Simone de Beauvoir: Feminist Icon Was Lesbian Pedophile
October 5, 2014
Despite condemning female subjugation, Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) was a virtual slave of her lover the philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. "Her submissiveness to him was not simply a professional matter," a biographer wrote.
In 1943, Simone de Beauvoir was fired from her teaching job
for seducing female teenage students. Her teaching license was permanently revoked.
She and Jean-Paul Sartre had developed a pattern, which they called the "trio," in which de Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre.
Simone de Beauvoir's irrational hatred for women, marriage and family pervades her writings, which have
been force-fed to unsuspecting young women by our Illuminati-controlled media and schools.
by Lucien Valsan
From A Voice for Men (unabridged)
(Excerpt by henrymakow.com)
De Beauvoir was not just a public advocate for pedophilia, she was but an active ... abuser. She was recruiting pupils, exploiting them, and then passing them to Jean-Paul Sartre, sometimes separately, sometimes for a ménage à trois. In her 2008 book, Simone de Beauvoir? Meet Jean-Paul Sartre, Carole Seymour Jones characterizes de Beauvoir as a "child abuser."
For long periods, the couple became a "trio", though the arrangement rarely worked out well for the third party: at least two of de Beauvoir's former pupils found themselves becoming first her lover, then Sartre's, only for the couple to close ranks against them once the fun wore off.[...]
For de Beauvoir (as well as for Sartre), age didn't matter as long as the partners were younger than she and Sartre. The possibility that others might get hurt or sexually exploited wasn't even remotely on the eminent feminist's radar, who thought that "grooming" girls in order for Sartre to take their virginity (Sartre's words, not ours) was in and of itself an act of sexual empowerment for those girls.
But if these escapades ... don't convince you of the questionable character
of de Beauvoir, let's have a look through her feminist writings,
which are so filled with misogyny that it's hard to find an
equivalent...
De Beauvoir's best known book, The Second Sex, had the following to say about wives:
The wife feeds on [her husband] like a parasite; but a parasite is not a triumphant master.
Over a quarter of a century later, in 1975, in a dialogue with another feminist, Betty Friedan, de Beauvoir said:
No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.
Actually, de Beauvoir's hatred of maternity and mothers in general is very obvious throughout The Second Sex:
Motherhood relegates woman to a sedentary existence; it is natural for her to stay at home while men hunt, fish, and go to war.
[The mother] is plant and animal, a collection of colloids, an incubator, an egg; she frightens children who are concerned with their own bodies and provokes sniggers from young men because she is a human being, consciousness and freedom, who has become a passive instrument of life.
And when this eminent feminist started bashing women's bodies, nobody could stop her:
The psychic attitude evoked by menstrual servitude constitutes a heavy handicap.
[...]a woman's body--and specifically the girl's--is a "hysterical" body in the sense that there is, so to speak, no distance between psychic life and its physiological realization. The turmoil brought about by the girl's discovery of the problems of puberty exacerbates them. Because her body is suspect to her, she scrutinizes it with anxiety and sees it as sick: it is sick.
The mammary glands that develop at puberty have no role in the woman's individual economy: they can be removed at any moment in her life.
De Beauvoir then goes on to explain how evil and oppressive the family is for the development of a girl. If the father has the audacity to be proud and appreciative of his daughter's successes, then that's yet another evidence of oppression of the daughter by the father. But if fathers get away fairly easy, mothers who dare to discipline their daughters get an even harsher admonition from the eminent feminist:
Mothers--we will see--are blindly hostile to freeing their daughters and, more or less deliberately, work at bullying them even more; for the adolescent boy, his effort to become a man is respected, and he is already granted great freedom. The girl is required to stay home; her outside activities are watched over.
So, are we clear? The fact that some
parents were not letting their girls go out after a certain hour in
the Nazi-occupied France in the middle of World War II constitutes
oppression.
The hypocrisy of this woman is both
fascinating to study and revolting at the same time. Simone de
Beauvoir, worshiped even today as a great icon of the "good"
feminism of the 1960s.
In other words, while numerous Romanians left in the USSR were being deported into the Gulag, while the intellectual elite of this country was being decimated in concentration camps like Râmnicu Sărat, Pitești, or Aiud, and while even 12-year-old boys were being tortured in Communist prisons for conspiracy against the socialist order, Simone de Beauvoir was publishing The Second Sex in which she was explaining how women's liberation is intimately related to the fate of socialism while vehemently denying, alongside with her lover, the Stalinist atrocities that were taking place in the same moments.
And we, the Romanian taxpayers, now pay for students to go to SNSPA and study this low-life as if she's someone we should look up to. Well, this is a real example of state-sponsored misogyny! But I have a feeling that the feminist elite is very comfortable with it.
----------
Lucien Valsan is the European News Director for AVfM, the host of The Voice of
Europe radio program, and can be reached at lucian@avoiceformen.com .This originally appeared in AVfM Romania.
Related - Menage a Trois Third Tells her Story
----------- Seymour Jones' Updated Book
------------ Normalizing Pedophilia & the Age of Consent
Gary said (October 7, 2014):
I think it’s always worthwhile to point out the clay feet of our idols (or icons)! Both Beauvoir and Sartre trudged on big clay feet (!)-- as so many “intellectuals†do! Much of what “intellectuals†write and say is gobbledygook that simply mystifies the masses who conclude that these elitists must be a lot smarter than the common folks! Sartre, too, wrote much nonsense, like “existence precedes essenceâ€! Yeah, yeah, yeah! That’s supposed to mean we define ourselves as we go along, but what sentient being which/who has ever lived has been totally free of “outside†influences of Nature or Nurture? (Sartre proposed getting around this Gordion Knot by declaring in “No Exit†that “hell is other peopleâ€!)
Hell can certainly be “other peopleâ€--especially when one is a child or teen set upon by sexual predators like Beauvoir or Sartre! The “Woman’s Movement†had best look for other icons than Beauvoir or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, (not to imply that they are predators, just not very shiny examples of acuity and decency--of whatever gender!) Why must a Woman, or a Man, be anti-family to be “freeâ€? Who defines such freedom? Can’t commitment help to anchor freedom--which is very likely to be anarchic without commitment?
One swipe here is gratuitous: The author condemns Beauvoir’s “socialism†because she advocated “socialism†but did not speak out against Stalin’s version of it in Romania and elsewhere. That’s unfair! I like “democracy,†but I don’t like the way it is practiced in the US and in many other nations that call themselves democracies. I could particularize every time I say something favorable about “democracy,†but just because I don’t does not imply that I am in favor of every distortion of it!