THIS 20 MINUTE VIDEO TOLD ME MORE ABOUT DE BEAUVIOUR AND THE TEXT THAN MY TWO 1.5 HOUR LONG UNIVERSITY LECTURES ON THE DAMN TOPIC! You're a life saver, mate.
You would imagine that philosophical minded people would be less misogynistic than what’s shown in your comments, but you’ve done a good job dealing with them. Nice video. Kudos.
0:51 Key Idea: Reality of Woman As "Other" 2:25 Man Defines Woman 3:04 Primordial 3:50 The Foreigner, The Different, The Other 5:00 Hegelian concept of Self-Conciousness 6:45 The Reflection, The Assuring echo 7:48 Why is the household set up the way it is? 9:18 Alienation. Othering. 12:00 Egypt and Persia. Women and Men. 12:48 Women and The Proletariat, the working class Subordination throughout all of history. 15:00 Other in A Totality 17:00 Inequality. Society/Culture/Domains 18:54 Existentialism, Choice, Complicity
Wonderful series, Dr. Sadler. I enjoy your channel. I’m graduating high school soon and intend to study a plethora of humanities subjects alongside philosophy. As I pursue my passions, the misogyny that becomes increasingly apparent can be discouraging and demeaning at times (to be honest, I was mentally preparing myself for the limitations of this lecture when I saw it was being taught by a man :)). But your empathy, humility, and willingness to truly listen gave me so much inspiration and hope. I assume that people have told you this before, but thank you for being an incredible educator and ally.
You’re very welcome. Glad you enjoyed the series. We are living in times when the misogynistic feel themselves emboldened to indulge themselves more openly, which is a definite regress
This is awesome! I've been reading The Second Sex now. I'm a gap year student now. I guess I'm the only student in my whole class who has read her works and this topic was never discussed to us.
I'm glad that it's proving useful for you. Unfortunate that she's not getting read, since much of what she says is still quite relevant to our own culture
Mr. Sadler, I have been enjoying your videos for a couple of months now. I listen to your lectures as I’m doing mundane things, like everyday chores, orwhen I’m getting ready to leave the house etc. And I have had the opportunity to think about and learn a lot of things, i really appreciate the work you’re doing. In regards to this video, I had already read the text around 3 years ago and this was a really nice opportunity for me to reminiscense and reconsider. (Of course I will listen to the rest of the playlist from now on as well) I wish I could donate to you through patreon, but the financial situation of my country right now doesn’t allow it. If and when I migrate to a better land and reach financial stability, I will make sure to become a patron. Always enjoying your lectures, keep up the good work.
@@Shevock Anytime I post a video on a woman philosopher, that tends to be the proportion. The thumbs-downs almost all happen within the first 5-10 minutes, and some in the first minute - indicating that those people aren't even watching the video. Lots of misogynists out there.
I have to imagine that at least on UA-cam, the vast majority of those who "disagree" with her are simply reactionaries who haven't even bothered to take her ideas seriously. That's one of the problems with the reactionary character of much of UA-cam and social media: Reactionaries who claim to love 'reason' and 'logic', but of course the moment they encounter a counter-intuitive idea they revert to emotional and illogical appeals against it.
@@MatthewLowery Yeah. But the nice thing is that when they post their BS, it makes it easy for me to identify them. I fairly routinely remove their comments and ban them from posting on my channel.
You saved me, hahaha, Seriously, I've read Le Deuxieme Sexe and listened countless lectures on Simone de Beauvoir, but I've always found her work very difficult to grasp. Thank you for this video!
Sir can u provide theory notes on Clauses Study of Clauses: Nature and composition of Clauses vis-à-vis Phrases and compound sentences, subordinate and coordinate clauses and their formation by subordinate and coordinating conjunctions, composition, uses and function of Relative clauses, Noun clauses and Adverbial clauses.
I have to answer the questions: What were two of De Beauvoir’s most central theorems? (If I listened correctly my professor suggested hegemony and ideology???) How does her close reading of the Western philosophical canon and its three pillars of thought expose the underbelly of sexist oppression towards girls?
