Can someone explain the appeal of The Second Sex?

[Anonymous No.13592122]

Okay, I got about 150 pages into this book before giving up. It sucks. De Beauvoir doesn't source any of what she's saying, and she makes some big fucking claims about human history and biology. Some of its plainly wrong too (like her claim that more women die between the ages of 14 and 22 than men).

Why is this book so highly regarded?

[Anonymous No.13592272]

Feminism has never had a need to provided sources for their claims, which is why every idea they present is nothing but an assertion. The few they provide have either an assertion as a source, or it's a part of a long circle citation, in which feminist X cites feminist Y, who cites feminist Z, who cites feminist X's assertion.
Just get used to it and try to enjoy the ride, that's how feminists conduct their research.

[Anonymous No.13592299]

>>13592272
do you have a source for this claim?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13592310]

>>13592299
He doesn’t

>>13592122
Finish your assignment, ya big baby.

[Anonymous No.13592324]

>>13592299
>source
Im not him but it's literally the image OP posted

[Anonymous No.13592334]

>>13592324
does that support the claim of
>Feminism has never had a need to provided sources for their claims
?

[Anonymous No.13592345]

>>13592334
If you want to play burden of proof you will have to cite feminists who use sources, can't prove a negative and all that.
In this case, according to OP and a second anon, de Beauvoir only pulls data from her ass. You can correct them by simply posting the sources she used for her work, if they exist.

[Anonymous No.13592376]

You should make sure that feminists in your head resemble actual feminists first, or else it's quite clear who pulls what out of where.

[Anonymous No.13592425]

it's overrated garbage
>just like women

[Anonymous No.13592691]

>>13592345
I would say that a bunch of (early) feminist writings at least partly rely on personal experience and also developped reasonings about various historical and societal facts that they need to generalize to make points (and, fair enough, it's completely normal when your intent is to write broad theory). De Beauvoir was probably wrong about a lot of things, I didn't read the book, but it took quite a lot of time to social sciences (both hitsory and sociology) to really take interest in women so it's probably no big surprise that she said a lot of shit, the "facts" weren't constructed in those fields when she wrote this. Now these fields are active and there's enough facts.

[Anonymous No.13592699]

>>13592691
post a source from modern academia that rigorously prevents evidence for anything de Beauvoir ever said

[Anonymous No.13592701]

>>13592699
>prevents
presents*

[Anonymous No.13592702]

>>13592122
>The Second Sex
I've never even had the first one.

[Anonymous No.13592704]

>>13592691
also if you want to meaningfully contribute don't just post the source, explain what its logic is and the basis of its evidence

[Anonymous No.13592706]

>>13592272
>Feminism has never had a need to provided sources for their claims
because it is self-evidently correct

[Anonymous No.13592712]

>>13592122
The point at the time was probably more about arise the debate and start a political shift than being absolutely accurate about everything. Perhaps you don't realize what this early feminism waves have allowed, just listen to interviews of casual men in the 50s/60s talking about women, I bet that even someone almost everyone would call a sexist nowadays could be geniunely shocked.

[Anonymous No.13592718]

>>13592706
self-evidently

are we talking about religious revelation, because any other claim has to be supported with reason and evidence

[Anonymous No.13592722]

>>13592712
Muslims across the world today still have those opinions about women. Identical basically to what you're talking about, it has not died out at all. And feminists are for some reason accepting of Muslims apart from radfems.

[Anonymous No.13592724]

>Why is this book so highly regarded?
Woman wrote it.

[Anonymous No.13592732]

>>13592718
>God is self-evident
That's even more bluepilled than claiming feminism is self-evident.

[Anonymous No.13592746]

>>13592699
>post a source from modern academia that rigorously prevents evidence for anything de Beauvoir ever said
I just said you I didn't read the book, I'm just a little bit familiar with social science studies, both qualitative and quantitative, that provide proof to common feminist points. Mostly, not in English which is not my usual language. But like careful studies that could attest that there is a gap between what chores the man and the woman do in couples and how it is unbalanced and specialized, even when both work a similar amount of time, and stuff about rapes, domestic violence, etc. etc.
I'm just suggesting that there is stuff that you can seek for if you want "proof" and facts, including much more modern history about women, these are really active fields. I cannot provide everything you need, just search for yourself bitch.

[Anonymous No.13592778]

>>13592746
You are not going to defend your points then, very typical.


you might fare better on twitter or reddit where just saying 'sexism is wrong' wins the conversation

[Anonymous No.13592780]

>>13592746
>social science studies
Self-reported woo dominated by feminists? Well, of course it proves feminist talking points.

Try ethology, anthropology and neuroendocrinology. You know, the guys who hook up people to MRIs and don't pay attention to what people self report - just observe what they do. Surprisingly, it goes quite significantly against feminist narrative.

