A book by the 1966 co-founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Betty Friedan that could be described as the Feminist Manifesto. Released in 1963, it was a major force behind the 1970s explosion of the radical feminist agenda.
The American feminist movement began with her propaganda book, which took as its theme the emptiness of consumer culture, the frustrations of being a dutiful parent, and the wife’s lack of freedom within the family and opportunity for personal self-realization. Friedan was not at all a normal suburban housewife, although she deceptively sought to portray herself as one. She was in reality a left-wing journalist and political activist steeped in Marxist theories of psychological alienation and oppression and bourgeois ennui (a fact she later sought to conceal). She characterized housewives as prisoners of “comfortable concentration camps.”3
The works of French existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) greatly influenced Friedan’s writing. In fact, The Second Stage mimics the title of de Beauvoir’s two-volume work, Le Deuxième Sexe (1949). Friedan once stated of de Beauvoir:
I had learned my own existentialism from her. It was The Second Sex that introduced me to that approach to reality and political responsibility … [and] led me to whatever original analysis of women’s existence I have been able to contribute.
Simone de Beauvoir was a brilliant woman and a gifted mathematician. She was also a devoted admirer of both Hegel and Marx. Thus, de Beauvoir was a hard-core leftist [ii]. Her writings on feminism are filled with the typical Marxist rhetoric of class identity and economic struggle against the male-dominated “bourgeoisie.”
Like most leading French intellectuals of the time, de Beauvoir was influenced by the lectures and unpublished writings of Alexandre Kojève [iii]. It is by reviewing certain portions of the works of the Hegelian/Marxist Kojève that we will be able to vividly see the feminine mistake.
Alexandre Kojève (1902-1968) was a world-class thinker — undoubtedly one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. His influence on intellectuals in Europe (and to some extent, in the U.S.) was enormous.
Kojève published few of his manuscripts during his lifetime. His work was so honest, and his views so explosive, that he avoided directly expressing his ideology to the general public [iv].
Kojève did not hesitate in his work to disclose to us what Hegel and Marx really thought about women. Both Hegel and Marx grounded their philosophical theories in Hegel’s infamous master/slave dialectic. Kojève explained the essence of the master/slave dialectic in a lecture on Hegel (see Note iii below) in 1939:
Man is desire directed toward another desire — that is, desire for recognition — that is, negating action preformed for the sake of satisfying this desire for recognition — that is, bloody fighting for prestige — that is, the relation between master and slave — that is, work — that is, historical evolution that finally comes to the universal and homogenous state and to the absolute knowledge that reveals complete man realized in and by this state. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, men become self-conscious and fully human by subjugating other men. This historical process of certain classes of men enslaving other classes of men eventually ends in the “universal and homogenous state” when all men are either (depending on one’s perspective) “free and equal” or enslaved to a monolithic one-world government.
Kojève’s studies of Hegel and Marx taught Kojève that only men could participate in this struggle. (Man in the passage above means “male human being,” not “any human being.”)
Kojève explained why only men would attain “absolute knowledge” by serving in a one-world state in his posthumously published Esquisse d’une phenomenology du Droit (Outline of a Phenomenology of Right):
It is because man has already been made human (by the negation of his animal nature through fighting and work) that man also “negates” his animal sexuality and transforms his pairing [with a woman] into a family. It is because he is now a master (of a slave) … that the man behaves differently [than an animal] towards his woman and becomes a “husband” of a “wife.” [Page 486 footnote.]
Two pages later, in another footnote, Kojève clarifies and reemphasizes his position:
The humanization of the wife is mediated by the man (the husband) in the same way as the slave (by working) is made human by the mediation of the master (and through rebellion); this is the basis of the analogy between the wife and the slave.
Women are tied to life. They give us life. They are not inclined to fight and die for recognition or the “struggle” or the revolution — so according to Kojève, women can never be fully “human.”
It gets worse. In another footnote in the same chapter Kojève remarks:
The newly born [son], when assumed to be unable to be humanized, … may be killed like any animal (and also the daughter — since she cannot be humanized, humanity being refused to women). [Emphasis added.]
Now you know where the idea of forced abortion comes from in communist Although the mass media present China today as “progressive,” especially after the 2008 Olympics fanfare, it remains among the world’s cruelest regimes. The term “Red China” is not anachronistic. Though certainly less oppressive than during the Cultural Revolution, when it executed millions, China is still governed by a single regime, the Communist Party, which requires members to be atheists. It imprisons dissidents without due process, oppresses Tibet, and enforces a policy, backed by(...)