完整英文版《第二性》The Second Sex

2021年2月15日发(作者：芬格兰)

The Second Sex

by Simone de Beauvoir (1949)

Book One: Facts and Myths, Part I: Destiny

Chapter 1, The Data of Biology

WOMAN? Very simple, say the fanciers of simple formulas: she is a womb, an ovary;

she

is

a

female

–

this

word

is

sufficient

to

define

her.

In

the

mouth

of

a

man

the

epithet female has the sound of an insult, yet he is not ashamed of his animal nature;

on the contrary, he is proud if someone says of him: ?He is a male!? The term ?female?

is derogatory not because it emphasises woman?s ani

mality, but because it imprisons

her in her sex; and if this sex seems to man to be contemptible and inimical even in

harmless

dumb

animals,

it is

evidently because

of the uneasy hostility

stirred up in

him

by

woman.

Nevertheless

he

wishes

to

find

in

biology

a

justification

for

this

sentiment.

The

word

female

brings

up

in

his

mind

a

saraband

of

imagery

–

a

vast,

round ovum engulfs and castrates the agile spermatozoan; the monstrous and swollen

termite queen rules over the enslaved males; the female praying mantis and the spider,

satiated with love, crush and devour their partners; the bitch in heat runs through the

alleys,

trailing

behind

her

a

wake

of

depraved

odours;

the

she- monkey

presents

posterior immodestly and then steals away with hypocritical coquetry; and the most

superb wild beasts

–

the tigress, the lioness, the panther

–

bed down slavishly under

the

imperial

embrace

of

the

male.

Females

sluggish,

eager,

artful,

stupid,

callous,

lustful, ferocious, abased

–

man projects them all at once upon woman. And the fact is

that she is a female. But if we are willing to stop thinking in platitudes, two questions

are

immediately

posed:

what

does

the

female

denote

in

the

animal

kingdom?

And

what particular kind of female is manifest in woman?

Males

and

females

are

two

types

of

individuals

which

are

differentiated

within

a

species for the function of reproduction; they can be defined only correlatively. But

first it must be noted that even the division of a species into two sexes is not always

clear-cut.

In nature it is not universally manifested. To speak only of animals, it is well known

that among the microscopic one- celled forms

–

infusoria, amoebae, sporozoans, and

the

like

–

multiplication

is

fundamentally

distinct

from

sexuality.

Each

cell

divides

and subdivides by itself. In many- celled animals or metazoans reproduction may take

place

asexually,

either

by

schizogenesis

–

that

is,

by

fission

or

cutting

into

two

or

more parts which become new individuals

–

or by blastogenesis

–

that is, by buds that

separate

and

form

new

individuals.

The

phenomena

of

budding

observed

in

the

fresh- water

hydra

and

other

coelenterates,

in

sponges,

worms,

and

tunicates,

are

well-known

examples.

In

cases

of

parthenogenesis

the

egg

of

the

virgin

female

develops

into an embryo without

fertilisation by

the male,

which thus

may

play no

role at all. In the honey-bee copulation takes place, but the eggs may or may not be

fertilised

at

the

time

of

laying.

The

unfertilised

eggs

undergo

development

and

produce

the

drones

(males);

in

the

aphids

males

are

absent

during

a

series

of

generations in which the eggs are unfertilised and produce females. Parthenogenesis

has been induced artificially in the sea urchin, the starfish, the frog, and other species.

Among the one- celled animals (Protozoa), however, two cells may fuse, forming what

is

called

a

zygote;

and

in

the

honey-bee

fertilisation

is

necessary

if

the

eggs

are

to

produce females. In the aphids both males and females appear in the autumn, and the

fertilised eggs then produced are adapted for over-wintering.

Certain biologists in the past concluded from these facts that even in species capable

of asexual propagation occasional fertilisation is necessary to renew the vigour of the

race

–

to

accomplish

?rejuvenation?

through

the

mixing

of

her

editary

material

from

two individuals. On this hypothesis sexuality might well appear to be an indispensable

function in the most complex forms of life; only the lower organisms could multiply

without sexuality, and

even here vitality would

after

a time become exhausted. But

today

this

hypothesis

is

largely

abandoned;

research

has

proved

that

under

suitable

conditions

asexual

multiplication

can

go

on

indefinitely

without

noticeable

degeneration, a fact that is especially striking in the bacteria and Protozoa. More and

more numerous and daring experiments in parthenogenesis are being performed, and

in

many

species

the

male

appears

to

be

fundamentally

unnecessary.

Besides,

if

the

value of intercellular exchange were demonstrated, that value would seem to stand as

a

sheer,

unexplained

fact.

Biology

certainly

demonstrates

the

existence

of

sexual

differentiation, but from the point of view of any end to be attained the science could

not

infer

such

differentiation

from

the

structure

of

the

cell,

nor

from

the

laws

of

cellular multiplication, nor from any basic phenomenon.

The production of two types of gametes, the sperm and the egg, does not necessarily

imply the existence of two distinct sexes;

as a matter of fact,

egg and

sperm

–

two

highly differentiated types of reproductive cells

–

may both be produced by the same

individual.

This

occurs

in

normally

hermaphroditic

species,

which

are

common

among

plants

and

are

also

to

be

found

among

the

lower

animals,

such

as

annelid

worms

and

molluscs.

In

them

reproduction

may

be

accomplished

through

self-fertilisation or, more commonly, cross-fertilisation. Here again certain biologists

have

attempted

to

account

for

the

existing

state

of

affairs.

Some

hold

that

the

separation of the gonads (ovaries and testes) in two distinct individuals represents an

evolutionary

advance

over

hermaphroditism;

others

on

the

contrary

regard

the

separate

condition

as

primitive,

and

believe

that

hermaphroditism

represents

a

degenerate state. These notions regarding the superiority of one system or

the other

imply the most debatable evolutionary theorising. All that we can say for sure is that

these

two

modes

of

reproduction

coexist

in

nature,

that

they

both

succeed

in

accomplishing the survival of the species concerned, and that the differentiation of the

gametes, like that of the organisms producing them, appears to be accidental. It would

seem, then, that the division of a species into male and female individuals is simply an

irreducible fact of observation.

In

most

philosophies

this

fact

has

been

taken

for

granted

without

pretence

of

explanation. According to the Platonic myth, there were at the beginning men, women,

and

hermaphrodites.

Each

individual

had

two

faces,

four

arms,

four

legs,

and

two

conjoined bodies. At a certain time they were split

in two, and ever since each half

seeks to rejoin its corresponding half. Later the gods decreed that new human beings

should be created through the coupling of dissimilar halves. But it is only love that

this story is intended to explain; division into sexes is assumed at the outset. Nor does

Aristotle

explain

this

division,

for

if

matter

and

form

must

cooperate

in

all

action,

there

is

no

necessity

for

the

active

and

passive

principles

to

he

separated

in

two

different categories of individuals. Thus St Thom

as proclaims woman an ?incidental?

being, which is a way of suggesting

–

from the male point of view

–

the accidental or

contingent nature of sexuality. Hegel, however, would have been untrue to his passion

for rationalism

had he failed to

attempt a logical

explanation. Sexuality

in

his

view

represents the medium through which the subject attains a concrete sense of belonging

to a particular kind (genre). ?The sense of kind is produced in the subject as an effect

which offsets this disproportionate sense of his individual reality, as a desire to find

the sense of himself in another individual of his species through union with this other,

to

complete

himself

and

thus

to

incorporate

the

kind

(genre)

within

his

own

nature

and bring it into existence. This is co

pulation? (

Philosophy of Nature

, Part 3, Section

369). And a little farther on. ?The process consists in this, namely: that which they are

in themselves, that is to say a single kind, one and the same subjective life, they also

establish

it

as

such.?

And

Hegel

states

later

that

for

the

uniting

process

to

be

accomplished,

there

must

first

be

sexual

differentiation.

But

his

exposition

is

not

convincing:

one

feels

in

it

all

too

distinctly

the

predetermination

to

find

in

every

operation the three terms of the syllogism.

The projection or transcendence of the individual towards the species, in which both

individual and species are fulfilled, could be accomplished without the intervention of

a

third

element

in

the

simple

relation

of

progenitor

to

offspring;

that

is

to

say,

reproduction could be asexual. Or, if there were to be two progenitors, they could be

similar

(as

happens

in

hermaphroditic

species)

and

differentiated

only

as

particular

individuals of a single type. Hegel?s discussion reveals a most important significance

of

sexuality,

but

his

mistake

is

always

to

argue

from

significance

to

necessity,

to

equate

significance

with

necessity.

Man

gives

significance

to

the

sexes

and

their

relations through sexual activity, just as he gives sense and value to all the functions

that

he

exercises;

but

sexual

activity

is

not

necessarily

implied

in

the

nature

of

the

human

being.

Merleau-Ponty

notes

in

the

Phé

nomé

nologie

de

la

perception

that

human

existence

requires

us

to

revise

our

ideas

of

necessity

and

contingence.

?Existence,?

he

says,

?has

no

casual,

fortuitous

qualities,

no

content

that

does

not

contribute to the formation of its aspect; it does not admit the notion of sheer fact, for

it is only through existence that the facts are manifested.? True enough. But it is also

true

that

there

are

conditions

without

which

the

very

fact

of

existence

itself

would

seem to be impossible. To be present in the world implies strictly that there exists a

body which is at once a material thing in the world and a point of view towards this

world; but nothing requires that this body have this or that particular structure. Sartre

discusses in

L’?tre et le néant

Heidegger?s dictum to the effect t

hat the real nature of

man is bound up with death because of man?s finite state. He shows that an existence

which

is

finite

and

yet

unlimited

in

time

is

conceivable;

but

none

the

less

if

death

were not resident in human life, the relation of man to the world and to himself would

be profoundly disarranged

–

so much so that the statement ?Man is mortal? would be

seen to have significance quite other than that of a mere fact of observation. Were he

immortal,

an existent would

no longer be what

we call a man. One of the essential

features of his career is that the progress of his life through time creates behind him

and

before

him

the

infinite

past

and

future,

and

it

would

seem,

then,

that

the

perpetuation of the species is the correlative of his individual limitation. Thus we can

regard the phenomenon of reproduction as founded in the very nature of being. But

we

must

stop

there.

The

perpetuation

of

the

species

does

not

necessitate

sexual

differentiation. True enough, this differentiation is characteristic of existents to such

an

extent

that

it

belongs

in

any

realistic

definition

of

existence.

But

it

nevertheless

remains

true

that

both

a

mind

without

a

body

and

an

immortal

man

are

strictly

inconceivable, whereas we can imagine a parthenogenetic or hermaphroditic society.

On the respective functions

of the two sexes

man has entertained a great variety of

beliefs.

At

first

they

had

no

scientific

basis,

simply

reflecting

social

myths.

It

was

long thought

–

and it still is believed in certain primitive matriarchal societies

–

that

the father plays no part in conception. Ancestral spirits in the form of living germs are

supposed

to

find

their

way

into

the

maternal

body.

With

the

advent

patriarchal

institutions, the male laid eager claim to his posterity. It was still necessary to grant

the

mother

a

part

in

procreation,

but

it

was

conceded

only

that

she

carried

and

nourished the living seed, created by the father alone. Aristotle fancied that the foetus

arose from the union of sperm and menstrual blood, woman furnishing only passive

matter

while

the

male

principle

contributed

force,

activity,

movement,

life.

Hippocrates

held

to

a

similar

doctrine,

recognising

two

kinds

of

seed,

the

weak

or

female and the strong or male. The theory of Aristotle survived through the Middle

Ages and into modern times.

At

the

end

of

the

seventeenth

century

Harvey

killed

female

dogs

shortly

after

copulation and found in the horns of the uterus small sacs that he thought were eggs

but that were really embryos. The Danish anatomist Steno gave the name of ovaries to

the

female

genital

glands,

previously

called

?feminine

testicles?,

and

noted

on

their

surface

the

small

swellings

that

von

Graaf

in

1677

erroneously

identified

with

the

eggs

and

that

are

now

called

Graafian

follicles.

The

ovary

was

still

regarded

as

homologous to the male gland. In the same year, however, the ?spermatic animalcules?

were discovered and it was proved that they penetrated into the uterus of the female;

but

it

was

supposed

that

they

were

simply

nourished

therein

and

that

the

coming

individual was preformed in them. In 1694 a Dutchman, Hartsaker, drew a picture of

the ?homunculus? hidden in the spermatozoan, and in 1699, another scientist said that

he had seen the spermatozoan cast off a kind of moult under which appeared a little

man, which he also drew. Under these imaginative hypotheses, woman was restricted

to

the

nourishment

of

an

active,

living

principle

already

preformed

in

perfection.

