Chapter 38 in conclusion

in conclusion No, woman is not our brother; through laziness and depravity we have transformed her into another kind of being, an unknown kind (she has no weapon but her sexuality, and that weapon means not only constant fighting but also but also an unscrupulous weapon of suspicion, admiration, or hatred by the little slaves who never grow up), but by no means our honest companions, by no means people with any kind of [spirit of solidarity] and solidarity. Many men would still agree with Laforgue's words; many men would think that there would always be "fights and disputes"—as Montaigne pointed out—and that fraternity would be impossible at all.In fact today both men and women are dissatisfied with each other.But the question is to find out whether there is an inherent bane that condemns them to divide each other, or whether the conflicts that pit them against simply mark a turning point in human history.

We have seen that, notwithstanding all the legends, biological fate does not thus impose perpetual enmity on both sexes; Benefits: In all levels of animal life, all individuals are under this kind of control, that is, under the control of the species. And man is not just a species, it is also a historical development; it should depend on its attitude towards its own natural, fixed features, as well as its own [artificial features].In fact, even the most insincere attitude towards the world is impossible to prove that the antagonism that exists between the sexes in human beings is of a genuinely physiological nature.And, rather, their enmity might be drawn into an intermediate field between biology and psychology: psychoanalysis.We are told that woman is jealous of a man's penis and wishes to castrate him; but this childish desire for a penis plays an important role in a grown woman's life only if she considers her femininity an insanity. role; and then she would wish to appropriate the male organ as a symbol of all the privileges of man.

We can readily assume that her dream of castration has a symbolic meaning: she wishes, presumably, to deprive the male of his transcendence. But, as we have seen, her desire is quite ambiguous: she wishes to possess this transcendence in a paradoxical way, that is to say, she both values ​​it and denies it, wants to devote herself to it. , and wanted to confine it within her own sphere.That is to say, the drama does not unfold on a sexual level; and, in our view, sexuality does not determine fate, nor does it itself provide important clues to explain human behavior, but only The overall situation of the decision.The struggle between the sexes does not directly imply differences in the anatomy of men and women.In fact, when one arouses this struggle, one takes for granted the struggle between two ambiguous essences, eternal femininity and eternal masculinity, in the realm of ideas without beginning and end; The fact is that this great struggle corresponds to two different historical junctures and, after all, has two completely different forms.

A woman who is enclosed in immanence also has the power to keep a man in that cage; then that cage becomes one with the world, and the woman no longer suffers from being imprisoned there, because the mother, Wives and mistresses became caretakers.Society has pronounced woman inferior according to a code made by man, so that she can abolish this inferiority only by destroying male superiority.So she attacks the man who cripples her, who dominates her, she plays against him, she rejects his truth and his worth.But she does so only in self-defense; it is neither a fixed nature nor a wrong choice that condemns her to be intrinsic and inferior.They were forced upon her.All oppression creates a state of war.This is without exception.The survivor, who is regarded as the secondary, cannot but demand the re-establishment of her sovereign status.

Today, this struggle takes another form; instead of wishing to imprison a man, women try to escape him. She doesn't want to drag him into the realm of immanence anymore, but reveals her own transcendence.The male attitude, however, creates a new conflict: the male is unwilling to let her go.He is more than willing to remain a sovereign subject, the absolute superior, the principal; he refuses to recognize his partner as his equal in any particular respect.She responded to his distrust with aggression.It is no longer a question of war between two persons, each in its own sphere: the class claiming its rights jumps out of the trenches, the privileged class resists.Here, two kinds of transcendence struggle face to face; each side of freedom does not want to recognize the other, and each wants to dominate the other.

This other attitude is not only spiritual but also sexual. The "feminine" woman, while making herself prey, also wants to use her physical passivity to subdue the man; while she is submissively becoming prey, she is also busy arousing his desire as a means. Snare him and bind him.The emancipated woman, on the other hand, wants to be the active and the possessive; she refuses to accept the passivity that men try to force upon her.So Élise and her imitators deny the value of that type of activity in men; they place the flesh above the spirit, chance above freedom, and their everyday wisdom above creative audacity.But the "modern" woman also recognizes the value of men: she prides herself on thinking, acting, working, and creating in the way of men; she does not despise them, but claims to be their equal.

