He further arguesthatheteronormativitycovers its ownnarcissistic
investments by projecting or displacing them onqueerness.De Beauvoir calls the Other theminority, the leastfavored one and often a woman, when compared to aman, "for a man represents both the positive and theneutral, as indicated by the common use of man todesignate human beings in general; whereas womanrepresents only the negative, defined by limitingcriteria, without reciprocity" (McCann, 33).BettyFriedansupported this thought when she interviewedwomen and the majority of them identified themselvesin their role in the private sphere, rather thanaddressing their own personal achievements. Theyautomatically identified as the Other without knowing.Although the Other may be influenced by a sociallyconstructed society, one can argue that society hasthe power to change this creation (Haslanger).In an effort to dismantle the notion of the Other,Cheshire Calhounproposed adeconstructionof the
word "woman" from a subordinate association and toreconstruct it by proving women do not need to berationalized by male dominance.
This wouldcontribute to the idea of the Other and minimize thehierarchal connotation this word implies.Sarojini Sahoo, anIndianfeminist writer, agrees
with De Beauvoir that women can only freethemselves by “thinking, taking action, working,creating, on the same terms as men; instead ofseeking to disparage them, she declares herself theirequal." She disagrees, however, that though womenhave the same status to men as human beings, theyhave their own identity and they are different frommen. They are "others" in real definition, but this is notin context with Hegelian definition of “others”. It is notalways due to man’s "active" and "subjective"demands. They are the others, unknowingly acceptingthe subjugation as a part of "subjectivity".
Sahoo,however contends that whilst the woman identity iscertainly constitutionally different from that of man,men and women still share a basic human equality.Thus the harmful asymmetric sex/gender "Othering"arises accidentally and ‘passively’ from natural,unavoidable intersubjectivity.
Why I differ from the Second Wave feminists orWestern Feminists
For many feminist thinkers, after marriage a familybreeds patriarchy. Happily-married women areconsidered false and double-crossing. The titles ofpopular feminist books from the early movementhighlight the split between gender feminists andwomen who chose domesticity. Jill Johnston in her“Lesbian Nation” (1973) said married women who areheterosexual females 'traitors'; Kate Millett, in her“Sexual Politics” (1970), redefined heterosexual sexas a power struggle; whereas it was argued in KathrinPerutz's “Marriage is Hell” (1972) and Ellen Peck's“The Baby Trap” (1971), that motherhood blocks theliberation of a woman. These feminists always try topaint marriage as legalized prostitution andheterosexual intercourse as rape. And they come tothe decision men are the enemy and families areprisons.
My Thoughts on Marriage and Parenting
Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer were againstmarriage in their earlier thoughts. But they tried toskip from their anti marriage ideas in later periods oftheir lives. Marriage is a three-sided arrangementbetween a husband, a wife and society. That is,society legally defines what a marriage is and how itcan be dissolved. But marriage is, on the other hand,for partners of the marriage; it is more of an individualrelationship than a social matter. This is the mainreason of crisis. Individually, I think marriage must betaken out of the social realm and fully put back intothe private one. Society should withdraw frommarriage and allow the adults involved to work outtheir own definition of justice in the privacy of theirown homes.Our feminist thinkers always try to skip the ideathat offspring-begging is a natural instinct of a woman