These notions were not universally accepted, and they were argued into the nineteenth

century.

The

use

of

the

microscope

enabled

von

Baer

in

1827

to

discover

the

mammalian egg, contained inside the Graaflan follicle. Before long it was possible to

study the cleavage of the egg

–

that is,

the early stage of development

through cell

division

–

and in 1835 sarcode, later called protoplasm, was discovered and the true

nature of the cell began to be realised. In 1879 the penetration of the spermatozoan

into the starfish egg was observed, and thereupon the equivalence of the nuclei of the

two gametes, egg

and sperm, was

established.

The details

of their union within the

fertilised egg were first worked out in 1883 by a Belgian zoologist, van Beneden.

Aristotle?s ideas were not wholly discredited, however. Hegel held that the two sexes

were

of

necessity

different,

the

one

active

and

the

other

passive,

and

of

course

the

female would be the passive one. ?Thus man, in consequence of that differentiation, is

the

active

principle

while

woman

is

the

passive

principle

because

she

remains

undeveloped in her

unity.?

[Hegel,

Philosophy of Nature

]

And even after the egg had

been recognised as an active principle, men still tried to make a point of its quiescence

as contrasted with the lively movements of the sperm. Today one notes an opposite

tendency

on

the

part

of

some

scientists.

The

discoveries

made

in

the

course

of

experiments on parthenogenesis have led them to reduce the function of the sperm to

that of a simple physico-chemical reagent. It has been shown that in certain species

the stimulus of an acid or even of a needle-prick is enough to initiate the cleavage of

the egg and the development of the embryo. On this basis it has been boldly suggested

that the male gamete (sperm) is not necessary for reproduction, that it acts at most as a

ferment;

further,

that

perhaps

in

time

the

co- operation

of

the

male

will

become

unnecessary in procreation

–

the answer, it would seem, to many a woman?s prayer.

But

there

is

no

warrant

for

so

bold

an

expectation,

for

nothing

warrants

us

in

universalising specific life processes. The phenomena of asexual propagation and of

parthenogenesis appear to be neither more nor less fundamental than those of sexual

reproduction. I have said that the latter has no claim

a priori

to be considered basic;

but

neither

does

any

fact

indicate

that

it

is

reducible

to

any

more

fundamental

mechanism.

Thus, admitting no

a priori

doctrine, no dubious theory, we are confronted by a fact

for which we can offer no basis in the nature of things nor any explanation through

observed data, and the significance of which we cannot comprehend

a priori

. We can

hope

to

grasp

the

significance

of

sexuality

only

by

studying

it

in

its

concrete

manifestations; and then perhaps the meaning of the word female will stand revealed.

I

do

not

intend

to

offer

here

a

philosophy

of

life;

and

I

do

not

care

to

take

sides

prematurely in the dispute between the mechanistic and the purposive or teleological

philosophies. It is to be noted, however, that all physiologists and biologists use more

or less finalistic language, if only because they ascribe meaning to vital phenomena. I

shall adopt their terminology without taking any stand on the relation between life and

consciousness,

we

can

assert

that

every

biological

fact

implies

transcendence,

that

every function involves a project,

something to

be done.

Let

my words

be taken to

imply no more than that.

In the vast majority of species male and female individuals co-operate in reproduction.

They are defined primarily as male and female by the gametes which they produce

–

sperms and eggs respectively. In some lower plants and animals the cells that fuse to

form the zygote are identical; and these cases of isogamy are significant because they

illustrate

the

basic

equivalence

of

the

gametes.

In

general

the

gametes

are

differentiated,

and

yet

their

equivalence

remains

a

striking

fact.

Sperms

and

eggs

develop

from

similar

primordial

germ

cells

in

the

two

sexes.

The

development

of

oocytes from the primordial cells in the female differs from that of spermatocytes in

the male chiefly in regard to the protoplasm, but the nuclear phenomena are clearly

the

same.

The

biologist

Ancel

suggested

in

1903

that

the

primordial

germ

cell

is

indifferent and undergoes development into sperm or egg depending upon which type

of gonad, testis or ovary, contains it. However this may be, the primordial germ cells

of

each

sex

contain

the

same

number

of

chromosomes

(that

characteristic

of

the

species

concerned),

which

number

is

reduced

to

one

half

by

closely

analogous

processes

in

male

and

female.

At

the

end

of

these

developmental

processes

(called

spermatogenesis

in

the

male

and

oogenesis

in

the

female)

the

gametes

appear

fully

matured as sperms and eggs, differing enormously in some respects, as noted below,

but being alike in that each contains a single set of equivalent chromosomes.

Today

it

is

well

known

that

the

sex

of

offspring

is

determined

by

the

chromosome

constitution established at the time of fertilisation. According to the species concerned,

it is either the male gamete or the female gamete that accomplishes this result. In the

mammals it is the sperm, of which two kinds are produced in equal numbers, one kind

containing

an

X-chromosome

(as

do

all

the

eggs),

the

other

kind

containing

a

Y-chromosome (not found in the eggs). Aside from the X- and Y-chromosomes, egg

and sperm contain an equivalent set of these bodies. It is obvious that when sperm and

egg unite in fertilisation, ?the fertilised egg will contain two full sets of chromosomes,

making

up

the

number

characteristic

of

the

species

–

48

in

man,

for

example.

If

fertilisation

is

accomplished

by

an

X-bearing

sperm,

the

fertilised

egg

will

contain

two

X-chromosomes

and

will

develop

into

a

female

(XX).

If

the

Y-bearing

sperm

fertilises the egg, only one X-chromosome will be present and the sex will be male

(XY). In birds and butterflies the situation is reversed, though the principle remains

the same; it is the eggs

that contain either X or Y and hence determine the sex the

offspring. In the matter of heredity, the laws of Mendel show ?that the father an

d the

mother

play

equal

parts.

The

chromosomes

contain

the

factors

of

heredity

(genes),

and they are conveyed equally in egg and sperm.

What we should note in particular at this point is that neither gamete can be regarded

as superior to the other; when they unite, both lose their individuality in the fertilised

egg.

There

are

two

common

suppositions

which

–

at

least

on

this

basic

biological

level

–

are clearly false. The first

–

that of the passivity of the female

–

is disproved

by the fact that new life springs from the union of the two gametes; the living spark is

not the exclusive property of either. The nucleus of the egg is a centre of vital activity

exactly

symmetrical

with

the

nucleus

of

the

sperm.

The

second

false

supposition

contradicts the first

–

which does not

seem

to prevent

their coexistence.

It

is

to the

effect that the permanence of the species is assured by the female, the principle being

of an explosive and transitory nature. As a matter of fact, the embryo carries on the

germ plasm of the father as well as that of the mother and transmits them together to

its descendants under now male, now female form. It is, so to speak, an androgynous

germ plasm, which outlives the male or female individuals that are its incarnations,

whenever they produce offspring.

This said, we can turn our attention to secondary differences between egg and sperm,

which

are

of

the

greatest

interest.

The

essential

peculiarity

of

the

egg

is

that

it

is

provided with

means for nourishing and protecting the

embryo;

it stores up reserve

material

from

which

the

foetus

will

build

its

tissues,

material

that

is

not

living

substance but inert yolk. In consequence the egg is of massive, commonly spherical

form and relatively large. The size of birds? eggs is well known; in woman th

e egg is

almost

microscopic,

about

equal

in

size

to

a

printed

period

(diameter

0.132-

0.135

mm.), but the human sperm is far smaller (0.04

–

0.06 mm. in length), so small that a

cubic

millimetre

would

hold

60,000.

The

sperm

has

a

threadlike

tail

and

a

small,

flattened oval

head, which contains the

chromosomes. No inert substance weighs it

down; it is wholly alive. In its whole structure it is adapted for mobility. Whereas the

egg, big with the future of the embryo, is stationary; enclosed within the female body

or floating externally in water, it passively awaits fertilisation. It is the male gamete

that

seeks

it

out.

The

sperm

is

always

a

naked

cell;

the

egg

may

or

may

not

be

protected with shell and membranes according to the species; but in any case, when

the sperm makes contact with the egg, it presses against it, sometimes shakes it, and

bores

into

it.

The

tail

is

dropped

and

the

head

enlarges,

forming

the

male

nucleus,

which

now

moves

towards

the

egg

nucleus.

Meanwhile

the

egg

quickly

forms

a

membrane,

which

prevents

the

entrance

of

other

sperms.

In

the

starfish

and

other

echinoderms,

where

fertilisation

takes

place

externally,

it

is

easy

to

observe

the

onslaught

of

the

sperms,

which

surround

the

egg

like

an

aureole.

The

competition

involved

is

an

important

phenomenon,

and

it

occurs

in

most

species.

Being

much

smaller than the egg, the sperm

is

generally produced in

far greater numbers (more

than 200,000,000 to 1 in the human species), and so each egg has numerous suitors.

Thus the egg

–

active in its essential feature, the nucleus

–

is superficially passive; its

compact mass, sealed up within itself, evokes nocturnal darkness and inward repose.

It was the form of the sphere that to the ancients represented the circumscribed world,

the impenetrable atom. Motionless, the egg waits; in contrast the sperm

–

free, slender,

agile

–

typifies the impatience and the restlessness of existence. But allegory should

not

be

pushed

too

far.

The

ovule

has

sometimes

been

likened

to

immanence,

the

sperm

to

transcendence,

and

it

has

been

said

that

the

sperm

penetrates

the

female

element only in losing its transcendence, its motility; it is seized and castrated by the

inert

mass

that

engulfs

it

after

depriving

it

of

its

tail.

This

is

magical

action

–

disquieting,

as

is

all

passive

action

–

whereas

the

activity

of

the

male

gamete

is

rational; it is movement measurable in terms of time and space. The truth is that these

notions are hardly more than vagaries of the mind. Male and female gametes fuse in

the fertilised egg; they are both suppressed in becoming a new whole. It is false to say

that

the

egg

greedily

swallows

the

sperm,

and

equally

so

to

say

that

the

sperm

victoriously

commandeers

the

female

cell?s

reserves,

since

in

the

act

of

fusion

the

individuality of both is lost. No doubt movement seems to the mechanistic mind to be

an

eminently

rational

phenomenon,

but

it

is

an

idea

no

clearer

for

modern

physics

than

action

at

a

distance.

Besides,

we

do

not

know

in

detail

the

physico-chemical

reactions that lead up to gametic union. We can derive a valid suggestion, however,

from this comparison of the gametes. There are two interrelated dynamic aspects of

life: it can be maintained only through transcending itself, and it can transcend itself

only on condition that it is maintained. These two factors always operate together, and

it

is

unrealistic

to

try

to

separate

them,

yet

now

it

is

one

and

now

the

other

that

dominates. The two gametes at once transcend and perpetuate themselves when they

unite;

but

in

its

structure

the

egg

anticipates

future

needs,

it

is

so

constituted

as

to

nourish

the

life

that

will

wake

within

it.

The

sperm,

on

the

contrary,

is

in

no

way

equipped to provide for the development of the embryo it awakens. On the other hand,

the egg cannot provide the change of environment that will stimulate a new outburst

of life, whereas the sperm can and does travel. Without the foresight of the egg, the

sperm?s arrival would be in vain; but without the initiative of the latter, the egg would

not fulfil its living potentialities.

We

may

conclude,

then,

that

the

two

gametes

play

a

fundamentally

identical

role;

together

they

create

a

living

being

in

which

both

of

them

are

at

once

lost

and

transcended. But in the secondary and superficial phenomena upon which fertilisation

depends,

it is

the male element

which provides the stimuli needed for evoking new

life

and

it

is

the

female

element

that

enables

this

new

life

to

be

lodged

in

a

stable

organism.

It would be foolhardy indeed to deduce from such evidence that woman?s place is in

the home

–

but there are foolhardy men. In his book

Le Tempé

rament et le charactè

re

,

Alfred Fouillé

e undertakes to found his definition of woman

in toto

upon the egg and

that of man upon the spermatozoan;

and a number of supposedly profound theories

rest upon this play of doubtful analogies. It is a question to what philosophy of nature

these

dubious

ideas

pertain;

not

to

the

laws

of

heredity,

certainly,

for,

according

to

these

laws,

men

and

women

alike

develop

from

an

egg

and

a

sperm.

