A Comparison and Contrast of de Beauvior and Kaufman - Essay Example

Section/# A Comparison and Contrast of de Beauvior and Kaufman Although at first glance there may not appear to bea great deal of similarity between Kaufman and de Beauvior, the reality of the fact is that although approaching the subject matter from the vastly different standpoints, these authors grapple with much of the same she subject matter. At the very basic understanding of the similarity that exists between these two authors, the reader comes to an appreciation for the nebulous and somewhat impossible to define terms of masculinity and femininity. Moreover, both of these authors seek to to broaden such a definition by expanding it beyond the personal interpretation and taking it out to its ultimate in its; gender norms/mores and societal understandings of what is true masculinity should entail as well is what true femininity should entail. In short, the discussion that both of these authors engage in is much more similar than might otherwise be realized. True, the authors use different terminologies, true the authors discuss the issue from a different standpoint, and true the point that is ultimately reached is somewhat different; however, the means of reaching these respective points both transit through an understanding of the way which societal group dynamics impact upon the way in which individuals come to an appreciation and learn with regards to masculinity/femininity or manhood/womanhood. Accordingly, it will be the function of this brief analysis to trace the way in which these two authors compare, and at times contrast, with regards to the way in which they approach this particular subject matter. The first level of comparison can of course be seen with regards to the fact that Kaufman immediately cuts to the heart of the matter with regards to how society sees and understands the violent male ego stop within the very first paragraph, Kaufman elaborates upon the fact that the mail ego is seen systemically as directly responsible and oftentimes hold mobile for some of the more base and horrifying actions that are exhibited within society as a whole. The pervasive and societal understandings of these aspects of masculinity are related by the somewhat profane discussion of what differentiates “raping from fucking”. Says Kaufman, “It was simple: with rape you tied the woman to a tree” (Kaufman, 1994). However, Kaufman goes on to state of this early representation of the way that societal interpretations impacted upon him; both then and now: “at that time the anatomical details were still a little vague; yet, it was still something ‘we’ did” (Kaufman, 1994). Within such a quote, the reader can come to the clear and definitive understanding that the social norms and gender dynamics that defined masculinity/femininity and/or man and woman were quickly learned and integrated with (albeit in a flawed manner) by the young author and his friend. This of course helps to underscore an understanding with regards to the overall importance that the flawed and patently incomplete understanding of gender norms affects upon each and every layer of society; regardless of age or level of understanding. Much the same way, de Beauvior discusses the means by which societal interpretations of femininity and womanhood have fundamentally been flawed and traditionally experienced high level of repression and discrimination. Although it is not necessary to launch into a step-by-step discussion and enumeration upon each of these forms of discrimination, the fact of the matter is that the reader of de Beauvior’s piece can immediately calm to the interpretation that femininity and womanhood is oftentimes been defined within the same negative stereotypes that have been attributed to Africans and/or Jews. In this way, the author makes the following statement: “the existence of unchangeable he fixed entities that determined given characteristics, such as those ascribe to woman, the Jew, or the Negro, have necessarily pervaded society or an interminably long time” (de Beauvior, 1992). Within such a construct, the reader can gain an appreciation for the fact that societal interpretations of what defines a woman, as compared to the man, has almost invariably been based upon incomplete and biased interpretation that has been foisted upon society by a patriarchal and male-dominated interpretation of history. Further, de Beauvior notes that one of the key changes that is taking place within the past few years has been with regards to the degree in which feminism and womanhood have been redefined. Such a way, the author notes that although a great level changes take place key gulfs have been bridged, the differentiation and unfair definition of the sexes continues nearly unabated up until the present day. Finally, as a means of interpreting the conclusions that both of these losses onto, the reader should understand that although the subject matter is slightly different and the means by which conclusions are ultimately drawn are differentiate, the societal interpretation and the means by which gender norms and mores are ascribed to the individual sexes remains one of the most important components of understanding with regards to how the individual relates with their own gender. Moreover, the comparison that exists between the conclusions of the authors have drawn relates to the manner in which the societal definitions which it been presented herein are ultimately flawed. In such a way, both of these authors agree that the societal definitions are the causal factors saturated munch of the angst and grief the histories exist between understandings and societal integration of masculinity and femininity. However, the key differential that exists with regards to this conclusion is necessarily the fact that Kaufman and de Beauvior differ with respect to the level and extent to which the societal definitions should be sought to be changed. Regardless of the level of disagreement that has been presented within this interpretation, the fact of the matter is that the similarity in approach and the means by which both authors agree on the fact that flawed societal definitions are mostly responsible for the troubles that exist within the current era, helps the reader to underscore the fact that such a dynamic is powerful and can be attributed to the root of both of the issues elaborated upon. References Beauvoir. (1992). Das andere Geschlecht : Sitte und Sexus der Frau. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Brod, H. & Kaufman, M. (1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Read More