If modern gender studies taught us that our ideas and perceptions of gender are constructs, Simone De Beauvoir was, with her 1949 book, The Second Sex among the first to label them so. De Beauvoir identified that external situations imposed on us as a species, place a limit on both genders. Man is as susceptible to categorisation as any woman albeit more likely to be placed in a positive or neutral category, implying his existence becomes associated intrinsically with the good and higher aspects of human capability. The woman finds the inverse; she becomes intrinsically associated with negative or weak qualities. This not only means woman’s existence is to be seen as that of a lesser being, but alongside, if a man displays any of the ‘feminine’ characteristics associated with woman, he too will be deemed lesser than his “proper” male counterparts. Man’s situation affords him the freedom of a “true” human with self-determination and autonomy, whereas women are cast as others —not quite human, and hence, not entitled to the same liberty outside of her role of wife and child bearer. Even in situations where women are placed in a more neutral or positive role, they cannot escape their fate of being labelled as the Other; rather than as an individual.

De Beauvoir identifies the idea of the feminine has been reduced to such an extent it now operates as an object or a symbol, and that we view the masculine and feminine in consequence in much the same way as we would the relationship between life and death. De Beauvoir, in attempting to understand the origins of this mindset which enables such thinking, analyses it from a historic and anthropological perspective. Reflecting back to the days of hunter gatherers, history shows this notion of inferiority of women has persisted for much of human existence. According to anthropological theories, one explanation was that the traits which were more advantageous to the survival of the species in early human environments, such as increased physical strength and aggression, were more prominent in men. It was because of this that ‘strength and aggression’ became the more valued and hence “positive” attributes in any society. However, this still leaves the unanswered question as to how women, despite being essential to human existence, came to be viewed not only as less valued citizens, but even disdained throughout many civilizations. De Beauvoir pinpoints that the frustration of many men stems from their viewing women as incapable or lazy, justifying for them woman’s exclusion from any form of creative or intellectual endeavour. Whether this perceived lack of progress in the creative and intellectual realms was really down to genuine ineptitude or instead the result of the constraints placed upon women was never questioned. In order to uphold the social structures and gender hierarchy of previous times (at risk of losing foothold in modern society) society demanded a new justification for its subjugation of women, and in consequence the narrative shifted.

For De Beauvoir, woman now effectively trapped by the confines of her situation, did not have the resources to escape or prove herself as being anything other than that she had been labelled as. At the point of writing, De Beauvoir observed that many women found it easier to submit to the conditions of their situation as an inferior because the cost to self of sacrificing their autonomy, is actually safer and less exhausting than fighting for it. However, in a post war world, things were beginning to shift, and new structures emerged which enabled the entrance of women into the workforce. De Beauvoir viewed this as the great opportunity for women to finally begin to break free from the constraints of the past and to strive to reshape their own situations and sense of self. From a contemporary context, where gender is still a hot topic but has extended beyond simple binary poles it seems De Beauvoir was right.