I

can

only

suppose that in such misty minds there still float shreds of the old philosophy of the

Middle Ages which taught that the cosmos is an exact reflection of a microcosm

–

the

egg is imagined to be a little female, the woman a giant egg. These musings, generally

abandoned

since

the

days

of

alchemy,

make

a

bizarre

contrast

with

the

scientific

precision of the data upon which they are now based, for modern biology conforms

with difficulty to medieval symbolism. But our theorisers do not look too closely into

the matter. In all honesty it must be admitted that in any case it is a long way from the

egg

to

woman.

In

the

unfertilised

egg

not

even

the

concept

of

femaleness

is

as

yet

established. As Hegel justly remarks the sexual relation cannot be referred back to the

relation of the gametes. It is our duty, then, to study the female organism as a whole.

It

has

already

been

pointed

out

that

in

many

plants

and

in

some

animals

(such

as

snails) the presence of two kinds of gametes does not require two kinds of individuals,

since

every

individual

produces

both

eggs

and

sperms.

Even

when

the

sexes

are

separate, they are not distinguished in any such fashion as are different species. Males

and females appear rather to be variations on a common groundwork, much as the two

gametes are differentiated from similar original tissue. In certain animals (for example,

the marine worm

Bonellia) the larva is

asexual, the adult becoming male or female

according

to

the

circumstances

under

which

it

has

developed.

But

as

noted

above

(pages 42-3), sex is determined in most species by the genotypic constitution of the

fertilised

egg.

In

bees

the

unfertilised

eggs

laid

by

the

queen

produce

males

exclusively;

in

aphids

parthenogenetic

eggs

usually

produce

females.

But

in

most

animals all eggs that develop have been fertilised, and it is notable that the sexes are

produced

in

approximately

equal

numbers

through

the

mechanism

of

chromosomal

sex- determination, already explained.

In the embryonic development of both sexes the tissue from which the gonads will be

formed

is

at

first

indifferent;

at

a

certain

stage

either

testes

or

ovaries

become

established; and similarly in the development of the other sex organs there is an early

indifferent period when the sex of the embryo cannot be told from an examination of

these parts,

from

which, later on, the definitive male or female structures arise. All

this

helps

to

explain

the

existence

of

conditions

intermediate

between

hermaphroditism

and

gonochorism

(sexes

separate).

Very

often

one

sex

possesses

certain organs characteristic of the other; a case in point is the toad, in which there is

in

the

male

a

rudimentary

ovary

called

Bidder?s

organ,

capable

of

producing

eggs

under

experimental

conditions.

Among

the

mammals

there

are

indications

of

this

sexual

bipotentiality,

such

as

the

uterus

masculinus

and

the

rudimentary

mammary

glands in the male, and in the female G?rtner?s canal and the clitoris. Even in those

species exhibiting a high degree of sexual differentiation individuals combining both

male and female characteristics may occur. Many cases of intersexuality are known in

both

animals

and

man;

and

among

insects

and

crustaceans

one

occasionally

finds

examples

of

gynandromorphism,

in

which

male

and

female

areas

of

the

body

are

mingled in a kind of mosaic.

The fact is that the individual, though its genotypic sex is fixed at fertilisation, can be

profoundly affected by the environment in which it develops.

In the ants, bees, and

termites the larval nutrition determines whether the genotypic female individual will

become

a

f

ully

developed

female

(?queen?)

or

a

sexually

retarded

worker.

In

these

cases the whole organism is affected; but the gonads do not play a part in establishing

the sexual differences of the body, or soma. In the vertebrates, however, the hormones

secreted by the gonads are the essential regulators. Numerous experiments show that

by

varying

the

hormonal

(endocrine)

situation,

sex

can

be

profoundly

affected.

Grafting and castration experiments on adult animals and man have contributed to the

modern theory of sexuality, according to which the soma is in a way identical in male

and female vertebrates. It may be regarded as a kind of neutral element upon which

the influence of the gonad imposes the sexual characteristics. Some of the hormones

secreted by the

gonad act

as stimulators, others

as inhibitors.

Even the

genital

tract

itself is somatic, and embryological investigations show that it develops in the male or

female

direction

from

an

indifferent

and

in

some

respects

hermaphroditic

condition

under

the

hormonal

influence.

Intersexuality

may

result

when

the

hormones

are

abnormal

and

hence

neither

one

of

the

two

sexual

potentialities

is

exclusively

realised.

Numerically

equal

in

the

species

and

developed

similarly

from

like

beginnings,

the

fully formed male and female are basically equivalent. Both have reproductive glands

–

ovaries

or

testes

–

in

which

the

gametes

are

produced

by

strictly

corresponding

processes, as we have seen. These glands discharge their products through ducts that

are more or less complex according to sex; in the female the egg may pass directly to

the outside through the oviduct, or it may be retained for a time in the cloaca or the

uterus before expulsion; in the male the semen may be deposited outside, or there may

be a copulatory organ through which it is introduced into the body of the female. In

these respects, then, male and female appear to stand in a symmetrical relation to each

other.

To

reveal

their

peculiar,

specific

qualities

it

will

be

necessary

to

study

them

from the functional point of view.

It is extremely difficult to give a generally valid definition of the female. To define

her as the bearer of the eggs and the male as bearer of the sperms is far from sufficient,

since the relation of the organism to the gonads is, as we have seen, quite variable. On

the

other

hand,

the

differences

between

the

gametes

have

no

direct

effect

upon

the

organism

as

a

whole;

it

has

sometimes

been

argued

that

the

eggs,

being

large,

consume

more

vital

energy

than

do

the

sperms,

but

the

latter

are

produced

in

such

infinitely greater numbers that the expenditure of energy must be about equal in the

two sexes. Some have wished to see in spermatogenesis an example of prodigality and

in oogenesis a model of economy, but there is an absurd liberality in the latter, too, for

the

vast

majority

of

eggs

are

never

fertilised.

In

no

way

do

gametes

and

gonads

represent in microcosm

the organism as a whole. It is to this the whole organism

–

that we must now direct our attention.

One of the most remarkable features to be noted as we survey the scale of animal life

is that as we go up, individuality is seen to be more and more fully developed. At the

bottom, life is concerned only in the survival of the species as a whole; at the top, life

seeks expression through particular individuals, while accomplishing also the survival

of the group. In some lower species the organism may be almost entirely reduced to

the

reproductive

apparatus;

in

this

case

the

egg,

and

hence

the

female,

is

supreme,

since

the

egg

is

especially

dedicated

to

the

mere

propagation

of

life;

but

here

the

female

is

hardly

more

than

an

abdomen,

and

her

existence

is

entirely

used

up

in

a

monstrous

travail

of

ovulation.

In

comparison

with

the

male,

she

reaches

giant

proportions; but her appendages are often tiny, her body a shapeless sac, her organs

degenerated in favour of the eggs. Indeed, such males and females, although they are

distinct

organisms,

can

hardly

be

regarded

as

individuals,

for

they

form

a

kind

of

unity

made

up

of

inseparable

elements.

In

a

way

they

are

intermediate

between

hermaphroditism and gonochorism.

Thus in

certain

Crustacea, parasitic on the

crab,

the female is

a mere sac enclosing

millions

of

eggs,

among

which

are

found

the

minute

males,

both

larval

and

adult.

In

Edriolydnus

the dwarf male is still more degenerate; it lives under the shell of the

female and has no digestive tract

of its

own, being purely reproductive in

function.

But in all such cases the female is no less restricted than the male; it is enslaved to the

species. If the male is bound to the female, the latter is no less bound down, either to a

living

organism

on

which

it

exists

as

a

parasite

or

to

some

substratum;

and

its

substance is consumed in producing the eggs which the tiny male fertilises.

Among

somewhat

higher

animals

an

individual

autonomy

begins

to

be

manifested

and the bond that joins the sexes weakens; but in the insects they both remain strictly

subordinated

to

the

eggs.

Frequently,

in

the

mayflies,

male

and

female

die

immediately

after

copulation

and

egg-laying.

In

some

rotifers

the

male

lacks

a

digestive

tract

and

fecundation;

the

female

is

able

to

eat

and

survives

long

least

to

develop and lay the eggs. The mother dies after the appearance of the next generation

is assured. The privileged position held by the females in many insects comes from

the fact that the production and sometimes the care of the eggs demand a long effort,

whereas fecundation is for the most part quickly accomplished.

In the termites the enormous queen, crammed with nourishment and laying as many

as

4,000

eggs

per

day

until

she

becomes

sterile and

is

pitilessly

killed,

is

no

less

a

slave

than

the

comparatively

tiny

male

who

attends

her

and

provides

frequent

fecundations. In the matriarchal ants? nests and beehives the males are econ

omically

useless and are killed off at times. At the season of the nuptial flight in ants, all the

males emerge with females from the nest; those that succeed in mating with females

die at once, exhausted; the rest are not permitted by the workers to re-enter the nest,

and die of hunger or are killed. The fertilised female has a

gloomy

fate; she buries

herself

alone

in

the

ground

and

often

dies

while

laying

her

first

eggs,

or

if

she

succeeds

in

founding

a

colony

she

remains

shut

in

and

may

live

for

ten

or

twelve

years constantly producing more eggs. The workers, females with atrophied sexuality,

may live for several years, but their life is largely devoted to raising the larvae. It is

much the same with bees; the drone that succeeds in mating with the queen during the

nuptial flight falls to earth disembowelled; the other drones return to the hive, where

they live a lazy life and are in the way until at the approach of winter they are killed

off by the workers. But the workers purchase their right to live by incessant toil; as in

the

ants

they

are

undeveloped

females.

The

queen

is

in

truth

enslaved

to

the

hive,

laying eggs continually. If she dies, the workers give several larvae special food so as

to provide for the succession; the first to emerge kills the rest in their cells.

In certain spiders the female carries the eggs about with her in a silken case until they

hatch. She is

much larger and stronger than the male and may kill

and

devour him

after copulation, as does an insect, the praying mantis, around which has crystallised

the myth of devouring femininity

–

the egg castrates the sperm, the mantis murders

her

spouse,

these

acts

foreshadowing

a

feminine

dream

of

castration.

The

mantis,

however,

shows

her

cruelty

especially

in

captivity;

and

under

natural

conditions,

when she is free in the midst of abundant food, she rarely dines on the male. If she

does eat him, it is to enable her to produce her eggs and thus perpetuate the race, just

as the solitary fertilised ant often eats some of her own eggs under the same necessity.

It is going far afield to see in these facts a proclamation of the ?battle of the sexes?

which sets individuals, as such, one against another. It cannot simply be said that in

ants, bees, termites, spiders, or mantises the female enslaves and sometimes devours

the male, for it is the species that in different ways consumes them both. The female

lives

longer

and

seems

to

be

more

important

than

the

male;

but

she

has

no

independence

–

egg-laying

and

the

care

of

eggs

and

larvae

are

her

destiny,

other

functions being atrophied wholly or in part.

In

the

male,

on

the

contrary,

an

individual

existence

begins

to

be

manifested.

In

impregnation

he

very

often

shows

more

initiative

than

the

female,

seeking

her

out,

making the approach, palpating, seizing, and forcing connection upon her. Sometimes

he has to battle for her with other males. Accordingly the organs of locomotion, touch,

an prehension frequently more highly evolved in the male. Many female moths are

wingless,

while

the

males

have

wings;

and

often

the

males

of

insects

have

more

highly

developed

colours,

wing-covers,

legs,

and

pincers.

And

sometimes

to

this

endowment

is

added

a

seeming

luxury

of

brilliant

coloration.

Beyond

the

brief

moment of copulation the life of the male is useless and irresponsible; compared with

the

industriousness

of

the

workers,

the

idleness

of

the

drones

seems

a

remarkable

privilege. But this privilege is a social disgrace, and often the male pays with his life

for

his

futility

and

partial

independence.

The

species,

which

holds

the

female

in

slavery, punishes the male for his gesture towards escape; it liquidates him with brutal

force.

In

higher

forms

of

life,

reproduction

becomes

the

creation

of

discrete

organisms;

it

takes on a double role:

maintenance of the species

and creation of new individuals.

This

innovating

aspect

becomes

the

more

unmistakable

as

the

singularity

of

the

individual

becomes

pronounced.

It

is

striking

that

these,

two

essential

elements

–

perpetuation

and

creation

–

are

separately

apportioned

to

the

two

sexes.