In so far as she expresses herself in definite action, the request is legitimate, though male arrogance is certainly responsible for it.But men are bound to argue that women often make a mess of things.One, Mabel Dodge Lujan, tried to subdue D. H. Lawrence by her femininity, so that she might later dominate him spiritually; many women, in order to successfully prove their equality with men, tried Sex is the means to gain male patronage; they play both sides, demanding old respect as well as new respect, by their old magic and their new power.Men, of course, must defend themselves indignantly;

But he is also duplicity, asking women to compete fairly while refusing to give them the necessary trump cards due to mistrust and hostility.In fact, an obvious struggle between them is impossible, because woman's existence is ambiguous; she is not a subject before men, but an absurdly subjective object; This contradiction had puzzling consequences.Even if she uses her weaknesses as well as her strengths as a weapon, it's not wily because while she's actively striving for a sovereign position, she can't help but find excuses for her gullibility and passivity; certainly not a legitimate strategy But this is determined by her established ambiguous situation.However, when a man sees her as a free independent, he is angry when he sees that she is still a trap to him; if he makes her feel satisfied and satisfied when she poses as a prey, Then he would find her demands for autonomy irritating; whatever he did, he would feel cheated and she would feel masochistic.

This discord will continue as long as men and women do not recognize each other as equals, that is, as long as femininity persists as such.Which gender is more eager to maintain femininity?The woman, though she is being liberated from this temperament, still wishes to maintain the privileges it brings; and if so, the man will expect her to limit it. "It is easier to condemn a sex than to excuse one," said Montaigne.Praise and condemnation are futile.In fact, if this vicious circle is so difficult to break, it is because each sex is a victim of the other and a victim of itself. Agreement can be easily reached between two opposing adversaries in complete freedom: all the more so if war is of no benefit to either party.But the complexity of the whole romantic affair comes from the fact that each partner is helping and comforting the other; the woman is chasing the dream of submission, the man the dream of approval.The meager authenticity is not compensated: each party blames the other for causing misfortune while succumbing to the temptation of comfort; men and women hate each other for their own insincerity and meanness to a devastating defeat.

We have seen why men enslave women in the first place; the devaluation of women is a necessary step in human evolution, but it can also lead to cooperation between the sexes; the so-called oppression should be interpreted as the survival of others through identification with others (he oppresses others) , to escape the tendency of the self.This tendency is present today in every man as an individual; and most men succumb to it.Through the wife, the lover through the mistress, the husband wants to find himself in the permanent idol form; he wants to use her to find his masculinity, his sovereignty, his myth of instant fulfillment. "My husband doesn't watch movies at all," says his wife, engraving vague masculinity on the marble of eternity.But he himself is the slave of his double ego: what an effort it takes to create an image that makes him dangerous!Despite his success in all respects, this image also depends on the capricious freedom of women: he must always be careful to make this image work for him.A man is obsessed with making himself appear masculine, important and superior;

He is also aggressive, restless; he is hostile to women because he is afraid of them; he is afraid of them because he is afraid of that person, that image with which he himself identifies.How much time and energy he expended in dispelling, sublimating, and diverting complexes, in talking about men of letters, in seducing them, in fearing them!He wanted to free himself while freeing them, but that was what he was afraid of.So he clings stubbornly to the mystic, so as to keep woman in chains. Many men have realized that she is being deceived. "How unfortunate it is to be a woman! Yet when one is a woman, one's misfortune lies in the fact that she does not actually realize that it is an unhappiness," said Kierkegaard.Efforts have long been made to hide this misfortune.For example, although the institution of