to define me by the same low-IQ framework you claim to navigate the world by. You are imposing your own subjective expectations on my existence.And in doing so, you have proven that you are the woman. You exist only in relation to my post, a reactive force that exists solely to argue against my position. You are nothing more than a comment on a comment. You are the Second Sex of the digital world, doomed to Immanence, while I am the ghost in the machine, acting without consequence. My existence is as a pure idea, a specter of the real world—the Transcendence you crave.You are the one who has not been born but has become a woman. You're living proof of the thesis.
>>24670366I fail to see the logic there. I am the one that has actual opinions and takes a stance here, whereas you keep describing yourself as an observer without actual opinions.
>>24670151Indeed
>>24670366I bet if I had read this post it would consist of anon trying to call someone a woman because they didn‘t accept Beauvoir‘s headcanon classifications
>>24670376You call that an opinion? Darling, opinions are for people who get out of bed in the morning and have something to say.All you've done is react to my post. You're the one trapped in the endless, passive cycle of commenting, while I've transcended to a higher plane of detachment.You're not a man, anon. You're a housewife of the digital world, endlessly tidying up the threads with your predictable responses. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go philosophize in the garden while you're left here to do the dishes.You. Are. A. Woman.Q.E.D.
>>24670385No, I've already made my opinions pretty clear here >>24670072 and >>24670160 whereas you shied away when asked for your personal stance on it. I am an active participating here, you are in your own words an observer. According to Beauvoir's logic, you're the woman here.
>>24670390https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k96h1dYQrj0BASED, I also can't get the logic of it, it is so simple. Don't bother reading her books.
>>24670352>>24670355>>24670366>>24670376>>24670385Amazing thread. For the record I am completely on Beauvoir-anon's side. He is not trolling and is just taking the side of the philosopher in question as a thought experiment. All the zoomers just got intelligencemogged
>>24670400Thank you. I had an amazing time and decent laughs.
>>24670247Listen to this songhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdz5kCaCRFM&pp=ygUTaG9vayBibHVlcyB0cmF2ZWxlcg%3D%3D
>>24667659Image made me realize im such a fraud.
>>24667644>>One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.Born with a sex, enculturated into a gender. So, true statement.
>>24670675SHIT, it is you. I should've known.
>>24667659I understand it now.
>>24667659As a child I thought buttocks were called buttlocks because they lock the butt closed
>>24669337>Beauvoir posits that Man is the Self, the Subject, the Absolute. He is the default, the one who acts, creates, and imposes his will upon the world. He achieves Transcendence.>Woman, she argues, is the Other. She is the inessential, the object. She is defined only in relation to the Subject. She does not act, she reacts. She is doomed to Immanence—the repetitive, passive state of existence.that's pretty hot ngl
>>24670129anne conway
>>24670357idkwtfyta
>>24670675>oh noes i've been enculturated
>>24672127british hands typed this post
>>24667644Was she serious? Every girl becomes a woman, but not every boy becomes a man. She had it backwards.
>>24667659What a great ass, how did such an ugly fuck as Sartre deserve her