This

separation,

already

indicated

at

the

moment

when

the

egg

is

fertilised,

is

to

be

discerned in the whole generative process. It is not the essential nature of the egg that

requires

this

separation,

for

in

higher

forms

of

life

the

female

has,

like

the

male,

attained a certain autonomy and her bondage to the egg has been relaxed. The female

fish, batrachian, or bird is far from being a mere abdomen. The less strictly the mother

is bound to the egg, the less does the labour of reproduction represent an absorbing

task and the more uncertainty there is

in

the relations

of the two parents

with

their

offspring.

It

can

even

happen

that

the

father

will

take

charge

of

the

newly

hatched

young, as in various fishes.

Water

is

an

element

in

which

the

eggs

and

sperms

can

float

about

and

unite,

and

fecundation

in

the

aquatic

environment

is

almost

always

external.

Most

fish

do

not

copulate, at most stimulating one another by contact. The mother discharges the eggs,

the father the sperm

–

their role is identical. There is no reason why the mother, any

more than the father, should feel responsibility for the eggs. In some species the eggs

are

abandoned

by

the

parents

and

develop

without

assistance;

sometimes

a

nest

is

prepared by the mother and sometimes she watches over the eggs after they have been

fertilised. But very often it is the father who takes charge of them. As soon as he has

fertilised

them,

he

drives

away

the

female

to

prevent

her

from

eating

them,

and

he

protects

them

savagely

against

any

intruder.

Certain

males

have

been

described

as

making a kind of protective nest by blowing bubbles of air enclosed in an insulating

substance; and in many cases they protect the developing eggs in their mouths or, as

in the seahorse, in abdominal folds.

In the batrachians (frogs and toads) similar phenomena are to be seen. True copulation

is unknown to them; they practise amplexus, the male embracing the female and thus

stimulating her to lay her eggs. As the eggs are discharged, the sperms are deposited

upon them. In the obstetrical toad the male wraps the strings of eggs about his hind

legs and protects them, taking them into the water when the young are about to hatch

as tadpoles.

In birds the egg is formed rather slowly inside the female; it is relatively large and is

laid

with

some

difficulty.

It

is

much

more

closely

associated

with

the

mother

than

with the father, who has simply fertilised it in a brief copulation. Usually the mother

sits on the eggs and takes care of the newly hatched young; but often the father helps

in nest-building and in the protection and feeding of the young birds. In rare cases

–

for example among the sparrows

–

the male does the incubating and rearing. Male and

female

pigeons

secrete

in

the

crop

a

milky

fluid

with,

which

they

both

feed

the

fledglings. It is remarkable that in these cases where the male takes part in nourishing

the

young, there is

no production of sperms

during the time devoted to

them

while

occupied in maintaining life the male has no urge to beget new living beings.

In the mammals life assumes the most complex forms, and individualisation is most

advanced and specific. There the division of the two vital components

–

maintenance

and creation

–

is realised definitively in the separation of the sexes. It is in this group

that the mother sustains the closest relations

–

among vertebrates

–

with her offspring,

and the father shows less interest in them. The female organism is wholly adapted for

and subservient to maternity, while sexual initiative is the prerogative of the male.

The female is the victim of the species. During certain periods in the year, fixed in

each

species,

her

whole

life

is

under

the

regulation

of

a

sexual

cycle

(the

oestrus

cycle), of which the duration, as well as the rhythmic sequence of events, varies from

one species to another. This cycle consists of two phases: during the first phase the

eggs (variable in number according to the species) become mature and the lining of

the uterus becomes thickened and vascular;

during the second phase

(if

fertilisation

has not occurred) the egg disappears, the uterine edifice breaks down, and the material

is eliminated in a more or less noticeable temporary flow, known as menstruation in

woman and related higher mammals. If fertilisation does occur, the second phase is

replaced by pregnancy. The time of ovulation (at the end of the first phase) is known

as oestrus and it corresponds to the period of rut, heat, or sexual activity.

In the female mammal, rut is largely passive; she is ready and waiting to receive the

male. It may happen in mammals

–

as in certain birds

–

that she solicits the male, but

she

does

no

more

than

appeal

to

him

by

means

of

cries,

displays,

and

suggestive

attitudinising. She is quite unable to force copulation upon him. In the end it is he who

makes the decision. We have seen that even in the insects, where the female is highly

privileged

in

return

for

her

total

sacrifice

to

the

species,

it

is

usually

the

male

who

takes the initiative in fecundation; among the fishes he often stimulates the female to

lay her eggs through his presence and contact; and in the frogs and toads he acts as a

stimulator

in

amplexus.

But

it

is

in

birds

and

mammals

especially

that

he

forces

himself upon her, while very often she submits indifferently or even resists him.

Even when she is willing, or provocative, it is unquestionably the male who takes the

female

–

she

is

taken.

Often

the

word

applies

literally,

for

whether

by

means

of

special organs or through superior strength, the male seizes her and holds her in place;

he performs the copulatory movements; and, among insects, birds, and mammals, he

penetrates her. In this penetration her inwardness is violated, she is like an enclosure

that

is

broken

into.

The

male

is

not

doing

violence

to

the

species,

for

the

species

survives

only

in

being

constantly

renewed

and

would

come

to

an

end

if

eggs

and

sperms did not come together; but the female, entrusted with the protection of the egg,

locks it away inside herself, and her body, in sheltering the egg, shields it also from

the fecundating action of the male. Her body becomes, therefore, a resistance to

be

broken through, whereas in penetrating it the male finds self-fulfilment in activity.

His domination is expressed in the very posture of copulation

–

in almost all animals

the male is on the female. And certainly the organ he uses is a material object, but it

appears here in its animated state it is a tool

–

whereas in this performance the female

organ is more in the nature of an inert receptacle. The male deposits his semen, the

female

receives

it.

Thus,

though

the

female

plays

a

fundamentally

active

role

in

procreation, she submits to the coition, which invades her individuality and introduces

an alien element through penetration and internal fertilisation. Although she may feel

the sexual urge as a personal need, since she seeks out the male when in heat, yet the

sexual adventure is immediately experienced by her as an interior event and not as an

outward relation to the world and to others.

But

the fundamental

difference between male and female mammals lies

in

this:

the

sperm,

through

which

the

life

of

the

male

is

transcended

in

another,

at

the

same

instant

becomes

a

stranger

to

him

and

separates

from

his

body;

so

that

the

male

recovers his individuality intact at the moment when he transcends it. The egg, on the

contrary,

begins

to

separate

from

the

female

body

when,

fully

matured,

it

emerges

from the follicle and falls into the oviduct; but if fertilised by a gamete from outside,

it

becomes

attached

again

through

implantation

in

the

uterus.

First

violated,

the

female is then alienated

–

she becomes, in part, another than herself. She carries the

foetus

inside

her

abdomen

until

it

reaches

a

stage

of

development

that

varies

according

to

the

species

–

the

guinea-pig

is

born

almost

adult,

the

kangaroo

still

almost an embryo. Tenanted by another, who battens upon her substance throughout

the period of pregnancy, the female is at once herself and other than herself; and after

the birth she feeds the newborn upon the milk of her breasts. Thus it is not too clear

when

the

new

individual

is

to

be

regarded

as

autonomous:

at

the

moment

of

fertilisation, of birth, or of weaning? It is noteworthy that the more clearly the female

appears

as

a

separate

individual,

the

more

imperiously

the

continuity

of

life

asserts

itself against her separateness.

The fish

and the

bird, which

expel

the egg

from

the

body

before

the

embryo

develops,

are

less

enslaved

to

their

offspring

than

is

the

female

mammal.

She

regains

some

autonomy

after

the

birth

of

her

offspring

–

a

certain

distance

is

established

between

her

and

them;

and

it

is

following

upon

a

separation that she devotes herself to them. She displays initiative and inventiveness

in their behalf; she battles to defend them against other animals and may even become

aggressive.

But

normally

she

does

not

seek

to

affirm

her

individuality;

she

is

not

hostile to males or to other females and shows little combative instinct.

[Certain fowls

wrangle

over

the

best

places

in

the

poultry-yard

and

establish

a

hierarchy

of

do

minance

(the ?peck

-

order?); and sometimes among

cattle there are

cows that will

fight

for

the

leadership

of

the

herd

in

the

absence

of

males.]

In

spite

of

Darwin?s

theory

of

sexual

selection,

now

much

disputed,

she

accepts

without

discrimination

whatever male happens to be at hand. It is not that the female lacks individual abilities

–

quite the contrary. At times when she is free from maternal servitude she can now

and then equal the male; the mare is as fleet as the stallion, the hunting bitch has as

keen a nose as the dog, she-monkeys in tests show as much intelligence as males. It is

only that this individuality is not laid claim to; the female renounces it for the benefit

of the species, which demands this abdication.

The lot of the male is quite different. As we have just seen, even in his transcendence

towards

the

next

generation

he

keeps

himself

apart

and

maintains

his

individuality

within himself. This characteristic is constant, from the insect to the highest animals.

Even

in

the

fishes

and

whales,

which

live

peaceably

in

mixed

schools,

the

males

separate from the rest

at the time of rut, isolate themselves, and become aggressive

towards

other

males.

Immediate,

direct

in

the

female,

sexuality

is

indirect,

it

is

experienced

through

intermediate

circumstances,

in

the

male.

There

is

a

distance

between

desire

and

satisfaction

which

he

actively

surmounts;

he

pushes,

seeks

out,

touches the female, caresses and quiets her before he penetrates her. The organs used

in such activities are, as I have remarked, often better developed in the male than in

the female. It is notable that the living impulse that brings about the vast production of

sperms

is

expressed also in

the male by the appearance of bright

plumage, brilliant

scales, horns, antlers, a mane, by his voice, his exuberance. We no longer believe that

the ?wedding finery? put on by the male during rut, nor his seductive posturings, have

selective significance; but

they

do manifest

the

power of life, bursting forth

in

him

with

useless

and

magnificent

splendour.

This

vital

superabundance,

the

activities

directed towards mating, and the dominating affirmation of his power over the female

in coitus itself

–

all this contributes to the assertion of the male individual as such at

the

moment

of

his

living

transcendence.

In

this

respect

Hegel

is

right

in

seeing

the

subjective element in the male, while the female remains wrapped up in the species.

Subjectivity and separateness immediately signify conflict. Aggressiveness is one of

the traits of the rutting male; and it is not explained by competition for mates, since

the

number

of

females

is

about

equal

to

the

number

of

males;

it

is

rather

the

competition

that

is

explained

by

this

will

to

combat.

It

might

be

said

that

before

procreating,

the

male

claims

as

his

own

the

act

that

perpetuates

the

species,

and

in

doing battle with his peers confirms the truth of his individuality. The species takes

residence

in

the

female

and

absorbs

most

of

her

individual

life;

the

male

on

the

contrary integrates the specific vital forces into his individual life. No doubt he also

submits

to

powers

beyond

his

control:

the

sperms

are

formed

within

him

and

periodically he feels the rutting urge; but these processes involve the sum total of the

organism in much less degree than does the oestrus cycle. The production of sperms is

not

exhausting,

nor

is

the

actual

production

of

eggs;

it

is

the

development

of

the

fertilised egg inside an adult animal that constitutes for the female an engrossing task.

Coition is a rapid operation and one that robs the male of little vitality. He displays

almost no paternal instinct. Very often he abandons the female after copulation. When

he remains near her as head of a family group

–

monogamic family, harem, or herd

–

he nurtures and protects the community as a whole; only rarely does he take a direct

interest in the young. In the species capable of high individual development, the urge

of the male towards autonomy

–

which in lower animals is his ruin

–

is crowned with

success. He is in general larger than the female, stronger, swifter, more adventurous;

he

leads

a

more

independent

life,

his

activities

are

more

spontaneous;

he

is

more

masterful, more imperious. In mammalian societies it is always he who commands.

In

nature

nothing

is

ever

perfectly

dear.

The

two

types,

male

and

female,

are

not

always sharply distinguished; while they sometimes exhibit

a dimorphism

–

in

coat

colour or in arrangement of spotting or mottling

–

that seems absolutely distinctive,

yet it may happen, on the contrary, that they are indistinguishable and that even their

functions

are

hardly

differentiated,

as

in

many

fishes.

All

in

all,

however,

and

especially at the top of the animal scale, the two sexes represent two diverse aspects

of the life of the species. The difference between them

is not, as has been claimed,

that between activity and passivity; for the nucleus of the egg is active and moreover

the

development

of

the

embryo

is

an

active,

living

process,

not

a

mechanical

unfolding. It would be too simple to define the difference as that between change and

permanence:

for

the

sperm

can

create

only

because

its

vitality

is

maintained

in

the

fertilised

egg,

and

the

egg

can

persist

only

through

developmental

change,

without

which it deteriorates and disappears.

