Astrology

Abuse of Power/ Pluto & Mars/ Virginia Woolf

Every astrological aspect tells a story about the relationship between the two (or more) planets involved. Each planet strives to fulfil its specific need and does this through its interaction with that other planet(s).

Background:


  • By far the tightest aspect in the natal chart of Virginia Woolf is Mars (27 Gemini 23’58’’) semi-sextile Pluto (27 Taurus 23’ 28’’).
  • It is 30 seconds of arc.
  • Although the semi-sextile is often considered a ‘minor’ aspect, when it is as tight as this, I would consider it important, very important indeed.

Mars signifies aggression and the survival instinct. We need to set boundaries and protect ourselves from predators. Pluto is about pure power; it is the active agent for cleansing and purification and because it is transpersonal in nature, it is extremely hard for any individual person to control this power. 


Synthesis:

Put Mars and Pluto together, and the result is the compulsion to use force to achieve objectives through whatever means; ruthlessness, brutality, and cruelty. Put Mars and Pluto together in a semi-sextile and the two energies work in harmony and so we might expect to find themes of the use of power in Woolf’s writing.

Even more, as I suspect, because of social constraints against power being actively used by women during Woolf’s lifetime (i.e. her ability to set boundaries and protect herself against predators was thwarted), we might expect her writing to contain hints of abuse of power, especially abuse of power by men against women.


Analysis:


Whilst answering a letter received from a (unidentified) gentleman asking for her opinion on how war might be prevented, in her essay, Three Guineas, Woolf launches into a historically rich vindictive questioning not only the sense of asking her such a question, for unlike the gentleman she had been denied access the education that would have allowed her to answer him, but also how such inequality had come about.

Whilst in full flow in answering the latter point, she quotes from Gray’s Ode : ‘what is grandeur, what is power? – what the bright reward we gain?’


Gain indeed; power is what people want and the writing of Woolf not only demonstrates this but she also deals with some of the ways and reasons it occurs.


For example, in her memoirs, Moments of Being, Woolf recalls how when just eighteen years of age and after a long evening of being dragged about London to a series of gala parties and strategically important social events, her step-brother had crept into her bedroom and ‘flung’ himself on her bed, taking her ‘in his arms’ as a ‘lover’. If by power we mean that one person possesses a sense of dominion over another, then certainly with such behaviour her step-brother (older and presumably wiser) had abused his power although what he had wished to gain through it, Woolf does not conjecture. That she thought it an abuse of power is clear enough however for the next few sentences note that his behaviour would not have been acceptable to the ‘old ladies’ of ‘Kensington and Belgravia’.

In her novel, To The Lighthouse, Woolf investigates the power struggle between a married couple, Mr and Mrs Ramsay – which through those memoirs Moments of Being, we learn are created in the likeness of her own parents. Whilst Mr Ramsay wanders about pondering great things like the philosopher David Hume ‘enormously fat’ and ‘stuck in a bog’, his wife sat charitably knitting stockings for needy children. In conjunction with reading Woolf’s memoirs, we can conclude that she believed that in essence Mrs Ramsay had died young feeding her husband’s constantly flagging vanity. Is this an abuse of power in the sense of exercising dominion over another? Perhaps not – but we do know that at least Mrs Ramsay took pleasure in her ‘bright reward’ when exercising her power by refusing to tell Mr Ramsay that he had been right that it would rain tomorrow, she knew she had ‘triumphed again’.

In that same novel, Woolf also touches on wider social issues of use/abuse of power when Mr Ramsay ponders on whether the progress of civilisation depends on ‘great men’. He concludes it does not because the ‘greater good’ does depend on the existence of a ‘slave class’ (like the liftman in the Tube). Whilst he himself finds this idea distasteful, he decides the best way to avoid dealing with it an upcoming lecture he is to present, is to ‘snub’ the ‘predominance’ of the arts – which only decorates human life and does not represent it. The reader cannot help but think such contemplation rather rich given the privilege Mr Ramsay himself enjoys with his summer house in the isles of Scotland complete with a bevy of servants and maids.

Unlike with her essays, in her fiction Woolf oddly refrains from abuse/abuse of narratorial/authorial power by pushing one view at the expense of another (as do many writers). Instead she maintains a gentle neutrality – presenting a story and letting it speak for itself – and at least in To The Lighthouse, Mrs Dalloway the narratorial/authorial voice never intrudes has it does in, for example, EM Forster’s Howards End.

Even where we do hear the narratorial/authorial voice as for example in her novel, Orlando, both sides of the power struggles are evenly presented – not only does Orlando’s lover ‘Sasha the lost, Sasha the memory’ jilt him when he is a man (instead of the other way around), but as a woman Orlando sees both plusses and minuses of her new gender-based situation – although her new skirts are ‘plaguey’ around her heels, the stuff of which they are made is the ‘loveliest in the world’ as it shows off her skin to such ‘advantage’.