Sociology is study of society insofar as a study of our cultural delusions, study of "what people have to say so as to fit in". It has no clue about what people actually do.

[lalo - searching for tridejur No.13592788]

I only have a daughter as some powerful man if that makes my Hermitage feminista I AM sorry I AM Dying for a boy but first a new wife

[Anonymous No.13592889]

>>13592722
Because feminism is now trendy rather than a serious cause. It has been subsumed into general middle class youth leftism, a predominantly white guilt fueled LARP movement.

[Anonymous No.13592931]

>>13592272
>Provide strong assertion
>Cries and tell people that they are too opressed to educate them when asked to elaborate
Feminism in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.13592941]

What would constitute sufficient evidence for you to believe women were in subjugation to men for most of history?

[Anonymous No.13592984]

>>13592941
evidence of the equality between men and women

kind of the fundamental tenet of feminism, and there is zero evidence for it

[Anonymous No.13592993]

>>13592984
>implying there's evidence for the contrary
me? I'm femagnostic

[Anonymous No.13593003]

>>13592993
well there is enormous evidence to the contrary. all of human history, all iq tests ever done, the brain differences in men and women, our hormones and bodies, crime stats, the clearly different ways they act even when let alone to pursue what they want mostly.

There is not a shred of evidence that they are the same, the same way there is not a shred of evidence that the races are the same.

Please provide even a single study that shows measurable differences between men and women disapperaring due to environtmental factors. It does not exist.

[Anonymous No.13593035]

thoughts on wage gap between the exact same job?

[Anonymous No.13593039]

>>13593035
does not exist. The wage gap is about men working dangerous and intensive jobs and more hours than women.

women are preferably hired at an enormous amount of positions, both governmental and private due to HR.

[Anonymous No.13593055]

>>13593003
Not that guy, but I think you are confusing "being worth the same" with "being the same". There can't be statistical measurements about the ideologically set worth of something. Something like human rights are declared fundamentally, not calculated based on merit. If we lived in a society based on merit, rather than on fundamental human value, we would probably not take care of the elderly or the retarded.
I don't think anyone (aside from some niche freaks) argues that men and women are biologically the same. People are arguing that men and women should be valued the same by society.

Also
>IQ tests
Those are only useful for observation of the mental development of children.

[Anonymous No.13593064]

>>13593039
But it does exist for the same job. Obviously men take more dangerous and intensive jobs. Obviously men work more than women.
But we are talking about men and women doing the exact same job not earning the same amount of money.

I mean, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm a man. But I don't deny the wage gap existing.

[Anonymous No.13593066]

>>13592691
Personal experience of only one person doesn't reflect reality of 50 % of populace. Also using Word "fact" for sociological research is very naive.

You misunderstood their point. De Beauvoir doesn't cite sources, however her followers use her as a source, and their followers use them as source, And So on. You shouldnt be able to source something that is unsourced, And you are not able to do so in any serious scientifical field. which sociology isn't.

[Anonymous No.13593070]

>>13592746
What Is a chore, rape or domestic violence? The studies you mention define them in a way that will support their claim. (Eg. Taking care of a car isn't choré, it's a hobby. Repairing clothes Is chore, not a hobby )

[Anonymous No.13593073]

>>13592941
Subjecation of women throughout history isn't proof of injustice, it's Proof of superiority.

[Anonymous No.13593076]

>>13592941
Subjegation of women throughout history isn't proof of injustice, it's proof of superiority.

[Anonymous No.13593077]

>>13593064
the wage gap for the same job, same credentials, and same hours worked is 2 percent.
>>13593055
Iq tests are much more robust than you think across adulthood, race, and gender. There is only one reason they are denigrated, and it's because they contradict progressive dogma of equality.

To your other point many people literally think men and women are mentally the same and only social factors make us act differently. The sheer insanity of this could be made plain even in the simple argument that we would necessarily develop differently as people because of how different our bodies are, but it goes so far beyond that, and you can't even mention this shit in academia really, anymore than you mention average differences in measures between races.

I am out anyway, I hate posting about this shit on 4chan. Just actually look at what is in front of you for a moment, don't just make your ideas based on what sounds good to you. Just look at the fucking evidence and reason, for just a second.

[Anonymous No.13593078]

>>13593073
>>13593076
But our society is not based on superiority, it is based on fundamental rights. Otherwise the poor wouldn't get education.

[Anonymous No.13593080]

>>13592702
heh, good one

[Anonymous No.13593082]

>>13593077
>To your other point many people literally think men and women are mentally the same
Source? (Other than exaggerated hearsay, of course.)

[Anonymous No.13593086]

>>13593077
>Just look at the fucking evidence and reason, for just a second.
Like I said, fundamental human rights are not based on evidence. They are agreed upon. We make them. I don't really get what this has to do with some people confusing "being worth the same" with "being the same".