It

is

true,

however,

that

in

these

two

processes,

maintaining

and

creating

(both

of

which are active), the synthesis of becoming is not accomplished in the same manner.

To

maintain

is to deny the scattering of instants, it is to establish continuity in their

flow; to

create

is to strike out from temporal unity in general an irreducible, separate

present.

And

it

is

true

also

that

in

the

female

it

is

the

continuity

of

life

that

seeks

accomplishment in spite of separation; while separation into new and individualised

forces

is

incited

by

male

initiative.

The

male

is

thus

permitted

to

express

himself

freely; the energy of the species is well integrated into his own living activity. On the

contrary, the individuality of the female is opposed by the interest of the species; it is

as

if

she

were

possessed

by

foreign

forces

–

alienated.

And

this

explains

why

the

contrast

between

the

sexes

is

not

reduced

when

–

as

in

higher

forms

–

the

individuality

of

the

organisms

concerned

is

more

pronounced.

On

the

contrary,

the

contrast is increased. The male finds more and more varied ways in which to employ

the forces he is master of; the female feels her enslavement more and more keenly, the

conflict

between

her

own

interests

and

the

reproductive

forces

is

heightened.

Parturition in cows and mares is much more painful and dangerous than it is in mice

and

rabbits.

Woman

–

the

most

individualised

of

females

–

seems

to

be

the

most

fragile, most subject to this pain and danger: she who most dramatically fulfils the call

of destiny and most profoundly differs from her male.

In man as in most animals the sexes are born in approximately equal numbers, the sex

ratio

for

Western

man

being

about

105.5

males

to

l00

females.

Embryological

development

is

analogous

in

the

two

sexes;

however,

in

the

female

embryo

the

primitive germinal epithelium (from which ovary or testis develops) remains neutral

longer and is therefore under the hormonal influence for a longer time, with the result

that its development may be more often reversed. Thus it may be that the majority of

pseudo-hermaphrodites

are

genotypically

female

subjects

that

have

later

become

masculinised. One might suppose that the male organisation is defined as such at the

beginning, whereas the female embryo is slower in taking on its femininity; but these

early phenomena of foetal life are still too little known to permit of any certainty in

interpretation.

Once

established,

the

genital

systems

correspond

in

the

two

sexes,

and

the

sex

hormones

of

both

belong

to

the

same

chemical

group,

that

of

the

sterols;

all

are

derived

in

the

last

analysis

from

cholesterol.

They

regulate

the

secondary

sexual

differences

of

the

soma.

Neither

the

chemical

formulae

of

the

hormones

nor

the

anatomical

peculiarities

are

sufficient

to

define

the

human

female

as

such.

It

is

her

functional development that distinguishes her especially from the male.

The

development

of

the

male

is

comparatively

simple.

From

birth

to

puberty

his

growth is almost regular; at the age of fifteen or sixteen spermatogenesis begins, and

it continues into old age; with its appearance hormones are produced that establish the

masculine bodily traits. From this point on, the male sex life is normally integrated

with his individual existence: in desire and in coition his transcendence towards the

species is at one with his subjectivity

–

he is his body.

Woman?s

story

is

much

more

complex.

In

embryonic

life

the

supply

of

oocytes

is

already built up, the ovary containing about 40,000 immature eggs, each in a follicle,

of

which

perhaps

400

will

ultimately

reach

maturation.

From

birth,

the

species

has

taken possession of woman and tends to tighten its grasp. In coming into the world

woman experiences a kind of first puberty, as the oocytes enlarge suddenly; then the

ovary is reduced to about a fifth of its former size

–

one might say that the child is

granted

a

respite.

While

her

body

develops,

her

genital

system

remains

almost

stationary; some of the follicles enlarge, but

they fail to

mature. The

growth of the

little girl is similar to that of the boy; at the same age she is sometimes even taller and

heavier than he is. But at puberty the species reasserts its claim. Under the influence

of

the

ovarian

secretions

the

number

of

developing

follicles

increases,

the

ovary

receives more blood and grows larger, one of the follicles matures, ovulation occurs,

and the menstrual cycle is initiated; the genital system assumes its definitive size and

form, the body takes on feminine contours, and the endocrine balance is established.

It

is

to

be

noted

that

this

whole

occurrence

has

the

aspect

of

a

crisis.

Not

without

resistance does the body of woman permit the species to take over; and this struggle is

weakening and dangerous. Before puberty almost as many boys die as girls; from age

fourteen to eighteen, 128 girls die to 100 boys, and from eighteen to twenty-two, 105

girls

to

100

boys.

At

this

period

frequently

appear

such

diseases

as

chlorosis

tuberculosis, scoliosis (curvature of the spine), and osteomyelitis (inflammation of the

bone marrow). In some cases puberty is abnormally precocious, appearing as early as

age

four

or

five.

In

others,

on

the

contrary

puberty

fails

to

become

established,

the

subject remaining infantile and suffering from disorders of menstruation (amenorrhea

or dysmenorrhea). Certain women show signs of virilism, taking on masculine traits

as a result of excessive adrenal secretion.

Such abnormalities in no way represent victories of the individual over the species;

there

is

no

way

of

escape,

for

as

it

enslaves

the

individual

life,

the

species

simultaneously supports and nourishes it. This duality is expressed at the level of the

ovarian functions, since the vitality of woman has its roots in the ovaries as that of

man in the testicles. In both sexes a castrated individual is not merely sterile; he or she

suffers

regression,

degenerates.

Not

properly

constituted,

the

whole

organism

is

impoverished and thrown out of balance; it can expand and flourish only as its genital

system expands and flourishes. And furthermore

many reproductive phenomena are

unconcerned with the individual life of the subject and may even be sources of danger.

The

mammary

glands,

developing

at

puberty,

play

no

role

in

woman?s

individual

economy:

they

can

be

excised

at

any

time

of

life.

Many

of

the

ovarian

secretions

function for the benefit of the egg, promoting its maturation and adapting the uterus to

its requirements; in respect to the organism as a whole they make for disequilibration

rather than for regulation

–

the woman is adapted to the needs of the egg rather than to

her own requirements.

From puberty to menopause woman is the theatre of a play that unfolds within her and

in which she is not personally concerned. Anglo-

Saxons call menstruation ?the curse?;

in truth the menstrual cycle is a burden, and a useless one from the point of view of

the individual. In Aristotle?s time it was believed that each month blood flowed away

that was intended, if fertilisation had occurred, to build up the blood and flesh of the

infant, and the truth of that old notion lies in the fact that over and over again woman

does

sketch

in

outline

the

groundwork

of

gestation.

In

lower

mammals

this

oestrus

cycle is confined to a particular season, and it is not accompanied by a flow of blood;

only in the primates (monkeys, apes, and the human species) is it marked each month

by

blood

and

more

or

less

pain.

[?Analysis

of

these

phenomena

in

recent

years

has

shown that they are similar in woman and the higher monkeys and apes, especially in

the genus Rhesus. It

is evidently easier

to experiment with

these animals

,? writes Lo

uis

Callien (

La Sexualité

).]

During about fourteen days one of the Graafian follicles that

enclose

the

eggs

enlarges

and

matures,

secreting

the

hormone

folliculin

(estrin).

Ovulation

occurs

on

about

the

fourteenth

day:

the

follicle

protrudes

through

the

surface of the ovary and breaks open (sometimes with slight bleeding), the egg passes

into the oviduct, and the wound develops into the corpus luteum. The latter secretes

the hormone progesterone, which acts

on the uterus during the second

phase of the

cycle.

The

lining

of

the

uterus

becomes

thickened

and

glandular

and

full

of

blood

vessels,

forming

in

the

womb

a

cradle

to

receive

the

fertilised

egg.

These

cellular

proliferations

being

irreversible,

the

edifice

is

not

resorbed

if

fertilisation

has

not

occurred. In the lower mammals the debris may escape gradually or may be carried

away by the lymphatic vessels; but in woman and the other primates, the thickened

lining membrane (endometrium) breaks down suddenly, the blood vessels and blood

spaces

are

opened,

and

the

bloody

mass

trickles

out

as

the

menstrual

flow.

Then,

while the corpus luteum regresses, the membrane that lines the uterus is reconstituted

and a new follicular phase of the cycle begins.

This

complex

process,

still

mysterious

in

many

of

its

details,

involves

the

whole

female

organism,

since

there

are

hormonal

reactions

between

the

ovaries

and

other

endocrine organs, such as the pituitary, the thyroid, and the adrenals, which affect the

central nervous system, the sympathetic nervous system, and in

consequence all the

viscera. Almost all women

–

more than 85 per cent

–

show more or less distressing

symptoms during the menstrual period. Blood pressure rises before the beginning of

the flow and falls afterwards; the pulse rate and often the temperature are increased,

so

that

fever

is

frequent;

pains

in

the

abdomen

are

felt;

often

a

tendency

to

constipation followed by diarrhoea is observed; frequently there are also swelling of

the

liver,

retention

of

urea,

and

albuminuria;

many

subjects

have

sore

throat

and

difficulties with hearing and sight; perspiration is increased and accompanied at the

beginning of the menses by an odour

sui generis

, which may be very strong and may

persist throughout the period. The rate of basal metabolism is raised. The red blood

count

drops.

The

blood

carries

substances

usually

put

on

reserve

in

the

tissues,

especially calcium salts; the presence of these substances reacts on the ovaries, on the

thyroid

–

which enlarges

–

and on the pituitary (regulator of the changes in the uterine

lining described above) more active. This glandular instability brings on a pronounced

nervous

instability.

The

central

nervous

system

is

affected,

with

frequent

headache,

and

the

sympathetic

system

is

overactive;

unconscious

control

through

the

central

system is reduced, freeing convulsive reflexes and complexes and leading to a marked

capriciousness

of

disposition.

The

woman

is

more

emotional,

more

nervous,

more

irritable

than

usual,

and

may

manifest

serious

psychic

disturbance.

It

is

during

her

periods that she feels her body most painfully as an obscure, alien thing; it is, indeed,

the prey of a stubborn and foreign life that each month constructs and then tears down

a cradle within it; each month all things are made ready for a child and then aborted in

the crimson flow. Woman, like man, is her body;

[?So I am body, in so far, at least, as

my experience goes, and conversely a life-model, or like a preliminary sketch, for my

total

being.?

Merleau

-P onty,

Phé

nomé

nolog ie

de

la

perception

.]

but

her

body

is

something other than herself.

Woman experiences a more profound alienation when fertilisation has occurred and

the

dividing

egg

passes

down

into

the

uterus

and

proceeds

to

develop

there.

True

enough,

pregnancy

is

a

normal

process,

which,

if

it

takes

place

under

normal

conditions

of health and nutrition,

is

not harmful

to

the mother; certain

interactions

between her and the foetus become established which are even beneficial to her.

In

spite of an optimistic view having all too obvious social utility, however, gestation is

a

fatiguing

task

of

no

individual

benefit

to

the

woman

[I

am

taking

here

an

exclusively

physiological

point

of

view.

It

is

evident

that

maternity

can

be

very

advantageous psychologically for a woman, just as it can also be a disaster.]

but on

the contrary demanding heavy sacrifices. It is often associated in the first months with

loss

of

appetite

and

vomiting,

which

are

not

observed

in

any

female

domesticated

animal

and which signalise the revolt of the organism against the invading species.

There is a loss of phosphorus, calcium, and iron

–

the last difficult to make good later;

metabolic overactivity excites the endocrine system; the sympathetic nervous system

is in a state of increased excitement; and the blood shows a lowered specific gravity, it

is lacking in iron, and in general it is similar ?to that of persons fasting, of victims of

famine, of those who have been bled frequently, of convalescents?. All that a healthy

and well-nourished woman can hope for is to recoup these losses without too much

difficulty

after

childbirth;

but

frequently

serious

accidents

or

at

least

dangerous

disorders mark the course of pregnancy; and if the woman is not strong, if hygienic

precautions are not taken, repeated child-bearing will make her prematurely old and

misshapen, as often among the rural poor. Childbirth itself is painful and dangerous.