guardianship has long since been abolished, women have always had "guardians," and if they are given the rights of old guardians, it is for the woman's own benefit.Keeping her out of work and keeping her at home is to keep her safe from herself and to ensure her happiness.We have seen what a beautiful veil is thrown over her drudgery of domestic and motherly burdens: she trades her freedom for the false fortune of "femininity."Balzac describes this ruse very vividly, exhorting men to treat her as a slave while convincing her that she is queen.Many men are not so cynical and want to admit that she does have privilege.Some sociologists in the United States today teach the theory of "lower-class interests."It is also often claimed in France (though less scientifically) that workers are lucky because they don't have to "groom themselves" and that beggars are luckier because they can sleep in rags on the sidewalk and enjoy the pleasure that de Beaux Earl Meng and the Wendell family will never enjoy it.Like the unscrupulous poor man who merrily catches fleas, like the poor Negro who laughs while being whipped, like the happy Tunisian Arab who smiles while burying his starving child, women There is also that incomparable privilege of being without responsibility. She has "that good side" though she is free from the shackles of nasty burdens and cares.But it is disconcerting that, because of a perverse perversion (undoubtedly related to original sin) that persists for centuries and exists in all countries, those on the good side are always turning to their protectors: "I Can't take it anymore! Give me something to feed me!" But the generous capitalists, generous colonists, super males are holding their guns tightly in their hands: "Keep on the good side, put it Stick to it!" It must be admitted that men see women more as complicit than the oppressor usually sees the oppressed. They were thus empowered to falsely claim that she had been longing for the fate they had imposed upon her.We have seen that all the main features of her education conjoined to prevent her from taking the path of rebellion and adventure.Society usually (beginning with her respected parents) hypocritically extols to her the high values ​​of love, devotion, self-giving, and goes on to conceal from her the fact that neither lovers nor husbands nor her children are willing to Accept all this heavy burden.The reason she is willing to believe these lies is because they lead her to the easy downhill: that other people have committed the worst crimes against her in this; This obedience is her real mission (which is very tempting to every survivor who is anxious about freedom), so as to damage her and buy her off.If a child is taught to be lazy from an early age, to have fun all day long, not to learn, and not to prove himself useful, then when he grows up, it is hard to say that he is willing to be incompetent and ignorant; Educated large, she was never impressed by having to take responsibility for her own existence.So it is easy for her to make herself dependent on others for protection, love, help, and supervision, and it is easy for her to become obsessed with the hope of self-fulfillment without doing anything about it.She made a mistake in giving in to this temptation, but the man doesn't deserve to blame her because he made her fall for it.When they conflict, each holds the other accountable for the situation; she blames him for making her like this: "Nobody taught me to reason and fend for myself"; He would accuse her, and she had accepted the consequences: "You don't know anything, you're incompetent" and so on.Each sex thinks it can justify itself by taking this offensive; but the mistakes made by one cannot excuse the guilt of the other. The countless conflicts that pit men and women against each other arise from the fact that each is not prepared to bear all the consequences of a situation offered by the one and accepted by the other. "Equality in inequality" is a dubious notion, used by one to conceal his despotism, and the other to conceal her cowardice, a concept that does not stand the test of experience: in exchange, what a woman The abstract equality demanded is actually guaranteed, and the concrete inequality men demand is already present.As a result, in every union there is an endless debate about the ambiguities of "giving" and "possessing": she complains that she has given her everything, he protests that she has everything he has.Woman has to understand that exchange (which is the fundamental law of political economy) is based on the value of the offered commodity to the buyer, not to the