I like how Beauvoir opens and closes with rhetorical questions

This reminds me of what Ibram Kendi calls "assimilationists" in Stamped

I think that people do this beyond the context of slavery and prejudice. People, especially males don't want to feel like they need or want to depend on anyone; whereas we all need others to rely on. However, people still want to feel needed by others.

Her description of Other perfectly describes what modern psychologists call "In-Group Out-Group Phenomenon". Perhaps this idea is how society embraced misogyny as men used their power to keep power in their "in-group".

The idea that reality can not be compared or sorted into similar groups; rather everything is an individual object that can share similar characteristics with other objects but is completely unique in it's identity.

Did these existentialist ideas lay the foundation for the modern understanding of gender?

Idea that society has consistently placed the same traits and expectations for women to exhibit for millennia. Beauvoir argues that these were created over time and not inherent to our genetic condition.

I really like how Beauvoir sets up the essay by using rhetorical questions and not clearly defining her position immediately. This prevents biases in the mind of the reader from seeing the author as either an aid or antagonist to their already-established opinion on the topic.

Test post

I really like this outside-the-box thinking. It satisfies both sides of the argument as God would know beforehand that man and woman were made for each other.

For either of these scenarios, God is omnipotent and can do as he wills. The confines of physical law are not present in this equation.

I feel like this should raise the social status of women as Aquinas previously pointed out

The removal doesn't guarantee pain

unnecessary

Once again, he fails to clarify why this is specifically the man's duty

This is a logical fallacy

What is his reasoning for men having this?

This is strange because he simultaneously argues that women are less while arguing that God made them for each other.

Not all animals behave this way; I am confused as to what he means by perfect animals

Men and women should be helpers for each other; Matrimony serves both parties in different ways

The woman was made before sin happened so she wouldn't be misbegotten

I like that Aquinas uses the Bible as an authoritative source instead of using other arguments such as other writings

I do not agree with this statement directly; some corporeal change happens on it's own without the intervention of another being

means the process of decay

I don't understand how the angels would be involved in this process; the language is confusing.

Did Aquinas borrow the concept of essences and elements from Aristotle?

This isn't the argument I would have made to reply to objection 1 but I like the humility of this point.

What does slime of the earth mean?

I do not understand the meaning of this

This rationalization was used by pro-slavery forces in early America, arguing that the relationship was necessary for the slave's salvation or well-being.

Did this inspire "The sins of the father are visited upon by the children"?

This was probably based off Plato's idea for how a society should be governed by the most intelligent

Is there a specific way he attempts to rationalize what this difference would be?

I know that early Christians borrowed a lot of Aristotelian philosophy...did this passage contribute to their understanding of Jesus as an ultimate ruler?

I agree with this sentiment, but it does not justify slavery