Gregory B. Sadler I’m not needing you to answer the question but upon reading the question and the text I don’t make the connection between what the three pillars of western philosophical thought are. I can identify her main arguments but the language used in the question isn’t connecting with me. I have background in feminism and women’s studies but the language of philosophical studies gets lost on me.
Late comment, but does Beauvoir answer why women are ultimately the other? I’m not sure if she answers this, if she does, what does she say about that?
Very good work, as always. It appears to me that the opposition of "Self and Other" in Beauvoir is actually an opposition of dominant and submissive, more closely attached to Hegel's Master and Slave dialectic, because the opposition of Self vs Other is not enough to explain why one is the only one defining and the other is only being defined, which Beauvoir mentions only after. What she doesn't do is to mention that women also view men as the other, although she would say that women, obviously, do not define themselves reciprocally as masters and men as slaves. I, however, think there is a hole in her argument that attempts to explain why women are not an unity. She says that women are not unified because they didn't produce religion and other cultural aspects of their own, but this can be reverted as: women didn't create religion because they weren't unified in the first place. And the same reversal can be applied to any man-made institution. The only way to get out of this hole is by pointing to something external: random chance, biology, God.
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you. I will try to express myself better, but I would like to know of your thoughts about the last section, as it's not dependent of the first. Beauvoir appears to believe that the relation between self and other is that of subject and object, as to say that the self only exists as a self so long it is recognized by the other, and the other, while being other, is in a state of not being recognized. I said that this fits more properly a dialectic of master and slave, which is also a battle for recognition, but in less tortuous terms. When I said that women also view (and recognize) men as the other, I mean that their subjectivity can't be truly supressed, otherwise their objectivity could not be surpassed by themselves. It could be said that the their otherness could be surpassed through recognition, meaning that a woman could only leave the shackles of being and object by being recognized by those who are subjects (men), as the "other" can't recognize the "other" as self without being an active subject.
@@apolloniuspergus9295 You need to spend time actually reading the text, rather than spending it writing me your views that would be improved by better engagement with the text, and expecting me to devote my scarce time to unproductive back and forth with you
Groups looks at groups and try to rank/subject as higher/lower (influence from Sartre). No general women's consciousness throughout history. (Never share in equality) That's interesting, grounding it in choices after thrown in the world. One response is complicity but something that should be acknowledged even if done unconsciously
I mostly agree with her assessment. However, I believe she is missing at least two important factors: intimacy/affection (or lack thereof) and rejection. The desire for intimacy is an immensely powerful motivator for both sexes. They both need it. Women, as opposed to men, are far more cautious when it comes to choosing a partner. So when you’re a man who is maybe socially awkward, shy, or has a disagreeable personality, your options are extremely limited, if not zero. Sexual arousal, and loneliness, that isn’t relieved will begin to build up and cause frustration. And if the man tries but gets repeatedly rejected, this leads to even more frustration, anger and hatred of the “other” sex. You can easily see this with online groups today like the self-proclaimed “incels”.
That's all right. All of these core concept videos are just that - focused on one key idea. Here's the playlist with 500+ more - ua-cam.com/play/PL4gvlOxpKKIjwnfPgqLkLJ7cHXAqDHfBA.html
Men identify as part of a family, part of a nation, part of a company, fans of a certain team, supporters of certain political parties or causes, but they do not Identify, collectively, as "men". Women however, do "self-group identify" as "Women". Self group identification is a major determinant of who a person sees themselves allied to, and who opposed against. It is actually empirically demonstrated beyond doubt that it is Women that "Other" Men, and that this has been a feature of human behaviour since before human history began. Features of humanity such as Neotony (maintaining child features into adulthood), Male out-group bias, female in-group bias, Gender dimorphism etc, all clearly demonstrate a "gynocentric" mindset has dominated human behaviour, assumptions and prioritisation from pre-histroric times. Do not read this wrong. I am not saying that this has been good for women's, or men's development. Evolution has prioritised the survival of the species, and that means maintaining, at all costs, functioning wombs with a maximisation of nurturing potential. This means female bodies (not minds) in the center, and disposable males around the outside. If a man dies, so what? if a female womb is lost, the species may be in danger. Feminism appears whenever the battle for survival against nature is quelled enough for people to forget it ever happened at all. Industrial development and technological innovation allows natural human tendencies for social and physical prioritisation to be exacerbated, and this allows natural social priority to become a political force. Feminism is, in my opinion, weaponised-gynocentrism. Whether this political force is for the better or the worse I do not pretend to know, but I think it is very important to understand it and take it on board to truly understand the development of gender relations throughout history. If saying this gets me down-voted and hated then so be it.
