Biological Data II (34-49) read by Christina

Biological Data II (34-49) read by Christina

Moving on from females as mere enslaved egg-sacks, and males as mere enslaved fertiliser of the species, to the ‘higher forms of life’ (34) reproduction both maintains the species and creates new individuals. These include fish, toads and birds. As far as I can tell, the difference here is not only that the father plays a nurturing role, but also that the offspring are cared for, which suspends the reproduction drive. And then we come to the mammal, where maintaining and creating is sexed. The mother is closer to the offspring than the father, the female is ‘determined by the servitude of maternity’, while the male is presented as a sexual predator. Females are prey to the species, regulated by a sexual cycle (she will repeat this argument with humans), which moves in two phases. During heat she may invite the male, but never initiates coitus: the male imposes himself on her; very often she submits to him with indifference or even resists him. Whether she is provocative or consensual, it is he in any case who takes her: she is taken’ (35, italics in original) [Andrea Dworkin?]. The male penetrates and thus dominates the female, while she receives and endures. 

And then comes a sentence, which I don’t get, do you? She says (p. 36 a bit above the middle): ‘although she feels the sexual need as an individual need ... she nevertheless experiences the sexual adventure in its immediacy as an interior story and not in relation to the world and to others.’ It is this last bit, the difference between an interior story and in relation to the world, which I don’t quite understand. 

So after this violation comes alienation, which is when the foetus is carried: ‘inhabited by another who is nourished by her substance, the female is both herself and other than herself during the whole gestation period (36). After the birth, the female devotes herself to the young, abdicating her individuality for the benefit of the species which demands this abdication (37). The male on the other hand ‘separates himself and is confirmed in himself’. The male is thus posited as an individual, confirmed in the aggression against his fellow creatures. The cycles that effect the male are much less pervasive and exhausting than those afflicting the female. At the top of the animal scale, the two sexes thus ‘represent two diverse aspects of the species’ life’ (38). This opposition is not passive/active, nor change/permanence. Perhaps maintenance and creation signifies best, what is at stake for both sexes. And then we come to Woman, who in relation to other females is the most individualises, fragile, experiences destiny strongest and distinguishes herself from male most significantly (39). From 39-43 Beauvoir launches a detailed description of the reproduction cycle in the human body, but most detailed in the female body. Puberty is where the species installs itself in her, and is as such a crisis. Menopause, when the species releases its grip is another difficult crisis.

On page 44 she notes the consequences of the sexual differentiations, namely the ‘hormonal actions that determine her soma’. [Does anyone know if there is a specific reason for using soma instead of body?] She begins with skeletal structure, muscular power, respiratory capacity, blood weight, vascular system. In general women’s system is less stable, which leads to vascular variations and convulsive attacks. This, Beauvoir attributes to the subordination to the species. And her point is, that women resist this alienation much more forcefully than any other female: ‘her destiny appears even more fraught the more she rebels against it by affirming herself as an individual’ (44). All of this biological data Beauvoir sees as an essential element of women’s situation. This is because of her emphasis on the body as ‘instrument of our hold on the world’ and ‘a situation’ (46) and the notion of humanity constantly in the making (45). But at the same time she refuses ‘the idea that they form a fixed destiny for her’ (45). The body, as dissected by Beauvoir does not, in her opinion, constitute the basis for sexual hierarchy, the construction of woman as Other or condemn her to this subjugated role.

This is fascinating, and I can’t quite figure out whether it disturbs me or not. If I understand her correctly, what she wants to show is how the ‘humanity in the making’, the ‘being who is transcendence and surpassing’ in the case of women is limited by these particular factors along with the economic and social situation. All of these factors set the parameters of possibilities – is that what you get too?