In the Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir argues that "Women are not born, but made", which is also questionable. Who makes women? In a religious concept, God makes women; in a philosophical concept, I can say that men make women: they do not make their body but their spiritual domination. At the beginning in the text, Simone de Beauvoir explains in the introduction with how much hesitation she undertook to write a book "about a woman". However, she still wrote the same kind as other feministic works, but hers is more classical. The Second Sex can be read in the most varied languages of the most varied cultures. A woman, preoccupied with giving birth and breastfeeding, is trapped in immanence. Similar to Chinese culture in the past, the function of woman was only giving birth. They could not be educated or could not work outside. Their father and their husbands determined their whole lives. Through the history of mankind, they have been responsible for survival and continuity and not for advances. The human culture, writes Simone de Beauvoir, has given supremacy to the sex that hunts and kills, and not to the one that gives birth, to masters of nature and not to the natural functions. Women are mainly condemned to immanence. In this point, men identify themselves as subject and women are object. But how can we say that women are "Others"? Can we distinguish them as "Not men" in the definition? Women's "situations"(and this is the key existentialist term) are: a married woman, a mother, the so-called social life, prostitutes, ageing and the notion of character. It is common knowledge that Aristotle, Kant, Hegel and many others wrote unfavorably or simply incorrectly about women. In the best-known farcical example is probably Aristotle's assertion that the temperature of the woman's body is lower than that of the man's. The question "What does it mean to be a woman?" will not have the right answer until women themselves give it.