@@GregoryBSadler. The fact that phenomena, associated with a prolonged physical and psychological development, have been demonstrated to exist, by means of Social Scientific research means there is, at least, a vestige of demonstrable truth in the assertion that it has existed long enough to be worthy of categorisation, and made subject to human discourse along with all other theories. The only "faith" shown would be in just how far back before recorded time such differences began to occur. Whether you call it Evolutionary Psychology or by any other name, demonstrable physical features, not simply posited psychological differences, in body and brain definitely exist in a manner worthy of "theory" and further analysis. I would suggest that "Faith" is not an entirely appropriate term for what is occurring; it is not a case of all-out "Promisory Materialism" here. In fact, I would suggest that dismissing it all as "faith" is a bit of a snarky comment, especially when the concrete truth of Geist's expression in the vehicle of Humanity, may make the material locally significant, even if not ultimately necessary, or some such similar "Idealist" beginning - which is where de Beauvoir started.
Yeah. . . good luck with all that. You've definitely downgraded yourself from where I sit, and I'm not going to devote any more time to this conversation You've managed to get de Beauvoir wrong. Come back when you've actually read her text. Until then, good luck with your studies
@@GregoryBSadler That's cool! Thanks for you comments, they are appreciated. I shall re-read de Beauvoir. I love your site, so stay safe and keep going.
This whole Second Sex idea of de Beauvoir makes me feel troblesome. While she quite clearly is true, i can't help but to wonder if there is something burried here which might turn out to be false big time. The problem is that i can't pinpoint it. Perhaps it just puts too much embhasis on otherness of women. Giving permission to paint history of womanhood as as being ruled by men. As if most men wouldnt' have fallen into same issue being ruled by more powerful men (and more powerful women as well, every king has queen). And if modern world works as example then men inhabits both highest and lowest places in social hierarchy, while women tend to inhabit the middle ground. Thou there are obvious differences when it comes to childbirth and how safe it is these days compared to past millenia. However this might not be so much issue with de Beauvior and her's existentialism but how feminist movement uses it really rub the pain of womanhood in on social scale. ...Or maybe i've been listening too much rightwing nutjobs...
@OneAndOnly Fiqri There is no such thing as "modern feminism" in the singular, to start with. As to MGTOW, and my views on it, that's what Google is for, right?
THIS 20 MINUTE VIDEO TOLD ME MORE ABOUT DE BEAUVIOUR AND THE TEXT THAN MY TWO 1.5 HOUR LONG UNIVERSITY LECTURES ON THE DAMN TOPIC! You're a life saver, mate.
Glad it was useful for you!
You would imagine that philosophical minded people would be less misogynistic than what’s shown in your comments, but you’ve done a good job dealing with them. Nice video. Kudos.
That ends up being the case with most of my videos on women philosophers. There's a lot of misogyny out there
0:51 Key Idea: Reality of Woman As "Other"
2:25 Man Defines Woman
3:04 Primordial
3:50 The Foreigner, The Different, The Other
5:00 Hegelian concept of Self-Conciousness
6:45 The Reflection, The Assuring echo
7:48 Why is the household set up the way it is?
9:18 Alienation. Othering.
12:00 Egypt and Persia.
Women and Men.
12:48 Women and The Proletariat, the working class
Subordination throughout all of history.
15:00 Other in A Totality
17:00 Inequality. Society/Culture/Domains
18:54 Existentialism, Choice, Complicity
Thank you Michael - this should be pinned when possible.
Wonderful series, Dr. Sadler. I enjoy your channel.