In

this

crisis

it

is

most

clearly

evident

that

the

body

does

not

always

work

to

the

advantage of both species and individual at once; the infant may die, and,

again, in

being born it may kill its mother or leave her with a chronic ailment. Nursing is also a

tiring service. A number of factors

–

especially the hormone prolactin bring about the

secretion

of

milk

in

the

mammary

glands;

some

soreness

and

often

fever

may

accompany the process and in any case the nursing mother feeds the newborn from

the resources of her own vitality. The conflict between species and individual, which

sometimes

assumes

dramatic

force

at

childbirth,

endows

the

feminine

body

with

a

distu

rbing frailty. It has been well said that women ?have infirmity in the abdomen?;

and it is true that they have within them a hostile element

–

it is the species gnawing

at their vitals. Their maladies are often caused not by some infection from without but

by

some

internal

maladjustment;

for

example,

a

false

inflammation

of

the

endometrium

is

set

up

through

the

reaction

of

the

uterine

lining

to

an

abnormal

excitation

of

the

ovaries;

if

the

corpus

luteum

persists

instead

of

declining

menstruation, it causes inflammation of the oviducts and uterine lining, and so on.

In the end woman escapes the iron grasp of the species by way of still another serious

crisis; the phenomena of the menopause, the inverse of puberty, appear between the

ages of forty-five and fifty. Ovarian activity diminishes and disappears, with resulting

impoverishment of the individual?s vital forces. It may be supposed that the metabolic

glands, the thyroid and pituitary, are compelled to make up in some fashion for the

functioning of the ovaries; and thus, along with the depression natural to the change

of

life,

are

to

be

noted

signs

excitation,

such

as

high

blood

pressure,

hot

flushes,

nervousness, and sometimes increased sexuality. Some women develop fat deposits at

this

time;

others

become

masculinised.

In

many,

a

new

endocrine

balance

becomes

established.

Woman

is

now

delivered

from

the

servitude

imposed

by

her

female

nature, but she is not to be likened to a eunuch, for her vitality is unimpaired. And

what is more, she is no longer the prey of overwhelming forces; she is herself, she and

her body are one. It is sometimes said that women of a certain age constitute ?a third

sex?; and, in truth, while they are not males, they are no longer females. Often, indeed,

this release from female physiology is expressed in a health, a balance, a vigour that

they lacked before.

In addition to the primary sexual characteristics, woman has various secondary sexual

peculiarities

that

are

more

or

less

directly

produced

in

consequence

of

the

first,

through hormonal action. On the average she is shorter than the male and lighter, her

skeleton

is

more

delicate,

and

the

pelvis

is

larger

in

adaptation

to

the

functions

of

pregnancy and childbirth; her connective tissues accumulate fat and her contours are

thus

more rounded than

those of the male. Appearance in

general

–

structure, skin,

hair

–

is

distinctly

different

in

the

two

sexes.

Muscular

strength

is

much

less

in

woman, about two thirds that of man; she has less respiratory capacity, the lungs and

trachea being smaller. The larynx is relatively smaller, and in consequence the female

voice is higher. The specific gravity of the blood is lower in woman and there is less

haemoglobin; women are therefore less robust and more disposed to anaemia than are

males. Their pulse is more rapid, the vascular system less stable, with ready blushing.

Instability is strikingly characteristic of woman?s organisation in general; among other

things, man shows greater stability in the metabolism of calcium, woman fixing much

less

of

this

material

and

losing

a

good

deal

during

menstruation

and

pregnancy.

It

would

seem

that

in

regard

to

calcium

the

ovaries

exert

a

catabolic

action,

with

resulting instability that brings on difficulties in the ovaries and in the thyroid, which

is

more

developed in

woman than in

man.

Irregularities in

the

endocrine secretions

react

on

the

sympathetic

nervous

system,

and

nervous

and

muscular

control

is

uncertain. This lack in stability and control underlies woman?s emotionalism, which is

bound up with circulatory fluctuations palpitation of the heart, blushing, and so forth

–

and

on

this

account

women

are

subject

to

such

displays

of

agitation

as

tears,

hysterical laughter, and nervous crises.

It is obvious once more that many of these traits originate in

woman?s subordination

to the species, and here we find the most striking conclusion of this survey: namely,

that

woman

is

of

all

mammalian

females

at

once

the

one

who

is

most

profoundly

alienated

(her

individuality

the

prey

of

outside

forces),

and

the

one

who

most

violently

resists

this

alienation;

in

no

other

is

enslavement

of

the

organism

to

reproduction more imperious or more unwillingly accepted. Crises of puberty and the

menopause,

monthly

?curse?,

long

and

often

difficult

pregnancy,

painful

and

sometimes dangerous childbirth, illnesses, unexpected symptoms and complications

–

these are characteristic of the human female. It would seem that her lot is heavier than

that of other females in just about the same degree that she goes beyond other females

in the assertion of her individuality. In comparison with her the male seems infinitely

favoured:

his

sexual

life

is

not

in

opposition

to

his

existence

as

a

person,

and

biologically it runs an even course, without crises and generally without mishap. On

the

average,

women

live

as

long

as

men,

or

longer;

but

they

are

much

more

often

ailing, and there are many times when they are not in command of themselves.

These biological considerations are extremely important. In the history of woman they

play

a

part

of

the

first

rank

and

constitute

an

essential

element

in

her

situation.

Throughout our further discussion we shall always bear them in mind. For, the body

being the instrument of our grasp upon the world, the world is bound to seem a very

different

thing

when

apprehended

in

one

manner

or

another.

This

accounts

for

our

lengthy study of the biological facts; they are one of the kys to the understanding of

woman. But I deny that they establish for her a fixed and inevitable destiny. They are

insufficient for setting up a hierarchy of the sexes; they fail to explain why woman is

the Other; they do not condemn her to remain in this subordinate role for ever.

It has been frequently maintained that in physiology alone must be sought the answers

to these questions: Are the chances for individual success the same in the two sexes?

Which plays the more important role in the species? But it must be noted that the first

of

these

problems

is

quite

different

in

the

case

of

woman,

as

compared

with

other

females; for animal species are fixed and it is possible to define them in static terms

–

by merely collecting observations it can be decided whether the mare is as fast as the

stallion,

or

whether

male

chimpanzees

excel

their

mates

in

intelligence

tests

–

whereas the human species is for ever in a state of change, for ever becoming.

Certain

materialist

savants

have

approached

the

problem

in

a

purely

static

fashion;

influenced by the theory of psychophysiological parallelism, they sought to work out

mathematical

comparisons

between

the

male

and

female

organism

–

and

they

imagined that these measurements registered directly the functional capacities of the

two

sexes.

For

example,

these

students

have

engaged

in

elaborately

trifling

discussions regarding the absolute and relative weight of the brain in man and woman

–

with inconclusive results, after all corrections have been made. But what destroys

much of the interest of these careful researches is the fact that it has not been possible

to

establish

any

relation

whatever

between

the

weight

of

the

brain

and

the

level

of

intelligence. And one would similarly be at a loss to present a psychic interpretation

of the chemical formulae designating the male and female hormones.

As

for

the

present

study,

I

categorically

reject

the

notion

of

psychophysiological

parallelism,

for

it

is

a

doctrine

whose

foundations

have

long

since

been

thoroughly

undermined. If I mention it at all, it is because it still haunts many minds in spite of its

philosophical

and

scientific

bankruptcy.

I

reject

also

any

comparative

system

that

assumes

the

existence

of

a

natural

hierarchy

or

scale

of

values

–

for

example,

an

evolutionary hierarchy. It is vain to ask if the female body is or is not more infantile

than that of the male, if it is more or less similar to that of the apes, and so on. All

these dissertations which mingle a vague naturalism with a still more vague ethics or

aesthetics are pure verbiage. It is only in a human perspective that we can compare the

female and the male of the human species. But man is defined as a being who is not

fixed, who makes himself what he is. As Merleau-Ponty very justly puts it, man is not

a natural species: he is a historical idea. Woman is not a completed reality, but rather

a becoming, and it is in her becoming that she should be compared with man; that is

to say, her possibilities should be defined. What gives rise to much of the debate is the

tendency

to

reduce

her

to

what

she

has

been,

to

what

she

is

today,

in

raising

the

question of her capabilities; for the fact is that capabilities are clearly manifested only

when they have been realised

–

but the fact is also that when we have to do with a

being whose nature is transcendent action, we can never close the books.

Nevertheless it will be said that if the body is not a thing, it is a situation, as viewed in

the perspective I am adopting

–

that of Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty: it is the

instrument of our grasp upon the world, a limiting factor for our projects. Woman is

weaker

than

man,

she

has

less

muscular

strength,

fewer

red

blood

corpuscles,

less

lung

capacity, she runs

more slowly, can lift less

heavy

weights,

can

compete with

man in hardly any sport; she cannot stand up to him in a fight. To all this weakness

must be added the instability, the lack of control, and the fragility already discussed:

these are facts. Her grasp on the world is thus more restricted; she has less firmness

and less steadiness available for projects that in general she is less capable of carrying

out. In other words, her individual life is le

ss rich than man?s.

Certainly these facts cannot be denied

–

but in themselves they have no significance.

Once we adopt the human perspective, interpreting the body on a basis of existence,

biology

becomes

an

abstract

science;

whenever

the

physiological

fact

(for

instance,

muscular inferiority) takes on meaning, this meaning is at once seen as dependent on

a whole context; the ?weakness? is revealed as such only in the light of the ends man

proposes, the instruments he has available, and the laws he establishes. If he does not

wish to seize the world, then the idea of a

grasp

on things has no sense; when in this

seizure

the

full

employment

of

bodily

power

is

not

required,

above

the

available

minimum, then differences in strength are annulled; wherever violence is contrary to

custom,

muscular

force

cannot

be

a

basis

for

domination.

In

brief,

the

concept

of

weakness

can be defined only with reference to existentialist, economic, and moral

considerations. It has been said that the human species is anti-natural, a statement that

is hardly exact, since man cannot deny facts; but he establishes their truth by the way

in

which he deals

with

them;

nature has reality

for him only to

the extent that it is

involved in his activity

–

his own nature not excepted. As with her grasp on the world,

it is again impossible to measure in the abstract the burden imposed on woman by her

reproductive

function.

The

bearing

of

maternity

upon

the

individual

life,

regulated

naturally in animals by the oestrus cycle and the seasons, is not definitely prescribed

in woman

–

society alone is the arbiter. The bondage of woman to the species is more

or less rigorous according to the number of births demanded by society and the degree

of hygienic care provided for pregnancy and childbirth. Thus, while it is true that in

the higher animals the individual existence is asserted more imperiously by the male

than by

the

female, in

the human species individual

?possibilities? depend upon the

economic and social situation.

But in any case it does not al

ways happen that the male?s individual privileges give

him a position of superiority within the species, for in maternity the female acquires a

kind

of

autonomy

of

her

own.

Sometimes,

as

in

the

baboons

studied

by

Zuckermann,

[

The Social Life of Monkeys and Apes

(1932).]

the male does dominate;

but in many species the two members of the pair lead a separate life, and in the lion

the

two

sexes

share

equally

in

the

duties

the

den.

Here

again

the

human

situation

cannot be reduced to any other; it is not as single individuals that human beings are to

be defined in the first place; men and women have never stood opposed to each other

in single combat; the couple is an original

Mitsein

, a basic combination; and as such it

always appears as a permanent or temporary element in a large collectivity.

Within such a society, which is more necessary to the species, male or female? At the

level of the gametes, at the level of the biological functions of coition and pregnancy,

the male principle creates to maintain, the female principle maintains to create, as we

have

seen;

but

what

are

the

various

aspects

of

this

division

of

labour

in

different

forms of social life? In sessile species, attached to other organisms or to substrata, in

those furnished by nature with abundant sustenance obtainable without effort, the role

of the male is limited to fecundation; where it is necessary to seek, to hunt, to fight in

order to provide the food needed by the young, the male in many cases co-operates in

their support. This co-operation becomes absolutely indispensable in a species where

the offspring remain unable to take care of themselves for a long time after weaning;

here the male?s assistance becomes extremely important, for the lives he has begotten

cannot be maintained without him. A single male can fecundate a number of females

each

year;

but

it

requires

a

male

for

every

female

to

assure

the

survival

of

the

offspring after they are born, to defend them against enemies, to wrest from nature the

wherewithal

to

satisfy

their

needs.

In

human

history

the

equilibrium

between

the

forces of production and of reproduction is brought about by different means under

different economic conditions, and these conditions govern the relations of male and

female

to

offspring

and

in

consequence

to

each

other.

But

here

we

are

leaving

the

realm of biology; by its light alone we could never decide the primacy of one sex or

the other in regard to the perpetuation of the species.

