Today, most modern women value their right to vote, to pursue an education, and to have the freedom to choose their profession freely. Simone De Beauvoir, a 20th-century French existentialist philosopher, presents several compelling arguments for her vision of female emancipation. But her Marxist-rooted ideology doesn’t liberate – it destroys true fulfillment. Thank goodness there’s an antidote.
Marx and De Beauvoir had their reasons for being frustrated with the status quo. Just as one cannot deny the many historical and contemporary examples of exploited workers, the past also reveals countless injustices directed toward women, injustices which indeed may have stunted a woman’s ability to reach her full potential. Additionally, traces of Marx’s ideas on alienation and estrangement permeate De Beauvoir’s works, depicting a desire for meaning and purpose veiled by social theory and economic commentary. De Beauvoir’s philosophy is an iteration ofn Marxist themes – inequality is embedded in the social structure and must be abolished through revolution.
However, like Marx, her message is inherently barren, a desperate cry for identity in a genderless wilderness. An existence in which one bases their identity on conflict-wrought relationships cannot lead to fulfillment.
While conflict is undeniably a part of the human experience, it is not its defining feature. To reduce humanity to its most destructive faults is to deny its highest virtues and most beautiful attributes. De Beauvoir grapples with this as she views man and woman through an existentialist lens, failing to recognize the sexes’ distinct yet complementary natures – natures shaped through biological differences. She writes in The Second Sex, “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.” Marx echoes similar existentialist sentiments, declaring, “Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas…”
Marx and De Beauvoir both operate from a position of defeat and subjugation. They begin with the assumption that oppression is the rule and that meaning is derived from the struggle against oppression, with one’s identity rooted in production and one’s economic position in society. The Marxist worldview is inherently self-limiting – fighting for survival before it has even begun. So, too, is De Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy.
The philosopher is doomed to remain in an oppressive state of her creation, failing to recognize that freedom is attained by fulfilling a purpose inseparable from personal identity. Unfortunately, Marx and De Beauvoir reject the idea that relationships – whether with the human or the divine – can be innately positive. Marx expresses, “a being only considers himself independent when he stands on his own feet; and he only stands on his own feet when he owes his existence to himself.” Moreover, De Beauvoir reduces women to their productive value in society, defining their identity by the oppression – real or imagined – they have endured from men. She abandons any notion that men and women can mutually benefit from the attributes present by the differentiation of the sexes. Instead, De Beauvoir wallows in what she perceives as an unresolvable “sinful tension:” If men do not willingly cede to women, then women must rise against men.
De Beauvoir’s solution to the feminist quandary is what she believes to be radical equality. Marx, too, envisions radical equality as the end goal of his blood-stained revolution. Yet, in their pursuit of a pristine Elysium of uniformity, both fail to acknowledge the undeniable reality of the human experience, a reality that, while sometimes ugly, is also capable of profound beauty.
Ultimately, the Marxist-Feminist ideal has not delivered on its promises; women can be more “manly” than ever before, just as men can embrace the feminine. Some even adopt androgyny, claiming to be “free” from any constraints of identity.
Mmotherhood itself can be discarded through abortion; meanwhile, a woman’s body is objectified in film, social media, and entertainment – paradoxically labeled as empowerment.
Indeed, many long-standing societal norms have been abolished, leaving gender identity and relations increasingly murky. It’s widely accepted which groups comprise the oppressed and oppressor de jour in contemporary society. The influence of thinkers like Karl Marx and Simone De Beauvoir on modern culture is undeniable. Yet, a consequential question remains: are men and women admittedly more satisfied and free?
Frankly, it’s absurd to answer “yes.” When the intricacies of the individual are forgotten amidst the faceless collective body, the entire body crumbles and dies. Yet, at the risk of remaining stuck in the discontented malaise of Marx and De Beauvoir, we must ask ourselves: What can restore the body?
Christianity is the antidote to the poison introduced in Eden and re-injected into the culture by Marx and De Beauvoir. A renewal of Christianity in the culture will lead to a renewal of the knowledge that the body is good and that men and women are created different but equal in dignity through the Imago Dei. A renewed understanding of the body and its unique beauty will lead to healing between the sexes – when a man embraces his masculine nature a woman is free to embrace her feminine one, and vice-versa. When men and women embrace their true natures they are better prepared to embrace their calling in life, whatever it might be, and this will naturally foster a more strong and vibrant society.
The German philosopher Edith Stein writes: “The redemptive order restores the original relationship; the more redemption is personally adopted, the more it makes possible a harmonious collaboration [between the sexes]…” What Marx and De Beauvoir could not understand, Stein does, recognizing the truth that when individuals pursue personal redemption, they can redeem the Body of Christ. She continues:
Everywhere about us, we see in the interaction of the sexes the direct fruits of original sin in most terrifying forms: an unleashed sexual life in which every trace of their high calling seems to be lost; a struggle between the sexes, one pitted against the other, as they fight for their rights and, in doing so, no longer hear the voices of nature and of God. But we can see also how it can be different whenever the power of grace is operative.
Tension, messiness, and imperfect relationships between the sexes will exist as long as humanity does. Yet, new generations have the unique opportunity to oppose the frustrated resentment of previous generations, to reject the notion that harmony between the sexes is unattainable, and to believe that it can be different.
A reversal of course will not be easy, but it is needed now more than ever – and it can begin today.