I’m graduating high school soon and intend to study a plethora of humanities subjects alongside philosophy. As I pursue my passions, the misogyny that becomes increasingly apparent can be discouraging and demeaning at times (to be honest, I was mentally preparing myself for the limitations of this lecture when I saw it was being taught by a man :)). But your empathy, humility, and willingness to truly listen gave me so much inspiration and hope.
I assume that people have told you this before, but thank you for being an incredible educator and ally.
You’re very welcome. Glad you enjoyed the series. We are living in times when the misogynistic feel themselves emboldened to indulge themselves more openly, which is a definite regress
This is awesome! I've been reading The Second Sex now. I'm a gap year student now. I guess I'm the only student in my whole class who has read her works and this topic was never discussed to us.
I'm glad that it's proving useful for you. Unfortunate that she's not getting read, since much of what she says is still quite relevant to our own culture
Mr. Sadler, I have been enjoying your videos for a couple of months now. I listen to your lectures as I’m doing mundane things, like everyday chores, orwhen I’m getting ready to leave the house etc. And I have had the opportunity to think about and learn a lot of things, i really appreciate the work you’re doing. In regards to this video, I had already read the text around 3 years ago and this was a really nice opportunity for me to reminiscense and reconsider. (Of course I will listen to the rest of the playlist from now on as well) I wish I could donate to you through patreon, but the financial situation of my country right now doesn’t allow it. If and when I migrate to a better land and reach financial stability, I will make sure to become a patron. Always enjoying your lectures, keep up the good work.
Glad you enjoy the lecture videos!
Thank you for taking the time to create and share these videos!
You're welcome!
I loved the oppening with that legendary painting
Thank you for sharing!
This is a 600 pages long book, and we got all this from just the first two pages! 🤯
This stuff isn’t in just the first two pages
I love Beauvoir’s work ! Thank you for the nice recap
you're very welcome
Very good work as usual Dr Sadler. I hope that those who disagree with Beauvoir's theories can separate your work and opinions from her own.
Thanks!
@@Shevock Anytime I post a video on a woman philosopher, that tends to be the proportion. The thumbs-downs almost all happen within the first 5-10 minutes, and some in the first minute - indicating that those people aren't even watching the video. Lots of misogynists out there.
I have to imagine that at least on UA-cam, the vast majority of those who "disagree" with her are simply reactionaries who haven't even bothered to take her ideas seriously. That's one of the problems with the reactionary character of much of UA-cam and social media: Reactionaries who claim to love 'reason' and 'logic', but of course the moment they encounter a counter-intuitive idea they revert to emotional and illogical appeals against it.
@@MatthewLowery Yeah. But the nice thing is that when they post their BS, it makes it easy for me to identify them. I fairly routinely remove their comments and ban them from posting on my channel.
Sir I am Your Die heart Fan From Pakistan🇵🇰
You're A Great Professor&intellectual ❤
Thanks!
Always love your work and whole channel. Thank you so much :-)
You're welcome!
Patreon Sponsor's Hyperlink. 0:48
6:20 "reflection"
You saved me, hahaha, Seriously, I've read Le Deuxieme Sexe and listened countless lectures on Simone de Beauvoir, but I've always found her work very difficult to grasp. Thank you for this video!
You're welcome!
9 men disliked this
I'd use other qualifiers, most likely, like "insecure" or "immature" - but yeah, they're probably guys
Great summary and lecture.
Glad you found it useful
Sir can u provide theory notes on Clauses Study of Clauses: Nature and composition of Clauses vis-à-vis Phrases and compound sentences,
subordinate and coordinate clauses and their formation by subordinate and coordinating conjunctions,
composition, uses and function of Relative clauses, Noun clauses and Adverbial clauses.
ua-cam.com/video/iJE3pkvH4s0/v-deo.html
Well explanation!! ♥️
I have to answer the questions:
What were two of De Beauvoir’s most central theorems? (If I listened correctly my professor suggested hegemony and ideology???) How does her close reading of the Western philosophical canon and its three pillars of thought expose the underbelly of sexist oppression towards girls?
ua-cam.com/video/OV_T8Emyf6I/v-deo.html
Gregory B. Sadler I’m not needing you to answer the question but upon reading the question and the text I don’t make the connection between what the three pillars of western philosophical thought are. I can identify her main arguments but the language used in the question isn’t connecting with me. I have background in feminism and women’s studies but the language of philosophical studies gets lost on me.
you are a very good teacher! thank you
You're welcome - and thanks!