But in truth a society is not a species, for it is in a society that the species attains the

status of existence

–

transcending itself towards the world and towards the future. Its

ways and customs cannot be deduced from biology, for the individuals that compose

the society are never abandoned to the dictates of their nature; they are subject rather

to that second nature which is custom and in which are reflected the desires and the

fears that express their essential nature. It is not merely as a body, but rather as a body

subject

to

taboos,

to

laws,

that

the

subject

is

conscious

of

himself

and

attains

fulfilment

–

it is with reference to certain values that he evaluates himself. And, once

again, it is not upon physiology that values can be based; rather, the facts of biology

take

on

the

values

that

the

existent

bestows

upon

them.

If

the

respect

or

the

fear

inspired

by

woman

prevents

the

use

of

violence

towards

her,

then

the

muscular

superiority of the male is no source of power. If custom decrees

–

as in certain Indian

tribes

–

that the young girls are to choose their husbands, or if the father dictates the

marriage choice, then the sexual

aggressiveness

of the male gives him no power of

initiative, no advantage. The close bond between mother and child will be for her a

source of dignity or indignity according to the value placed upon the child

–

which is

highly variable this very bond, as we have seen, will be recognised or not according to

the presumptions of the society concerned.

Thus

we

must

view

the

facts

of

biology

in

the

light

of

an

ontological,

economic,

social, and psychological context. The enslavement of the female to the species and

the

limitations

of

her

various

powers

are

extremely

important

facts;

the

body

of

woman is one of the essential elements in her situation in the world. But that body is

not enough to define her as woman; there is no true living reality except as manifested

by the conscious individual through activities and in the bosom of a society. Biology

is not enough to give an answer to the question that is before us: why is woman the

Other? Our task is to discover how the nature of woman has been affected throughout

the course of history;

we are concerned to find out what humanity has made of the

human female.

The Second Sex

by Simone de Beauvoir (1949)

Book One: Facts and Myths, Part I: Destiny

Chapter 2: The Psychoanalytic Point of View

THE

tremendous

advance

accomplished

by

psychoanalysis

over

psychophysiology

lies

in

the

view

that

no factor

becomes

involved

in

the

psychic

life

without

having

taken

on

human

significance;

it

is

not

the

body-object

described

by

biologists

that

actually exists, but the body as lived by the subject. Woman is a female to the extent

that she feels herself as such. There are biologically essential features that are not a

part of her real, experienced situation: thus the structure of the egg is not reflected in

it,

but

on

the

contrary

an

organ

of

no

great

biological

importance,

like

the

clitoris,

plays in it a part of the first rank. It is not nature that defines woman; it is she who

defines herself by dealing with nature on her own account in her emotional life.

An

entire

system

has

been

built

up

in

this

perspective,

which

I

do

not

intend

to

criticise as a whole, merely examining its contribution to the study of woman. It is not

an easy matter to discuss psychoanalysis

per se

. Like all religions

–

Christianity and

Marxism,

for

example

–

it

displays

an

embarrassing

flexibility

on

a

basis

of

rigid

concepts. Words are sometimes used in their most literal sense, the term

phallus

, for

example, designating quite exactly that fleshy projection which marks the male; again,

they

are

indefinitely

expanded

and

take

on

symbolic

meaning,

the

phallus

now

expressing

the

virile

character

and

situation

in

toto

.

If

you

attack

the

letter

of

his

doctrine, the psychoanalyst protests that you misunderstand its spirit; if you applaud

its

spirit,

he

at

once

wishes

to

confine

you

to

the

letter.

The

doctrine

is

of

no

importance,

says

one,

psychoanalysis

is

a

method;

but

the

success

of

the

method

strengthens

the

doctrinaire

in

his

faith.

After

all,

where

is

one

to

find

the

true

lineaments of psychoanalysis if not among the psychoanalysts? But there are heretics

among

these,

just

as

there

are

among

Christians

and

Marxists;

and

more

than

one

psychoanalyst

has

declared

that

?the

worst

enemies

of

psychoanalysis

are

t

he

psychoanalysts?. In spite of a scholastic precision that often becomes pedantic, many

obscurities remain to be dissipated. As Sartre and Merleau-Ponty have observed, the

proposition ?Sexuality is coextensive with existence? can be understood in two very

different

ways;

it

can

mean

that

every

experience

of

the

existent

has

a

sexual

significance, or that every sexual phenomenon has an existential import. It is possible

to

reconcile

these

statements,

but

too

often

one

merely

slips

from

one

to

the

other.

Fur

thermore,

as

soon

as

the

?sexual?

is

distinguished

from

the

?genital?,

the

idea

of

sexuality becomes none too clear. According to Dalbiez, ?the sexual with Freud is the

intrinsic aptitude for releasing the genital?. But nothing is more obscure than the ide

a

of ?aptitude? –

that is, of possibility

–

for only realisation gives indubitable proof of

what

is

possible.

Not

being

a

philosopher,

Freud

has

refused

to

justify

his

system

philosophically; and his disciples maintain that on this account he is exempt from all

metaphysical

attack.

There

are

metaphysical

assumptions

behind

all

his

dicta,

however, and to use his language is to adopt a philosophy. It is just such confusions

that call for criticism, while making criticism difficult.

Freud

never

showed

much

concern

with

the

destiny

of

woman;

it

is

clear

that

he

simply adapted his account from that of the destiny of man, with slight modifications.

Earlier the sexologist Mara?on had stated that ?As specific energy, we may say that

the libido is a force of virile c

haracter. We will say as much of the orgasm?. According

to him, women who attain orgasm are ?viriloid? women; the sexual impulse is ?in one

direction? and woman is only half way along the road. Freud never goes to such an

extreme; he admits that woman?s sexuality is evolved as fully as man?s; but he hardly

studies

it

in

particular.

He

writes:

?The

libido

is

constantly

and

regularly

male

in

essence, whether it appears in man or in woman.? He declines to regard the feminine

libido as having its own original nature, and therefore it will necessarily seem to him

like a complex deviation from the human libido in general. This develops at first, he

thinks, identically in the two sexes

–

each infant passes first through an oral phase that

fixates it upon the maternal breast, and then through an anal phase; finally it reaches

the genital phase, at which point the sexes become differentiated.

Freud

further

brought

to

light

a

fact

the

importance

of

which

had

not

been

fully

appreciated: namely, that masculine erotism is definitely located in the penis, whereas

in

woman

there

are

two

distinct

erotic

systems:

one

the

clitoral,

which

develops

in

childhood,

the

other

vaginal,

which

develops

only

after

puberty.

When

the

boy

reaches the genital phase, his evolution is completed, though he must pass from the

auto-erotic inclination, in which pleasure is subjective, to the hetero- erotic inclination,

in which pleasure is bound up with an object, normally a woman. This transition is

made at the time of puberty through a narcissistic phase. But the penis will remain, as

in

childhood, the specific organ of erotism. Woman?s libido,

also

passing through a

narcissistic phase, will become objective, normally towards man; but the process will

be much more complex, because woman must pass from clitoral pleasure to vaginal.

There is only one genital stage for man, but there are two for woman; she runs a much

greater

risk

of

not

reaching

the

end

of

her

sexual

evolution,

of

remaining

at

the

infantile stage and thus of developing neuroses.

While still in the auto-erotic stage, the child becomes more or less strongly attached to

an object. The boy becomes fixed on his mother and desires to identify himself with

his father; this presumption terrifies him and he dreads mutilation at the hands of his

father

in

punishment

for

it.

Thus

the

castration

complex

springs

from

the

Oedipus

complex. Then aggressiveness towards the father develops, but at the same time the

child interiorises the father?s authority; thus the superego is built up in the child and

censures

his

incestuous

tendencies.

These

are

repressed,

the

complex

is

liquidated,

and the son is freed from his fear of his father, whom he has now installed in his own

psyche

under

the

guise

of

moral

precepts.

The

super-ego

is

more

powerful

in

proportion

as

the

Oedipus

complex

has

been

more

marked

and

more

rigorously

resisted.

Freud at first described the little girl?s history in a completely corresponding fashion,

later calling the feminine form of the process the Electra complex; but it is clear that

he defined it less in itself than upon the basis of his masculine pattern. He recognised

a

very

important

difference

between

the

two,

however:

the

little

girl

at

first

has

a

mother fixation, but the boy is at no time sexually attracted to the father. This fixation

of the girl represents a survival of the oral phase. Then the child identifies herself with

the father; but towards the age of five she discovers the anatomical difference between

the sexes, and she reacts to the absence of the penis by acquiring a castration complex

–

she imagines that she has been mutilated and is pained at the thought. Having then

to renounce her virile pretensions, she identifies herself with her mother and seeks to

seduce the father. The castration complex and the Electra complex thus reinforce each

other. Her feeling of frustration is the keener since, loving her father, she wishes in

vain to be like him; and, inversely, her regret strengthens her love, for she is able to

compensate

for

her

inferiority

through

the

affection

she

inspires

in

her

father.

The

little

girl

entertains

a

feeling

of

rivalry

and

hostility

towards

her

mother.

Then

the

super-ego is built up also in her, and the incestuous tendencies are repressed; but her

super-ego

is

not

so

strong,

for

the

Electra

complex

is

less

sharply

defined

than

the

Oedipus because the first fixation was upon the mother, and since the father is himself

the object of the love that he condemns, his prohibitions are weaker than in the case of

his son-rival. It can be seen that like her genital development the whole sexual drama

is more complex for the girl than for her brothers. In consequence she may be led to

react to the castration complex by denying her femininity, by continuing obstinately to

covet

a

penis

and

to

identify

herself

with

her

father.

This

attitude

will

cause

her

to

remain in the clitoral phase, to become frigid or to turn towards homosexuality.

The two essential objections that may be raised against this view derive from the fact

that Freud based it upon a masculine model. He assumes that woman feels that she is

a mutilated man. But the idea of mutilation implies comparison and evaluation. Many

psychoanalysts today admit that the young girl may regret not having a penis without

believing, however, that it has been removed from her body, and even this regret is not

general. It could not arise from a simple anatomical comparison; many little girls, in

fact, are late in discovering the masculine construction, and if they do, it is only by

sight. The little boy obtains from his penis a living experience that makes it an object

of pride to him, but this pride does not necessarily imply a corresponding humiliation

for his sisters, since they know the masculine organ in its outward aspect only

–

this

outgrowth,

this

weak

little

rod

of

flesh

can

in

itself

only

inspure

them

only

with

indifference,

or

even

disgust.

The

little

girl?s

covetousness,

when

it

exists,

results

from a previous evaluation of virility. Freud takes this for granted, when it should be

accounted for. On the other hand, the concept of the Electra complex is very vague,

because it is not supported by a basic description of the feminine libido. Even in boys

the occurrence of a definitely genital Oedipus complex is by no means general; but,

apart from very few exceptions, it cannot

be admitted that the father is

a source of

genital

excitation

for

his

young

daughter.

One

of

the

great

problems

of

feminine

eroticism

is

that

clitoral

pleasure

is

localised;

and

it

is

only

towards

puberty

that

a

number

of

erogenous

zones

develop

in

various

parts

of

the

body,

along

with

the

growth of vaginal sensation. To say, then, that in a child of ten the kisses and caresses

of

her

father

have

an

?intrinsic

aptitude?

for

arousing

clitoral

pleasure

is

to

assert

something that in most cases is nonsense. If it is admitted that the Electra complex has

only a very diffuse emotional character, then the whole question of emotion is raised,

and Freudianism does not help us in defining emotion as distinguished from sexuality.

What deifies the father is by no means the feminine libido (nor is the mother deified

by the desire she arouses in the son); on the contrary, the fact that the feminine desire

(in the daughter) is directed towards a sovereign being gives it a special character. It

does

not

determine

the

nature

of

its

object;

rather

it

is

affected

by

the

latter.

The

sovereignty of the father is a fact of social origin, which Freud fails to account for; in

fact, he states that it is impossible to say what authority decided, at a certain moment

in

history, that the father should take precedence over the mother

–

a decision that,

according to Freud, was progressive, but due to causes unknown. ?It could not have

been patriarchal authority, since it is just this authority which progress conferred upon

the

father?, as he puts it in his last work.

Adler took issue with Freud because he saw the deficiency of a system that undertook

to explain human life upon the basis of sexuality alone; he holds that sexuality should

be integrated with the total personality. With Freud all human behaviour seems to be

the outcome of desire

–

that is, of the search for pleasure

–

but for Adler man appears

to

be

aiming

at

certain

goals;

for

the

sexual

urge

he

substitutes

motives,

purposes,

projects. He gives so large a place to the intelligence that often the sexual has in his

eyes

only

a

symbolic

value.

