Was way too abstract for me. Either I don't like Husserl, even though I love phenomenology, either this book was just too hard for me. After all, I'm Was way too abstract for me. Either I don't like Husserl, even though I love phenomenology, either this book was just too hard for me. After all, I'm not an agrégation philosophy student. It seems to not be a good first book to get introduced to Husserl philosophy....more
I'm not sure what to think about this book. It's depressing to read because it shows so factually, be it on the ground of biology, mythology, metaphysI'm not sure what to think about this book. It's depressing to read because it shows so factually, be it on the ground of biology, mythology, metaphysics, literature, history... how women were treated as the Other in the worst and the most alienating way we can think about it.
I think it's way too long and could have been synthesized, this continuous avalanche of facts makes its points at the same time so clear and a bit confusing. (Because myths about women are by themselves contradictory and their projections on the ideality of the Woman can always be nothing but a contradiction of the reality of women)
What I can retain is that she really wants to destroy this Image of the Eternal Feminine or any other idealization of women as "la Femme". And I'm saddened by the contemporary resurgence of this kind of essentialist feminism than often praise De Beauvoir or the Eternal Feminine even though her existentialist philosophy obviously rejects any form of essentialism.
Other than that, on a feminist point of view, it's obviously flawed by its context of writing (a French white bourgeois woman in the 40s), making some of her conclusions and analyses wrong.
I still think still that, however depressing of a read it can be, it is still a fascinating one that was a landmark in the history of feminism....more
Loading...
