"other" doesn't fly by me...or others :}

        Okay... I’m not going to lie, I was totally set on writing about "The Second Sex" as soon as I finished it.  Don’t get me wrong, I spent some time thinking about the other ones, and in fact, “Differance” got a good intellectual discussion going between my sister and I, but due to the fact that my backbone was raised on third wave feminism, publicly offering my thoughts on “The Second Sex” was the only one that really seemed right.   I guess I would like to take just a quick moment and say that personally, I am a feminist.  Not to ridiculously extreme levels or anything, but rub me the wrong way with trash or down talking women and I promise you, you’ll hear my thoughts.  It’s funny actually because I typically stay so quiet about things to avoid confrontation you’d never even guess I felt differently on a matter than what someone is going on and on about, but bring my sex into it and I get surged with passion to explain why I think referring to women as “Other” is wrong.

        Yes, I  understand that over half of the first part of “The Second Sex” was information and opinions that was not pulled from people just yesterday.  And yes, I do think that society is on a grand stride to the equalization of women, but here are my thoughts on a few things in the reading that really stuck with me and got my wheels turning:  women make up half of the human race and as Dorothy Parker was credited for writing “men as well as women should be regarded as human beings.”  To me, that is most simple and easy to understand way of putting it...that info alone makes the point that women are not others and says ‘get over it, stop acting like men are better/more capable of things’.

        The next thing that got me thinking throughout the reading was the points made about the physical differences.  Yes, most everyone learns early on in life that females have uterus’, ovaries, and the majority of women were born with smaller frames but that doesn’t mean they don’t know, or can’t learn how to use their fists.  Simone de Beauvoir also brings in woman as “man’s dependent” and is bold enough to use the word “slave” in his point making that women have never achieved 100% equality.  Even though woman as her man’s slave is not as big of a problem as it once was, I think that the idea of it still lies within some of the misconceptions of what women should be.
        The clip that I have attached is a commercial saying that a soda (which up until now has never been gender oriented) is only for men, because only men like action, or what worse, only men are allowed to like action movies...it then goes on to say that the Dr. Pepper drink is also only for men to like, and 10 calories becomes man only thing as well.  Why is it okay to have a drink that is made only for men? I also thought of other things that took a food, drink, or program that is for both men and women, but then singele gender it and make an "only man" product out of it.  

        To sum up the rest of the reading (along with my opinion) Beauvoir addresses the multiple factors that contribute roadblocks keeping women from being equals with the other half of humanity.  Economically today, women still make less doing the exact same thing men do.  Lacking a certain level of physical strength always seems like a plausible excuse used to stop a female from something that she may be completely capable of, but I think that the biggest ‘in between the lines’ message that not only shows in this reading, but others as well is that men still hold more credibility and until that changes neither can the inequality.