seller; and she is deceived into thinking she is of infinite value.In fact, she is to man an entertainment, a pleasure, a companion, a secondary gift; he is to her the meaning of her existence, the justification of her existence.Therefore, this exchange is not an equivalent exchange. This inequality manifests itself especially in the fact that the time they spend together, though apparently equal, is actually of different value to the two parties.When a man spends his evenings with his mistress, he may do what is good for his career, he may see friends, he may cultivate business relations, he may seek to recreate; For men, time is a positive value, meaning money, fame and happiness.To the idle woman, on the other hand, time is a burden she wishes to shed; it is good for her if she succeeds in killing it, so that the presence of a man will do enough good.In many cases, a man's apparent interest in fornication stems from the sexual benefits he derives from it: if necessary, he would be willing to spend as much time with his mistress as the sexual act requires ; but with exceptions, as far as she was concerned, it was all she wished to spend the extra time on her hands; Be willing to spend time talking and "going out" with her, otherwise she wouldn't have surrendered her own body.If the price is generally not too high in the man's opinion, it will be balanced, depending, of course, on how strong his desire is and how great the sacrifice he thinks it will be.But when a woman demands or gives too much of her time, she acts like a river overflowing its banks with only aggression, and a man would rather get nothing than ask too much.She then lowers her demands, but the balance is often at the expense of tension between the two, as she feels that the man has "possessed" her cheaply, and he feels that her asking price is too high.There is of course some humor in such an analysis; but unless these love affairs have a passion of jealousy and exclusiveness, so that the man wants to possess the woman completely, such conflicts will continue to arise in the case of affection, desire, and even love.He always has "something else to do" that takes his time; she has plenty of time to squander; He considered the many hours she gave him not a gift but a burden. Usually, he agrees to bear this burden because he is well aware that he is on the privileged side, and he has a good conscience; if he is a reasonable and good-hearted person, he will try to compensate generously for this inequality.But he also takes pride in his pity, so he treats the woman like an ungrateful at the first confrontation, thinking with a little exasperation: "I'm too good for her." She is convinced that her devotion is highly Worthy, yet felt that she was humiliated by behaving like a beggar. Here we find inexorably the reason why woman so often shows practical ability; she has a clear conscience because she belongs to the unprivileged party; She even takes pleasure in the opportunity of giving vent to her resentment against a lover who does not give her what she wants: since he does not give her enough, she takes everything from him for a savage pleasure.Then the wounded lover will suddenly see that there is [full] value in the intrigue at every moment which he more or less despises, and he will gladly promise her everything, even if he is forced to give it. There will be a feeling of being used.He'll accuse his mistress of blackmailing him: she'll call him a cheapskate; both will feel masochistic. Blaming and justifying are still useless, because justice can never be realized in injustice.It is impossible for a colonial officer to do justice to a native, and just as it is impossible for a general to do justice to his soldiers; the only solution is not to be a colonist, not to be a military chief; but it is impossible for a man not to be a man; On the one hand, he is unknowingly in a position of blame, deeply distressed by the consequences of what was not really his fault; on the other hand, she is unknowingly turned into a victim and a shrew.Sometimes he resists, becomes ruthless, but then he makes himself an accomplice to injustice, and the fault really belongs to him.Sometimes he would let himself be consumed, swallowed up by that demanding victim; but then he would feel fooled again.Often he had to compromise, and that compromise both humiliated and unsettled him.A mild-tempered man would be tortured by the situation rather than by the woman herself, so in a sense the vanquished would be better off; If the weight of fate crushes a man, she will struggle in hopeless chaos. In everyday life we ​​come across many such