I wonder what Simone De Beauvoir would think of Andrew Tate, the manosphere and incels.

I suppose she'd think it just another iteration of the division between the sexes, caused by serious misunderstandings and how love is experienced by woman and men different in a patriachal society - worse, in today's society where ideas about how men should experience love, and what that looks like, is reinforced through male spaces in online forums in kinda of 'groupthink' situations where their ideas and resentments grow stronger and are reinforced by others with the same feelings of blame for their situation.

In her famous feminist work, The Second Sex, written in 1949 - over 70 year ago - Simone de Beauvoir — argued that "the word love has by no means the same sense for both sexes, and this is one cause of the serious misunderstandings that divide them." The broader argument was that women are socialised to centre their identity around romantic love, and men are taught to prioritize freedom, ambition and self realisation, and that love is not an all consuming purpose, just one part of life amongst many.

Love, Beauvoir argues, is a form of devotion and surrender for woman, whereas for men, it's not so much emotional absorption but more companionship and pleasure that doesn't interfere with their autonomy. Woman are there as tools to help them achieve this, to support them, and as a reward for their success. I can see you baulking at this in your own perfect relationships - it's certainly not true of mine. If Jamie isn't supporting me, he's out the damn door. We surrender to each other, and are similiarly devoted.

^{I took this photo at a festival years ago and love it. I have no idea who these people are, and wonder if they are still together.}

Now remember Beauvoir's writing in the 1950's. Today, in western society at least, woman are more autonomous. The feminist movement has fought hard for women's ground, and it's them we have to thank for the freeing of many constraints upon woman. Although we are still fighting for pay equity and the means to be independent - for example, women who stay home and raise children have less savings than men, so are worse off in retirement if they find themselves alone - it is acceptable for women to assert their independence, and find self fulfillment in other ways but love. I'd like to think there is more equality in relationships because of this.

Yet culture and socialisation is a strong force. Woman are raised to tip toe around men's feelings, to serve them - even if they don't believe that is the case. In my experience, when a man is in a bad mood, it's the wife who is placatory, soothing, there for their emotional upset. Whilst I'm massively generalising, and it's certainly not the case for all relationships and nor was it in the 1950's, men are often less emotionally intelligent because they haven't been socialised to be. It's why we have problems with domestic violence (when men lash out because of their inability to control their emotions, often in response to an increasingly complex world over which they have no control), rape (always about asserting power) and male suicide (because men don't talk about their feelings, because they don't know how).

De Beauvoir's insights were quite radical for the 1950's and I imagine the precursor for the sexual liberation movement of the '60's and beyond. I think we're trying to find solutions - examining, for example, how we raise boys and the #metoo movement. I'll never forget the backlash against the senior constable who told woman in Melbourne not to walk in the park just in case they got raped. Are you fucking kidding me, woman cried - it's men that need to control their own movements, and maybe, you know, not rape woman?

Thus whilst people argue that feminism is a dirty word, we need it to raise dialogue about the external constaints on woman, and how these cause internalised beliefs about how women fit into relationships and society, and how this perpetuates emotional structures within our relationships. We need it to challenge, to argue, to pull apart myths.

But then, you know, #tradwives and Tate - there's always a resistance.

I wonder what Beauvoir would say about incel boys.

She'd agree they're a product of what we expect men to be within the patriachy - but perhaps not because they're entitled to sex and affection, but because they're clinging to gendered myths, and thus feel betrayed. They're subscribing to stories about male dominance, about conquest and self worth through success, and that woman are rewards for that rather than autonomous beings.

The kind of thing that would make you laugh, if it wasn't so dangerous. Come on boys, we want to say - sort your own lives out. Us and Simone would say, dude, we know you're in a world of pain - but it ain't our fault. We're just like you. You aren't my superior. We can't bend to your will or be blamed for your problems - I can see why you might be butt hurt about the fact you're not getting laid, though, coz you're like - an asshat?

Beauvoir believed that men define women in opposition to themselves, instead of equal - they're hysterical, irrational, wiley, seductive - oof - and argued that is all about men's desires. She'd probably argue that incel's hostility toward women fails to see them as equal - men make women into idealised objects rather than independent, complex people.

As an existentialist, she'd probably argue that incels aren't taking responsiblity for their situation - their unwilling celibacy, their inability to find a woman, to find success. We laugh and say 'get out of your mother's basement, get a job, go to the gym' - poor incels. We'd probably agree with Beauvoir - it's not really about woman, but the fact they aren't taking more responsiblity for their own freedoms.

There's nothing more unsexy than a man who retreats into blame and victimhood.

It's the woman's fault she left, it's the woman's fault for turning down my creepy advances. Hey mate, how about you try some critical thinking? Where do your beliefs come from? What's their role in maintaining this worldview, and how does it limit you?

Whilst 70 years have passed, what hasn't totally disappeared is the patriachal myths about men and woman that create twisted views of love, sex and identity.

The only way anyone is going to truly free themselves - men or woman - is to by rejecting the myths around our gender and our relationships to others.

This was in response to @galenkp's Weekend Experiences prompt - I chose to respond to the one from The Second Sex, and it probably ended up way too long and no one is going to read it, but it was an interesting thought process anyway.i forgot to publish to deadline but never mind, worse things happen at sea!