According

to

his

system,

the

human

drama

can

be

reduced to three elemental factors: in every individual there is a will to power, which,

however,

is

accompanied

by

an

inferiority

complex;

the

resulting

conflict

leads

the

individual to employ a thousand ruses in a flight from reality

–

a reality with which he

fears he may not be able to cope; the subject thus withdraws to some degree from the

society

of

which

he

is

apprehensive

and

hence

becomes

afflicted

with

the

neuroses

that involve disturbance of the social attitude. In woman the inferiority complex takes

the form of a shamed rejection of her femininity. It is not the lack of the penis that

causes

this

complex,

but

rather

woman?s

total

situation;

if

the

little

girl

feels

penis

envy it is only as the symbol of privileges enjoyed by boys. The place the father holds

in the family, the universal predominance of males, her own education

–

everything

confirms her in her belief in masculine superiority. Later on, when she takes part in

sexual relations, she finds a new humiliation in the coital posture that places woman

underneath the man. She reacts through the ?masculine protest?: either she endeavours

to masculinise herself, or she makes use of her feminine weapons to wage war upon

the male. Through maternity she may be able to find an equivalent of the penis in her

child. But this supposes that she begins by wholly accepting her role as woman and

that she assumes her inferiority. She is divided against herself much more profoundly

than is the male.

I shall not enlarge here upon the theoretical differences that separate Adler and Freud

nor

upon

the

possibilities

of

a

reconciliation;

but

this

may

be

said:

neither

the

explanation based upon the sexual urge nor that based upon motive is sufficient, for

every urge poses a motive, but the motive is apprehended only through the urge

–

a

synthesis

of

Adlerianism

and

Freudianism

would

therefore

seem

possible

of

realisation. In fact, Adler retains the idea of psychic causation as an integral part of his

system when he introduces the concepts of goal and of fiality, and he is somewhat in

accord

with

Freud

in

regard

to

the

relation

between

drives

and

mechanism:

the

physicist always recognises determinism when he is concerned with conflict or a force

of attraction. The axiomatic proposition held in common by all psychoanalysts is this:

the human story is to be explained by the interplay of determinate elements. And all

the psychoanalysts allot the same destiny to woman. Her drama is epitomised in the

conflict

between

her

?viriloid?

and

her

?feminine?

tendencies,

the

first

expressed

through the clitoral

system,

the second in

vaginal

erotism. As a child she identifies

herself with her father; then she becomes possessed with a feeling of inferiority with

reference to the male and is faced with a dilemma: either to assert her independence

and become virilised

–

which, with the underlying complex of inferiority, induces a

state

of

tension

that

threatens

neurosis

–

or

to

find

happy

fulfilment

in

amorous

submission, a solution that is facilitated by her love for the sovereign father. He it is

whom she really seeks in lover or husband, and thus her sexual love is mingled with

the desire to be dominated. She will find her recompense in maternity, since that will

afford her a new kind of independence. This drama would seem to be endowed with

an

energy,

dynamism,

of

its

own;

it

steadily

pursues

its

course

through

any

and

all

distorting incidents, and every woman is passively swept along in it.

The

psychoanalysts

have

had

no

trouble

in

finding

empirical

confirmation

for

their

theories. As we know, it was possible for a long time to explain the position of the

planets on the Ptolemaic system by adding to it sufficiently subtle complications; and

by superposing an inverse Oedipus complex upon the Oedipus complex, by disclosing

desire

in

all

anxiety,

success

has

been

achieved

in

integrating

with

the

Freudian

system the very facts that appear to contradict its validity. It is possible to make out a

form only against a background, and the way in which the form is apprehended brings

out the background behind it in positive detail; thus, if one is determined to describe a

special case in a Freudian perspective, one will encounter the Freudian schema behind

it.

But

when

a

doctrine

demands

the

indefinite

and

arbitrary

multiplication

of

secondary

explanations,

when

observation

brings

to

light

as

many

exceptions

as

instances conformable to rule, it is better to give up the old rigid framework. Indeed,

every psychoanalyst today is busily engaged after his fashion in making the Freudian

concepts

less

rigid

and

in

attempting

compromises.

For

example,

a

contemporary

psychoanalyst

[Baudouin]

writes as follows: ?Wherever there is a

complex, there are

by definition a number of components ... The complex consists in the association of

these

disparate

elements

and

not

in

the

representation

of

one

among

them

by

the

others.? But the concept of a simple association of elements is unaccepta

ble, for the

psychic life is not

a mosaic, it is a single whole in every one of its aspects and we

must respect that unity. This is possible only by our recovering through the disparate

facts the original purposiveness of existence. If we do not go back to this source, man

appears to be the battleground of compulsions and prohibitions that alike are devoid

of meaning and incidental.

All psychoanalysts systematically reject the idea of choice and the correlated concept

of

value,

and

therein

lies

the

intrinsic

weakness

of

the

system.

Having

dissociated

compulsions and prohibitions from the free choice of the existent, Freud fails to give

us

an

explanation

of

their

origin

–

he

takes

them

for

granted.

He

endeavoured

to

replace

the

idea

of

value

with

that

of

authority;

but

he

admits

in

Moses

and

Monotheism

that he has no way of accounting for this authority. Incest, for example,

is

forbidden

because

the

father

has

forbidden

it

–

but

why

did

he

forbid

it?

It

is

a

mystery. The super-ego interiorises, introjects commands and prohibitions emanating

from an arbitrary tyranny, and the instinctive drives are there, we know not why: these

two realities are unrelated because morality is envisaged as foreign to sexuality. The

human unity appears to be disrupted, there is no thoroughfare from the individual to

society; to reunite them Freud was forced to invent strange fictions, as in

Totem and

Taboo

. Adler saw clearly that the castration complex could be explained only in social

context; he grappled with the problem of valuation, but he did not reach the source in

the individual of the values recognised by society, and he did not grasp that values are

involved in sexuality itself, which led him to misjudge its importance.

Sexuality

most

certainly

plays

a

considerable

role

in

human

life;

it

can

be

said

to

pervade

life

throughout.

We

have

already

learned

from

physiology

that

the

living

activity of the testes and the ovaries is integrated with that of the body in general. The

existent is a sexual, a sexuate body, and in his relations with other existents who are

also

sexuate

bodies,

sexuality

is

in

consequence

always

involved.

But

if

body

and

sexuality are concrete expressions of existence, it is with reference to this that their

significance

can

be

discovered.

Lacking

this

perspective,

psychoanalysis

takes

for

granted unexplained facts. For instance, we are told that the little girl is ashamed of

urinating in a squatting position with her bottom uncovered

–

but whence comes this

shame? And likewise, before asking whether the male is proud of having a penis or

whether his pride is expressed in his penis, it is necessary to know what pride is and

how the aspirations of the subject can be incarnated in an object. There is no need of

taking sexuality as an irreducible datum, for there is in the existent a more original

?quest for being?, of which sexuality is only one of the aspects. Sartre demonstrates

this truth in

L’?tre et le néant

, as does Bachelard in his works on Earth, Air, and Water.

The psychoanalysts hold that the primary truth regarding man is his relation with his

own body and with the bodies of his fellows in the group; but man has a primordial

interest in the substance of the natural world which surrounds him and which he tries

to discover in work, in play, and in all the e

xperiences of the ?dynamic imagination?.

Man aspires to be at one concretely with the whole world, apprehended in all possible

ways. To work the earth, to

dig

a hole, are activities as

original as the embrace, as

coition, and they deceive themselves who see here no more than sexual symbols. The

hole, the ooze, the gash, hardness, integrity are primary realities; and the interest they

have for man is not dictated by the libido, but rather the libido will be coloured by the

manner in which he becomes aware of them. It is not because it symbolises feminine

virginity that integrity fascinates man; but it is his admiration for integrity that renders

virginity

precious.

Work,

war,

play,

art

signify

ways

of

being

concerned

with

the

world

which

cannot

be

reduced

to

any

others;

they

disclose

qualities

that

interfere

with those which sexuality reveals. It is at once in their light and in the light of these

erotic

experiences

that

the

individual

exercises

his

power

of

choice.

But

only

an

ontological point of view, a comprehension of being in general, permits us to restore

the unity of this choice.

It is this concept of choice, indeed, that psychoanalysis most vehemently rejects in the

name of determinism and the ?collective unconscious?; and it is this unconscious that

is

supposed

to

supply

man

with

prefabricated

imagery

and

a

universal

symbolism.

Thus

it

would

explain

the

observed

analogies

of

dreams,

of

purposeless

actions,

of

visions of delirium, of allegories, and of human destinies. To speak of liberty would

be to deny oneself the possibility of explaining these disturbing conformities. But the

idea

of

liberty

is

not

incompatible

with

the

existence

of

certain

constants.

If

the

psychoanalytic method is frequently rewarding in spite of the errors in its theory, that

is because there are in every individual case certain factors of undeniable generality:

situations and behaviour patterns constantly recur, and the moment of decision flashes

from a cloud of generality and repetition. ?Anatomy is destiny?, said Freud; and thi

s

phrase is echoed by that of Merleau-

Ponty: ?The body is generality.? Existence is all

one,

bridging

the

gaps

between

individual

existents;

it

makes

itself

manifest

in

analogous

organisms,

and

therefore

constant

factors

will

be

found

in

the

bonds

between the ontological and the sexual. At a given epoch of history the techniques, the

economic and social structure of a society, will reveal to all its members an identical

world, and there a constant relation of sexuality to social patterns will exist; analogous

individuals, placed in analogous conditions, will see analogous points of significance

in

the

given

circumstances.

This

analogy

does

not

establish

a

rigorous

universality,

but

it

accounts

for

the

fact

that

general

types

may

be

recognised

in

individual

case

histories.

The

symbol

does

not

seem

to

me

to

be

an

allegory

elaborated

by

a

mysterious

unconscious; it is rather the perception of a certain significance through the analogue

of

the

significant

object.

Symbolic

significance

is

manifested

in

the

same

way

to

numerous individuals, because of the identical existential situation connecting all the

individual existents, and the identical set of artificial conditions that all must confront.

Symbolism did not come down from heaven nor rise up from subterranean depths

–

it

has been elaborated, like language, by that human reality which is at once

Mitsein

and

separation; and this explains why individual invention also has its place, as in practice

psychoanalysis

has

to

admit,

regardless

of

doctrine.

Our

perspective

allows

us,

for

example,

to

understand

the

value

widely

accorded

to

the

penis.

It

is

impossible

to

account for it without taking our departure from an existential fact: the tendency of

the subject towards

alienation

. The anxiety that his liberty induces in the subject leads

him

to

search

for

himself

in

things,

which

is

a

kind

of

flight

from

himself.

This

tendency

is

so

fundamental

that

immediately

after

weaning,

when

he

is

separated

from the Whole, the infant is compelled to lay hold upon his alienated existence in

mirrors and in the gaze of his parents. Primitive people are alienated in mana, in the

totem;

civilised

people

in

their

individual

souls,

in

their

egos,

their

names,

their

property, their work. Here is to be found the primary temptation to inauthenticity, to

failure to be genuinely oneself. The penis is singularly adapted for playing this role of

?double? for the little boy –

it is for him at once a foreign object and himself; it is a

plaything, a doll, and yet his own flesh; relatives and nurse-girls behave towards it as

if it were a little person. It is easy to see, then, how it becomes for the child ?an

alter

ego

ordinarily

more

artful,

more

intelligent,

and

more

clever

than

the

individual?.

[Alice Balint]

The penis is regarded by the subject as at once himself and

other

than

himself,

because

the

functions

of

urination

and

later

of

erection

are

processes

midway

between

the

voluntary

and

involuntary,

and

because

it

is

a

capricious

and

as

it

were

a

foreign

source

of

pleasure

that

is

felt

subjectively.

The

individual?s specific transcendence takes concrete form in the penis and it is a source

of pride. Because the phallus is thus set apart, man can bring into integration with his

subjective individuality the life that overflows from it. It is easy to see, then, that the

length of the penis, the force of the urinary jet, the strength of erection and ejaculation

become for him the measure of his own worth .

[I have been told of peasant children

amusing

themselves

in

excremental

competition;

the

one

who

produced

the

most

copious and solid faeces enjoyed a prestige unmatched by any other form of success,

whether in games or even in fighting. The faecal mass here plays the same part as the