situations which cannot be satisfactorily resolved as they depend on unpleasant circumstances.A man feels himself a victim if he is forced to support materially and spiritually a woman he no longer loves; Treat victims fairly.This misfortune begins not with personal degradation (insincerity begins when one party accuses another), but rather with the individual's powerlessness before him.Women are "haunting," they are a total burden, they are punished for it; the essence of the matter is that their situation is no different from that of a parasite that sucks the vitality of another organism.Let them have their own living strength, let them have the means to attack the world and recapture their own essence! Then their attachment will be removed -- and the man's attachment will also be removed.There is no doubt that both sexes will benefit enormously from this new situation. A society where men and women are equal is easy to see, because that is the world the Soviet Revolution promised: women would be paid equally for equal work because they were brought up and educated exactly like men.Sexual liberty will be recognized by custom, but sex will not be seen as paid "service"; women will have to earn their living in other ways; marriage will be based on the freedom of spouses to break off the engagement at will; motherhood The obligation will be voluntary, which means that contraception and abortion will be recognized, and that all mothers and their children, whether married or not, will have full and equal rights; Maternity leave will be paid by the state, and the state will assume responsibility for the upbringing of the children, but this does not mean that the children will be separated from their parents, but that they will not be fully handed over to them. But can doing so change laws, institutions, customs, public opinion, and entire social relations?Can men and women be truly equal? "A woman will always be a woman," says the skeptic.Other observers also predicted that abandoning their femininity would turn them not into men themselves, but only into monsters.Perhaps it will also be admitted that women today are creatures of nature; we must reiterate that nothing is natural in human society, and that women, like many other products, are an elaborate product of civilization.The intervention of others played a decisive role in her destiny, that is to say, if the action had taken another direction, it would have had quite a different result.What defines a woman is not her hormones or mystical instincts, but the way her body and her relationship to the world are tempered by the actions of others rather than her own.The gulf that separates boys and girls is deliberately opened between them from their earliest childhood; afterward a woman can only be what she was made to be, and that past must overshadow her all her life.If its effects are understood, it becomes clear that her fate will not always be predetermined. Of course, we should not think that a change in a woman's economic status can change her, although this factor was and still is the basic factor in her evolution; And the other outcomes it promises and demands, the new type of woman could not have emerged.At this moment these results have not been achieved anywhere, not in France or America, not in Russia; and this is why women today are torn between the past and the future.She often presents herself as a "real woman" while pretending to be a man, so she is uncomfortable not only with her masculine attire, but also with her body.She had to shed the old skin and cut new clothes for herself.This, she can only do through social evolution.No educator today can produce a female being who may be entirely homologous to the male; if the girl were brought up in the same way as the boy, she would consider herself an oddity, and would identify herself as a new sex.Stendhal realized this when he said, "Forests must be planted all at once." But on the contrary, if we think of a society as concretely achieving gender equality, then this equality will be in everyone. There are new manifestations. If a little girl is brought up from the first as her brother is treated, the same demands are made of her, the same rewards and punishments are given, the same severity is given to her, the same liberty is given to her, and the same studies are given to her, Play the same game, promise her the same future, make her think that the men and women around her are undeniably equal to her, and the meaning of castration and Electra complex will be completely corrected.Once the mother assumes, on the same basis as the father, the material and