[Anonymous No.13593089]

>>13593078
Poor people didn't get education throughout most of history, proof of the superiority of rich people

[Anonymous No.13593136]

>>13593077
I don't think IQ gap is bad or wrong, but it has been grossly exaggerated by the it's historical original intent.

[Anonymous No.13593194]

>>13593077
>The sheer insanity of this could be made plain even in the simple argument that we would necessarily develop differently as people because of how different our bodies are
This kind of argumentation is super lazy, the other poster even correctly pointed out that no one is claiming that men and women are biologically identical. However I would recommend you read this book, because the level of ignorance you're exhibiting is breathtaking.

[Anonymous No.13593240]

>>13592691
>Durkheim drags his balls through glass for years and provides reasoning and arguments as to why sociology is a science and manages to legitimize the field as separate from other fields like psychology and economics
>this involves reconciling theory with a whole lot of evidence, proof and quantitative data
>decades later feminists claim you don't need shit to produce a broad theory or any kind of theory at all and if you don't accept it as legitimate you're a shitlord, misogynist and an incel to boot

[Anonymous No.13593254]

>>13593240
What serious academic feminist said that?

[Anonymous No.13593259]

>>13592993
Aside from there being data on this specific point, it is a very faulty manner of thinking.
When dealing with actions with limited knowledge, you should always consider things to be different until proven equal or proving the equality is a reasonably motivated expectation.
In our case, what would even motivate such a conception? Certainly them both being human is not even close to enough considering the wide variations among humans.

[Anonymous No.13593268]

>>13593254
i believe his comeback to this would be
>there are none

[Anonymous No.13593276]

>>13593268
Then... they don't have any influence on sociology, do they?

[Anonymous No.13593298]

>>13593082
Judith Butler

[Anonymous No.13593305]

>>13593298
Can I get a source on that claim?

[Anonymous No.13593559]

>>13593089
>>13593078
The poor don't get education even now, compared to rich people. If you believe your random small university brings same quality as Ivy schools, then you are naive. In USA noone wants to send their kids to cheapest primary school. The children of rich nobility of past would get education even if there wouldn't be any educational system, as their noble parents were noble for a Reason and wanted their spawns to succeed, as there was rather large threat to unsuccessful nobility to not get married, for marriage was trade to them. Majority of Young people will die in same "richness" percentile as their parents.
Our society believed in equality of opportunities, now it acts like it does, but in reality it believes in equality of outcome.

[Anonymous No.13593577]

>>13593559
Well, yeah, the USA is kinda shitty.

[Anonymous No.13593610]

>>13592941
>>13592984
>>13593073
>>13593076
Impressing an idea of subjugation on history is unhistorical. No, women are as much a product of their culture and circumstance as men. Your idea that women were constantly frightened and oppressed, beaten down by men, in all cultures and times, simply doesn't exist. Feminism was born from the privilege of European ladies (also where misogyny was born as a result), like most of our ills it comes from European aristocracy's mentally ill culture. Men and women are not equal in that they are different types of beings (though constitute a complete union), to say one is superior or inferior as if they were the same is incoherent.

[Anonymous No.13593629]

>>13593610
>Feminism was born from the privilege of European ladies (also where misogyny was born as a result), like most of our ills it comes from European aristocracy's mentally ill culture.
So, women wanting to be allowed to vote was a result of mental illness?

[tridejur No.13593643]

The ones preventing posting are mentally ill attackers

[Anonymous No.13593701]

>>13593629
way to expose how shit your ideology is without me having to do anything. in societies were it is sort of a natural result, no women voting is just as it is, reducing everything to a gender universalist power struggle that denies all other culture, individuals, and frameworks of concepts is mental illness.

[Anonymous No.13593712]

>>13593701
Do you always view discussions as a contest to "expose" someone? I was just asking a simple question.

What do you mean with "no women voting is just as it is", and who is "reducing everything to a gender universalist power struggle" right now?

[Anonymous No.13593751]

>>13593077
>the wage gap for the same job, same credentials, and same hours worked is 2 percent.
Bull-fucking shit. That's the easiest title nine case to win. If you actually think that's happening, you need to go jump off a bridge

[Anonymous No.13593755]

>>13592702
Underrated

[Anonymous No.13593893]

>>13592310
reminder to ignore tripfags

[Anonymous No.13593908]

>>13592788
reminder to ignore tripfags

[Anonymous No.13593951]

>>13593712
not him but i believe what he is trying to say is that you take one historical fact, which is that women weren't included (see how i dont say ALLOWED) in the voting system, and you make it seem like there was a prior power struggle going on that resulted favorable to men, when in reality nothing like that happened, it just happened that men were assinged the task of running the political system and that was that, there was no opression as it is known today. and you'll easily see that the minute (historical minute) women complained about not voting, women's vote happened.
i think the error you're making is not seeing things as historical becomings rather than isolated facts contextualized in modern sociologic terms