Late comment, but does Beauvoir answer why women are ultimately the other? I’m not sure if she answers this, if she does, what does she say about that?
ua-cam.com/video/xgf2jztjaF4/v-deo.html
I guess you could say the feminist movement is an example of the developing collection female consciousness she speaks about
Yes. Though when you read the text you’ll see her criticizing some aspects of some, since there definitely isn’t just one feminist movement
You are amazing 🙌🏻
That's very nice - thanks!
Thank you very much
You're welcome!
Very good work, as always. It appears to me that the opposition of "Self and Other" in Beauvoir is actually an opposition of dominant and submissive, more closely attached to Hegel's Master and Slave dialectic, because the opposition of Self vs Other is not enough to explain why one is the only one defining and the other is only being defined, which Beauvoir mentions only after. What she doesn't do is to mention that women also view men as the other, although she would say that women, obviously, do not define themselves reciprocally as masters and men as slaves. I, however, think there is a hole in her argument that attempts to explain why women are not an unity. She says that women are not unified because they didn't produce religion and other cultural aspects of their own, but this can be reverted as: women didn't create religion because they weren't unified in the first place. And the same reversal can be applied to any man-made institution. The only way to get out of this hole is by pointing to something external: random chance, biology, God.
I'd say you have it wrong, and you'll want to reread the text more closely
@@GregoryBSadler Sorry, you mean I have everything wrong or something specific?
You're wrong in the first sentence already. Good luck with your studies
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you. I will try to express myself better, but I would like to know of your thoughts about the last section, as it's not dependent of the first.
Beauvoir appears to believe that the relation between self and other is that of subject and object, as to say that the self only exists as a self so long it is recognized by the other, and the other, while being other, is in a state of not being recognized. I said that this fits more properly a dialectic of master and slave, which is also a battle for recognition, but in less tortuous terms. When I said that women also view (and recognize) men as the other, I mean that their subjectivity can't be truly supressed, otherwise their objectivity could not be surpassed by themselves. It could be said that the their otherness could be surpassed through recognition, meaning that a woman could only leave the shackles of being and object by being recognized by those who are subjects (men), as the "other" can't recognize the "other" as self without being an active subject.
@@apolloniuspergus9295 You need to spend time actually reading the text, rather than spending it writing me your views that would be improved by better engagement with the text, and expecting me to devote my scarce time to unproductive back and forth with you
Groups looks at groups and try to rank/subject as higher/lower (influence from Sartre).
No general women's consciousness throughout history. (Never share in equality)
That's interesting, grounding it in choices after thrown in the world. One response is complicity but something that should be acknowledged even if done unconsciously
I mostly agree with her assessment. However, I believe she is missing at least two important factors: intimacy/affection (or lack thereof) and rejection. The desire for intimacy is an immensely powerful motivator for both sexes. They both need it. Women, as opposed to men, are far more cautious when it comes to choosing a partner. So when you’re a man who is maybe socially awkward, shy, or has a disagreeable personality, your options are extremely limited, if not zero. Sexual arousal, and loneliness, that isn’t relieved will begin to build up and cause frustration. And if the man tries but gets repeatedly rejected, this leads to even more frustration, anger and hatred of the “other” sex. You can easily see this with online groups today like the self-proclaimed “incels”.
You realize this video is on a tiny portion of a massive book, right?
@@GregoryBSadler Sorry. For some reason I thought it was just one book and these were all the points summarized.
I guess you skipped the intro and didn't read the video description
Gregory B. Sadler Yeah pretty much. I was listening at work and zoned out in the beginning. I guess the metaphorical egg is on my face huh.
That's all right. All of these core concept videos are just that - focused on one key idea.