spiritual responsibilities of the couple, she enjoys the same enduring prestige; the child finds around her a world of both sexes, not a world of masculinity.Had she been more emotionally attracted to her father (which is not always the case), her love for him would have had the color of a competing will rather than a feeling of weakness; her orientation would not have been passivity.If she is allowed to check her abilities at work and in sports, to actively compete with boys, and to compensate for the promise of having children, she will not think that the lack of a penis is enough to cause an inferiority complex; A superiority complex, which would not arise in him if he had respected women as he respected men.Otherwise, the girl will not seek fruitless compensation through narcissism and dreams, nor will she take her fate for granted; she will be interested in what she has to do, and will devote herself to her career without reservation. I have already pointed out that the transition to adolescence, when menstruation horrifies her only because she has suddenly become a woman, would be much easier if she had been able to look further into the future of adult freedom.If she wasn't terribly disgusted with her whole lot, she'd also be calmer in having her young sex; a constant flow of sexual messages would have helped her through this crisis.And because of a co-education, the majestic mystique of man need not enter her mind: it would be dispelled by constant company and open competition. Objections to the co-education system always imply respect for the sexual taboo; but such an effort to thwart the child's sexual curiosity and pleasure is utterly useless; it produces only inhibitions, obsessions, and neuroses .The excesses of sentimentality, homosexual passion, and platonic infatuation displayed by young girls, with their foolish and frivolous consequences, are more harmful than some childish sexual play and a few explicit sexual experiences.It is especially advantageous for the girl to be immune to influences that would oppose her taking responsibility for her own existence, because then she would not be looking for a demigod among men, but only for a comrade, a friend, a companion.Sex and love would be of a transcendent quality, not of resignation; she could feel them as a relationship between two equals.This does not mean, of course, that at the stroke of a pen all the difficulties a child has to overcome in becoming a man are removed; not even the wisest and most tolerant education can remove the child's experience of things; we can only hope Difficulties do not pile up on her path for no reason.Progress is evidenced by the fact that "wicked" little girls no longer suffer from the fire.Psychoanalysis certainly offers some guidance to parents, but the present state of sexual education and mobilization of women is so deplorable that no objection to its radical change can be considered tenable. of.It is not a question of eliminating the contingency and misery of the human condition manifested in woman, but of giving her the means to transcend them. Woman is by no means the victim of mysterious fate; the qualities that identify her specifically as woman derive their importance from the meanings placed upon them.If they are treated with a new angle in the future, they may be overcome.So, as we have seen, although a woman feels (and often resents) male dominance through her sexual experience, it must not be concluded that her ovaries condemn her to live forever on her knees.Male aggression seems to be an aristocratic privilege only in a system that fully wants to affirm male sovereignty; the reason why a woman feels very passive in sexual behavior is only because she has developed such five laws in herself.Many modern women who demand human dignity still look forward to their sex life from the standpoint of traditional slavishness: Since they think it's humiliating for them to lie under a man and let him penetrate them, they become tense and thus frigid.However, if the reality were different, the symbolic meaning expressed in erotic gestures and positions would also be different: For example, a woman who pays her lover and dominates him can be proud of her super-laziness and think she is enslaving hard-working men.There are many couples who are living a normal sex life now, and their concept of winning and losing is being replaced by the concept of exchange. In fact, like woman, man is also carnal, so he is also passive, the plaything of his hormones and his species, and the prey to the restlessness of desire.Like him, she was a voluntary, a voluntary, an active person in