not happier than a woman voter? Is a housewife not happier than a woman worker? We cannot really know what the word “happiness” means, and still less what authentic values it covers; there is no way to measure the hap- piness of others, and it is always easy to call a situation that one would like to impose on others happy: in particular, we declare happy those con- demned to stagnation, under the pretext that happiness is immobility. This is a notion, then, we will not refer to. The perspective we have adopted is one of existentialist morality. Every subject posits itself as a transcendence concretely, through projects; it accomplishes its freedom only by perpetual surpassing toward other freedoms; there is no other justification for present existence than its expansion toward an indefinitely open future. Every time transcendence lapses into immanence, there is degradation of existence into “in-itself,” of freedom into facticity; this fall is a moral fault if the sub- ject consents to it; if this fall is inflicted on the subject, it takes the form of frustration and oppression; in both cases it is an absolute evil. Every indi- gg INTRODUCTION | 17 vidual concerned with justify; with justifying his exi ‘ . Is Existence experi ee an indefinite n ‘ xperiences his existenc uation of wo a to transcend himself. But what singularly defines eee mM, - . z - rane te that being, like all humans, an autonomous pa it Sa) ae chooses herself in a world where men f h a € herse = : - orce ner t Bisa hee co = Other: an attempt is made to freeze her as an object ie ae Pee since her transcendence will be forever tra flere Si cond = essential and sovereign consciousness.

kes paths are open to her? Which ones lead to d a f ‘can she fin independ 2 5L0 €a 3 ence within dependence? ; stances limit women’ pendence? What circum- fisitainenect ae s freedom and can she overcome them?

there is no other justification for present existence than its expansion toward an indefinitely open future.

even the way of asking the questions, of adopting perspectives, presupposes hierarchies of interests; all characteristics comprise values; every so-called objective description is set against an ethical background.

o see ee 2 puis these ruts; these vague notions of superior- > inferiority, and equality that have distorted all discussi i carded in order to start anew.

hen he has an attitude of benevolence and partnership toward a woman, he applies the principle of abstract equality; and he does not posit the concrete inequality he recognizes. But as soon as he clashes with her, the situation is reversed. He will apply the con- crete inequality theme and will even allow himself to disavow abstract equality.?

ogant toward women, mote aggressive or more eee ane xious about his own virility.

Some men feel thre ned by women's competition.

significant: it is exactly that formula the Jim Crow laws put into practice with regard to black Americans; this so-called egalitarian segregation served only to introduce the most extreme forms of discrimination.

the master does not posit the need he has a the other; he holds the power to satisfy this need and does not mediate it: the slave, on the other hand, out of dependence, hope, or fear. emir: his need for the master;

The te that binds her to her oppressors is unlike any other.

omen—except in certain abstract gatherings such as conferences—do not use “we”; men say “women,” and women adopt this word to refer to themselves; but they do not posit themselves authentically as Subjects.

is not the Other who, defining itself a Other, defines the One; the Other is posited as Other by the Sue ositin itself as One. But in order for the Other not to turn into the One the Other has to submit to this foreign point of view. Where does this en i woman come from?

the subject posits fale only in opposition; it asserts itself as the essential and sets up the other as inessential, as the object

t only takes three travelers brought together by chance in the same train compartment for the rest of the travelers to become vaguely hostile “others.”

Man thinks himself without woman. Woman does not think herself without man.”

le, and man efines woman, not in i Fe ie she is ney considered an ee sna ee " ng,

an vainly for- : ticles. He grasps his ee — he world that he believes he ne. bes iders woman's body an obstacle, a aes thing that particularizes it.

My idea is that all of us, men as well as women, whoever we are, should be consid- ered as human beings.” But nominalism is a doctrine that falls a bit short;

Besides, is there a problem? And what is it? Are there even women?