Impartiality

Simone de Beauvoir describes the state of things as society seems to present it. A man can both describe himself by his sex and all humans with 'man.' In this way he can be both a specific party and general. In having this ‘neutral’ stance, men become the standard upon which all things are compared against. This necessarily makes women the ‘others,’ implying that they are not the norm.

She goes on to ask if there is anyone qualified to mediate over the debate. Both an angel and hermaphrodite prove to be insufficient in taking up this position. Finding no naturally impartial judge in the matter, we come back to women who know the complexities of the problem and strive to be objective in their reasoning.

These two discussions in Beauvoir's work explain the difficulty in being impartial on the matter of feminism. On one hand, a man could never completely understand the subtleties of the issue. On the other, it is hard for a woman to argue and be considered unbiased. But really being objective or partial is only the argument for the problem, not the problem itself. People are rarely impartial toward a cause, it's nearly an oxymoron. It is a fact that women are not in an equal position with men. To a high degree, men still are the norm with women the fringe. It seems that this perspective might have to be taken to the extreme in order to move the perception of 'normal.' Not having seen it, I assume Sex and the City declares itself as a feminine-centered work. Several other works push other boundaries. Commander in Chief stared a female president. It could be argued that these push only to be female counterparts for male-originating standards. I wonder how society would react to an example that was completely beyond the norm of both male and female standards. Would that upset the norm enough to seriously consider equalizing the opportunities between sexes? Or is it the wrong
way to think about the issue?