the height of sensual excitement; they all experienced in their own way that strange and ambiguous existence in the body. .In those struggles that they perceive to be against each other, each is actually fighting with itself, each is projecting onto the other that part of itself it loathes; each is not experiencing the ambiguity of their situation, but I want the other party to tolerate that pitiful status and leave my dignity to myself.However, if both parties accept this ambiguity with moderation and maintain a genuine mutual self-esteem, they will see each other as equals and experience their erotic drama in harmony.The fact that we are all human beings is of infinite importance compared with all the qualities that distinguish people from one another; Advantage is by no means a given: the definition of what the ancients called "virtue" is somehow "up to us."The same drama of body and spirit, finiteness and transcendence is played out in both sexes; both are corrupted by time, both await death, each has the same essential need for the other; and from their own freedom they can get the same honor.If they would have a taste of it, they would no longer be tempted to contend for dubious privileges, and fraternity would be established among them. Some would say to me that this is sheer utopian fantasy, since it is impossible for a woman to "reform" unless society first makes her truly equal to men.Conservatives would certainly refer to that vicious circle in this context; however, history is not circular.If a class is inferior, it is undoubtedly inferior; but freedom breaks the cycle.Let black people vote and they will be entitled to vote: let a woman take responsibilities and she can take them.In fact, the oppressor cannot be expected to act with disinterested generosity; but sometimes it is the revolt of the oppressed, and sometimes even the evolution of the hierarchy of privilege itself, that creates new situations; To partially liberate: It just means women are going to keep climbing, and the success they're achieving gives them the courage to do so.It is almost certain that sooner or later they will achieve full economic and social equality, which will cause profound spiritual changes. However that may be, there will always be objections that such a world is not ideal, if achievable.When a woman is "exactly like" her man, life loses its essence and interest.这个论点也同样没有什么新鲜的：那些希望永远保持现状的人，总是为奇迹般的过去即将消失而流泪，并不为年轻的未来而欢笑。完全正确，消灭奴隶贸易就是意味着布满杜鹃花和山茶花的美丽壮观的大种植园的消失，就是意味着整个高尚的南方文明的毁灭。在饱经沧桑的阁楼上，仍有着稀有古老的花边以及西斯廷［阉人]的清脆纯正的声音，而某种“女性魅力”也处在到达同样布满灰尘的陈列室的路途中。我同意，的确只有野蛮人才不会去欣赏那精致的花卉，那稀有的花边，闺人那清脆纯正的声音，以及那女性的魅力。 当“迷人的女人”展示出她的全部风采时，她是一个比令蓝波激动的“愚蠢的绘画、门庭饰版、风景、爱出风头者的耀眼标志、大众彩色石印版”，更为令人激动的客体；用最现代的手法去装饰，用最新颖的技术去变美，她那遥远的古代从底比斯、从克里特、从奇琴伊察时起就一直是这样；她也是深深树立在非洲丛林中的图腾；她是直升机，她也是小鸟；而最令人惊叹的是：在她那着色的头发下面，森林的沙沙响声变成了思想，话语从她的双乳中流出。男人向这奇妙的东西伸出了渴望的双手，但是当抓住时，它却消失了；和其他所有人一样，妻子和情妇也是用她们的嘴来说话：她们话的价值正好等于她们本人的价值，也正好等于她们乳房的价值。这样一种令人难以捉摸的奇迹——也是十分罕见的奇迹，可以为我们永远保持有害于两性的处境进行辩护吗？人们可以去欣赏花卉之美和女人之魅力，也可以对它们的真正价值作出评价；但如果这些财富要以鲜血和不幸为代价，则必须把它们牺牲掉。 然而实际上，这种牺牲在男人看来也是一种特别重大的牺牲；他们当中只有极少数人真心真意地希望女人能够作出这样的牺牲；在他们当中，那些轻视女人的人认为，他们从这种牺牲当中什么也得不到，那些珍爱她的人则认为，他们在这种牺牲中失去的太多了。的确，在当前的演变中，进步比女性较力的本身更有威胁性：女人在开始为自己而生存的时候，将会放弃她在男性世界的特权地位所归之于的替身和中介的功能；男人在完全保持沉默和要求别的自由人出现之间进退两难，他认为，一个既是他的替身又是被动物的人是一种巨大的财富。他用以设想他的伙伴的借口，可能是虚构的，但她作为其根源或借口的体验，却完全是真实的：几乎没有哪种体验能比这种体验更珍贵、更亲密、更热情的了。不可否认，女性的依附性、劣等性和哀怨赋予女人以特殊的个性；毫无疑问，女人的自主性虽然免去了男人的许多麻烦，但也会拒绝给予他们许多便利。毫无疑问，某些形式的性冒险将会在明天的世界上消失。但这并不意味着爱情、幸福、诗意和梦想也会从明天的世界上消失掉。 让我们不要忘记，我们缺乏想像力只能导致消灭未来；对我们来说，未来只是一种抽象； 我们每个人都在暗自哀叹他自己在未来将不复存在。但是明天的人类将是朝气蓬勃的肉体，并且有自己的有意识的自由；明天将是送给人类的礼物，而人类也会更喜欢明天。我们所无法想像的肉体与情感的新型关系将在两性之间出现；其实，今天在男女之间已经出现了过去几百年所无法想像的友谊、竞争、共谋和同志关系，不论这种关系是贞洁的还是肉欲的。需要指出的一点是，在我看来，没有哪种见解能比注定让新世界一成不变、因而让它令人厌倦的见解更有争议性的了。我认为，目前这个世界并没有摆脱令人厌烦的事物的束缚，而自由永远不会产生一成不变的东西。 首先，男女之间会永远存在某些差别；她的性爱因而她的性世界有着它们自己的特殊形式，所以不能不产生具有特殊性质的肉欲和敏感性。这意味着，她同她自己的身体、同男性身体、同孩子的关系，将永远不会和男性同他自己的身体、同女性身体。同孩子的关系完全一样；那些特别强调“在差别中求平等”的人，也许会愿意接受我的这一观点，即在平等中求差别的生存是可以实现的。其次，是制度导致了一成不变。后宫的奴隶们虽然年轻美丽，在苏丹拥抱中却始终是同样的人；当基督教赋予人类女性以灵魂时，它使性爱有了罪恶和神话的特点。如果社会把女人的主权个性还给她，并不会因此破坏情人拥抱的动人力量。 认为男女在具体问题上实现了平等，就不可能再有狂喜、堕落、销魂和激情，这也是毫无根据的；使肉体与精神、瞬间与时间、内在的昏厥与超越的挑战、绝对的快感与虚无的忘怀相对抗的种种矛盾，将永远无法解决；紧张、痛苦、快活、受挫以及生存胜利，将永远会在性行为中得到具体表现。所谓妇女解放，就是让她不再局限于她同男人的关系，而不是不让她有这种关系。即使她有自己的独立生存，她也仍然会不折不扣地为他而生存：尽管相互承认对方是主体，但每一方对于对方仍！日是他者。他们之间关系的这种相互性，将不会消灭由于把人类分成两个单独种类而发生的奇迹——欲望、占有、爱情、梦想、冒险；所以那些令我们激动的字眼——“给予”、“征服”和“结合”，将不会失去其意义。相反，当我们废除半个人类的奴隶制，以及废除它所暗示的整个虚伪制度时，人类的“划分”将会显露出其真正的意义，人类的夫妇关系将会找到其真正的形式。马克思曾说：“人和人之间的直接的、自然的、必然的关系是男女之间的关系。……从这种关系的性质就可以看出，人在何种程度上成为并把自己理解为类存在物、人；男女之间的关系是人和人之间最自然的关系。因此，这种关系表明人的自然的行为在何种程度上成了人的行为，或人的本质在何种程度上对他来说成了自然。” 对这种情况不可能有更透彻的阐述了，这就是说，要在既定世界当中建立一个自由领域。 要取得最大的胜利，男人和女人首先就必须依据并通过他们的自然差异，去毫不含糊地肯定他们的手足关系。