Here's the playlist with 500+ more - ua-cam.com/play/PL4gvlOxpKKIjwnfPgqLkLJ7cHXAqDHfBA.html
8:13 poo poo-ed. i died at that 😂😂😂
💩💩💩lmao
Men identify as part of a family, part of a nation, part of a company, fans of a certain team, supporters of certain political parties or causes, but they do not Identify, collectively, as "men". Women however, do "self-group identify" as "Women". Self group identification is a major determinant of who a person sees themselves allied to, and who opposed against. It is actually empirically demonstrated beyond doubt that it is Women that "Other" Men, and that this has been a feature of human behaviour since before human history began. Features of humanity such as Neotony (maintaining child features into adulthood), Male out-group bias, female in-group bias, Gender dimorphism etc, all clearly demonstrate a "gynocentric" mindset has dominated human behaviour, assumptions and prioritisation from pre-histroric times.
Do not read this wrong. I am not saying that this has been good for women's, or men's development. Evolution has prioritised the survival of the species, and that means maintaining, at all costs, functioning wombs with a maximisation of nurturing potential. This means female bodies (not minds) in the center, and disposable males around the outside. If a man dies, so what? if a female womb is lost, the species may be in danger.
Feminism appears whenever the battle for survival against nature is quelled enough for people to forget it ever happened at all. Industrial development and technological innovation allows natural human tendencies for social and physical prioritisation to be exacerbated, and this allows natural social priority to become a political force. Feminism is, in my opinion, weaponised-gynocentrism. Whether this political force is for the better or the worse I do not pretend to know, but I think it is very important to understand it and take it on board to truly understand the development of gender relations throughout history.
If saying this gets me down-voted and hated then so be it.
It's funny how much faith people have in these essentially mythical evolutionary biology/psychology narratives.
@@GregoryBSadler. The fact that phenomena, associated with a prolonged physical and psychological development, have been demonstrated to exist, by means of Social Scientific research means there is, at least, a vestige of demonstrable truth in the assertion that it has existed long enough to be worthy of categorisation, and made subject to human discourse along with all other theories.
The only "faith" shown would be in just how far back before recorded time such differences began to occur. Whether you call it Evolutionary Psychology or by any other name, demonstrable physical features, not simply posited psychological differences, in body and brain definitely exist in a manner worthy of "theory" and further analysis. I would suggest that "Faith" is not an entirely appropriate term for what is occurring; it is not a case of all-out "Promisory Materialism" here. In fact, I would suggest that dismissing it all as "faith" is a bit of a snarky comment, especially when the concrete truth of Geist's expression in the vehicle of Humanity, may make the material locally significant, even if not ultimately necessary, or some such similar "Idealist" beginning - which is where de Beauvoir started.
Yeah. . . good luck with all that. You've definitely downgraded yourself from where I sit, and I'm not going to devote any more time to this conversation
You've managed to get de Beauvoir wrong. Come back when you've actually read her text. Until then, good luck with your studies
@@GregoryBSadler That's cool! Thanks for you comments, they are appreciated. I shall re-read de Beauvoir. I love your site, so stay safe and keep going.
@@MakeEterniaGreatAgainthey already do
This whole Second Sex idea of de Beauvoir makes me feel troblesome. While she quite clearly is true, i can't help but to wonder if there is something burried here which might turn out to be false big time. The problem is that i can't pinpoint it.
Perhaps it just puts too much embhasis on otherness of women. Giving permission to paint history of womanhood as as being ruled by men. As if most men wouldnt' have fallen into same issue being ruled by more powerful men (and more powerful women as well, every king has queen). And if modern world works as example then men inhabits both highest and lowest places in social hierarchy, while women tend to inhabit the middle ground. Thou there are obvious differences when it comes to childbirth and how safe it is these days compared to past millenia.
However this might not be so much issue with de Beauvior and her's existentialism but how feminist movement uses it really rub the pain of womanhood in on social scale.
...Or maybe i've been listening too much rightwing nutjobs...
Probably the latter
@@GregoryBSadler Probably true :D
Yeah definitely the latter.
@OneAndOnly Fiqri There is no such thing as "modern feminism" in the singular, to start with.
As to MGTOW, and my views on it, that's what Google is for, right?
Thanks so much
You're welcome!