MarySylvia Hinnant1. Why, according to Beauvoir, is it significant that women most often refer to their group as “women” rather than “we”? (p. xix)- Women do not say “we” unless they are feminist; men say “women” and use the same referring to themselves. Women do not refer to themselves as subjects, rather as a group. More symbolic-agitation. Women have gained only what men are willing to grant, because we want to earn our rights and prove ourselves instead of becoming the “other” or the issue. Women lack concrete means for organizing ourselves into a unit. We have no past, history, and religion that is “ours”, because we were apart of history with little roles we’ve only grown to know. We did not know what wasn’t fair, because we were trained to be “housewives” or not have rights and social standings. As page xx states women have always been mens dependent. There is no slave to master ratio therefore, no need to separate ourselves.2. What connections do you find between the idea of “equality in difference” that Beauvoir criticizes (p. xxiii) and the ideologies of colonial difference, assimilation, and association that we have explored earlier in this class?- Assimilation is the idea of making one French, whereas “association” is more of associating with a certain culture but not getting the full access such as rights or citizenship of that culture. “equality difference” was what was granted to the “other” also known as women. That profitable formula was most significant; it was exactly like the “equal but separate” formula aimed at African Americans. This equalitarian segregation was only one of the most extreme discriminations. This reduces the position of inferiority; the methods of justification are the same. Feminine were seen as blacks. Both assimilation, association, and equality in difference grant a certain community rights, but not rights they actively use or exercise. They are given more as a safety reason rather than think of the “other” as an equal. In my opinion I think it’s more embarrassing that your given rights that you can use over actual assimilation, because what can you do with it?3. How does Beauvoir use the concept of history it self to further her argument?- Beauvior uses history to help show the difference and contrast of how women do not make themselves the minority throughout history or never became the "we" or"other." We see that throughout history women have always been subordinated to men, and hence their dependency is not the result of historical events or social change (pg. xviii) Some everts from history that she uses are that the proletarians have accomplished the revolution in Russia, The Negros of Haiti, indo-Chinese battling for it in Indo-china, the settling of jews; but women have never and the comparison of slavery to master. (pg.xix)4. What role does class and economic status play in this excerpt? Does class matter?- The dominant class bases its argument on a state of affairs itself. (p.xxiv) Class plays a role and who dominates who. In the end it would be a rare occasion duringthis time for a man to listen to a women’s orders. This circle is met with all analogous circumstances; when an individual is kept in a situation of inferiority; the fact that he is inferior. Yes, women are equal/inferior to men today, however, in this time they were not. Womens legal status is the same as the men and frequently it is much to her disadvantage. Even when her rights are legally, recognized in the abstract, long standing custom prevents their full expression in the mores. In the economic sphere men and women can almost be said to makeup two castes; other thing being equal, the former holds the better jobs, get higher wages, and have more opportunity for success than their new competitors. In industry and politics men have a great many more positions and they monopolize the most important