Today, 110 years ago, Simone de Beauvoir was born in Paris. She was a communist militant and one of the most important precursors of gender feminism, the predominant line in that ideology today.
Defender of hatred against men, whom she considered oppressors
Beauvoir is especially famous for his book “Le Deuxième Sexe” (The Second Sex), written in 1949 and published the following year. It traces the master lines of what years later will become gender feminism. It is found in it, for example, the hatred of man, which he points out as oppressor of women, and the rejection of the family, which he considers a tool of oppression:
“The man has managed to subdue the woman, but to that extent he has stripped her of what made his possession desirable. Integrated into the family and society, the woman’s magic dissipates more and becomes transfigured; reduced to the condition of servant, it is no longer that untamed prey in which all the treasures of Nature were incarnated.”
She defended abortion, ignoring any scientific consideration
The book also contains a large repertoire of fallacies with which Beauvoir defended the murder of unborn children as a woman’s right, a fallacy that the abortion groups have been repeating like parrots ever since. The feminist ideologist came to dismiss as “uncompromising humanitarianism” the defense of the right to live of those children (it is still a paradox to read now some media presenting her as a “human rights defender”:
“The practical reasons invoked against legal abortion lack weight; as for the moral reasons, they are reduced to the old Catholic argument that the fetus has a soul to which paradise is closed by suppressing it without baptism. It is remarkable that the Church authorizes, on occasion, the murder of men made: in wars, or when it comes to condemned to death; but, on the other hand, it reserves for the fetus an intransigent humanitarianism.“
It is curious to see that in this paragraph Beauvoir justified the murder of innocents and opposed it to the Catholic doctrine on just war, based on the right to self-defense, a universally accepted right, and not only by Catholics. Beauvoir’s argument is as cynical as defending the murder of an adult by claiming that the Poles, Belgians and French also killed Germans when they invaded their country … It is curious to note that Beauvoir did not even stop to consider scientific knowledge about the beginning of the life: it obviated without more, like today they continue doing many of her followers.
She demonized the pregnancy and labeled as ‘parasite’ the unborn child
But Beauvoir was not limited to defending abortion. In addition, she demonized the pregnancy and branded the unborn child as a “parasite”, accusing him of exploiting the woman. She herself decided not to have children, for ideological reasons. She wrote about it in the aforementioned book: “pregnancy is, above all, a drama that is represented inside the woman; she perceives it at the same time as an enrichment and a mutilation; the fetus is a part of his body and is also a parasite that exploits it; she owns him and is also possessed by him; that fetus sums up all the future, and, taking it in her womb, the woman feels vast as the world; but that same wealth annihilates her, she has the impression of not being anything anymore. A new existence is going to manifest itself and to justify its own existence, for which it feels proud; but she also feels like a toy of dark forces, it is shaken, violated.“
Putting herself as a role model, and despite not having been a mother, she despised the maternal faculties by presenting them as suffering: “begetting, breastfeeding, do not constitute activities, they are natural functions; no project affects them; that is why the woman does not find in it the reason for a haughty affirmation of her existence; he passively suffers his biological destiny.“
She denied the biological origin of sexual differences
Beauvoir also formulated one of the bases of the current gender ideology: the anti-scientific affirmation that sex lacks a biological foundation: “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”, she affirmed in the aforementioned book. “No biological, psychic or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female has in the bosom of society; it is the whole of civilization that produces this intermediate product between the male and the castrated one that is described as feminine.“ This nonsense, defended marginally by Marxist ideologues for decades, has been assumed today even by parties that are on the Right, and it is serving to criminalize and persecute all those who defend a scientific fact such as the biological origin of the differences between man and woman.
“Every woman is homosexual by nature,” she said
In line with the above, and despite the fact that she maintained relations with men, her misogynistic thinking led Beauvoir to pose lesbianism as natural in women, again putting her own life as a reference (she maintained lesbian relationships with various women, including with minors): “The homosexuality of women is an attempt, among others, to reconcile their autonomy with the passivity of their flesh. And, if Nature is invoked, it can be said that every woman is homosexual by natura.“ This is one of the ideas most repeated today by radical feminism.
She defended the USSR as the most feminist country with the Stalin regime
All this ideological project was framed by Beauvoir in the socialist ideology. In the midst of Stalin’s dictatorship, the feminist writer was praising the Soviet Union: “It is in the USSR where the feminist movement acquires the greatest breadth,” she said in the aforementioned book. And she added: “It is the resistances of the old capitalist paternalism that prevent in the majority of the countries that this equality is concretely fulfilled: the day will be fulfilled in which those resistances are destroyed. It has already been fulfilled in the USSR, affirms the Soviet propaganda. And when the socialist society is a reality in the whole world, there will no longer be men and women, but only workers equal to each other.” And she said this in support of an ideology that was sowing oppression, terror and misery in half of Europe.
Beauvoir signed a manifesto asking to legalize pedophilia
There are other aspects of Simone de Beauvoir’s thinking and political activity that are nowadays hidden in a surprising way. In her entries in the Wikipedia in Spanish, in English and in French there is no mention of this fact. However, the French leftist newspaper Libération, founded by Jean-Paul Sartre (who was Beauvoir’s sentimental partner), recalled on February 23, 2001, an incident occurred in 1977. In January of that year three men were tried in France for sexually abusing, but without violence, of children under 15 years of age. The newspaper Libération published a manifesto claiming “recognition of the right of children and adolescents to maintain relationships with persons of their choice”. Simone de Beauvoir was one of the signatories of that letter that defended the legalization of pedophile relations, and also of another letter published by the newspaper Le Monde on January 26, 1977 (see note at the end of the post).
She was fired for corrupting a minor student
Beauvoir’s endorsement of the legalization of pedophilia was not accidental. As Andy Martin recalled in The New York Times (also progressive media) on May 19, 2013, the feminist ideologist was fired from her job as a teacher in 1943 for corrupting a minor student. Someone might think that the dismissal was due to political causes, but the fact is that Beauvoir had collaborated with Radio Vichy, a station of the collaborationist regime of Pétain; a fact that she recognized in her memories. Martin also recalls that being a sentimental partner of the writer, “Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the “trio”, in which Beauvoir seduced his students and then passed them on to Sartre.” On the other hand, in August 1959 Esquire magazine published a controversial essay by Beauvoir entitled “Brigitte Bardot and the Lolita syndrome”, in which the feminist writer was fascinated by the childlike aspect of the actress.
In short, if this is the reference of gender feminism in terms of thinking, many families have enough reasons to feel alarmed.
NOTE 28.12.2018: In the text I was referring initially to a letter signed by Simone de Beauvoir in the newspaper Libération, noting that the letter was also published by Le Monde. Investigating more the subject I have verified that it was two different letters. The first was published by Libération and by Le Monde in January 1977. The second text refers Libération in a news published on February 23, 2001, which cites it as “an open letter to the Criminal Code Review Committee”. It is difficult to find this second letter. Didier Pleux quotes on page 149 his book “Françoise Dolto, the pure déraison de Didier Pleux” (2013).