Conclusion:

In both her essays and fiction Woolf demonstrates that she is more than aware that power is what people want – Three Guineas deals extensively with this point in regards to how for so many generations men and the church have used the power of their money to deny women equal access to education. She deals with the sexual abuse perpetrated by step-brother in her memoirs and also the inevitable power battles inherent in a marriage. Interestingly unlike in her essays, in her fiction Woolf does not use her authorial voice to push an agenda, instead simply letting the story speak for itself.

Astrology

Original Thinking

Feeling the need for positive change?

With the Sun in Aries and the Moon in Sagittarius, the next couple of days offer the perfect opportunity to initiate it and during this precipitous period, your strongest asset will most definitely be original thinking.

Case Study:

Queen of the Desert –  tells the story of British-born Gertrude Bell who was not only an adventurer, spy, and archaeologist but also political powerhouse for positive change.

 

Page-1-Image-1

  • it’s 22 March 1921,
  • final day of the Cairo Conference,
  • last chance to determine the postwar future of the Middle East,
  • members of the British delegation have stopped for a photo-shoot,
  • to the amusement of all, Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill has just fallen off his camel,
  • TE Lawrence (otherwise known as Lawrence of Arabia), is uncomfortable in his pin-striped suit and trilby,
  • between them  in a rose-decorated straw hat, is Gertrude Bell – the sole delegate possessing information indispensable to making the Conference successful.

How did Bell, a female descendant of Cumbrian sheep farmers, arrive at this pinnacle?

For details, you’ll need to read Bell’s biography by Georgina Howell or see the fabulous movie (2015) starring Nicole Kidman.

But I can tell you that the huge success enjoyed by Gertrude Bell  was not achieved by thinking like all the other Edwardian ladies!

Astrology

Astrologically, can Hilary Clinton make it to president?

Executive SummaryUnknown-1

Ptolemy identified six levels of fame/success depending on the location and condition of Sun and Moon and their ‘attendants. Unfortunately, although both Hilary Clinton’s ‘luminaries’ have a stunning array of attendants, they are in feminine signs; alone she could reach only Chieftain. However if we were to look at Hilary and her husband, Bill, as a pair, then what she alone lacks to push up up that crucial notch to Kings & Princes, he provides in spades. Beware however that with her Pisces Moon in the terms of Mars, it is likely that Hillary advances herself by dishonest means.

Ptolemy’s Basics

imagesPtolemy identified six levels of fame/success:

1. Kings & Princes

Both luminaries in masculine signs and at least one of them to be found in an angle. This alone is pretty good. However – as well, they (both) be attended by a doryphory (including rays) composed of all five planets – then this is REAL GOOD. In addition, this rank is helped if the planets in the doryphories are also in the angles or configured with the MC.

2. Chieftain

The Sun only masculine with the Moon feminine and only one of them in an angle. If both, however, have good doryphories as described above, then the person will reach chieftain level, with the power to judge life and death. NOTE – a good doryphory has benefics in good shape or on angles (or ruling them).

3. Governor or Commander

If the natal chart has the luminaries as for a Chieftain but the doryphories do not involve the angles, these people will not be invested with sovereignty, but will reach eminence.

4. Civil Leader

If neither of the luminaries be in the angles, but both have good doryphories which are in the angles or ruling the angles, they will have a leadership role in their community. Councilor, President of a club, Mayor of a small town and so on.

5. Undistinguished

If neither luminary is in an angle (Sun still masculine and Moon feminine), and the attending planets are not involved with the angles by placement or ruler-ship, then the person will lead a humble life.

6. Lowest Level

If neither luminary be found in a masculine sign, nor in an angle, nor attended by any benefics they will live lives of “quiet desperation” and obscurity.

Analysis of Clinton

How does Hilary Clinton stack up?

  • With Sun at 2 Scorpio 19 and the Moon at 22 Pisces 51, neither of the luminaries are in masculine signs. Neither are on an angle and neither is in ruler-ship or exalted. The Moon is dignified by only by triplicity and the Sun remains undignified. With Hilary ClintonScorpio rising, neither luminary is the chart ruler. Not so good.
  • Doryphory is an interesting technique focusing on the ‘retinue’ of helpers either of the two lights or luminaries (i.e. sun or moon) have in their ‘train’. The more planets in the retinue, the more helpers and if, additionally, those helpers were themselves strong the more help they could give. Imagine yourself a feudal lord trying to raise an army to fight a foe – the stronger and richer the neighbors (i.e. able to raise their own armies) you have supporting your cause, the more likely you were to succeed.
  • Note that when considering if a planet throws a ‘ray’ into the doryphory, benefics (Moon, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury, and the Sun) can only do so by sextile or trine and the malefics (Saturn and Mars) can only do so by opposition or square.
  • Because the Sun’s retinue PRECEDES him, to determine Clinton’s solar doryphory, we look at planets either in Scorpio (3-30) and Sagittarius.
    • Venus in Scorpio – dignified by triplicity and in the terms of Mercury suggests Clinton will not only have rank but her life will go well. Unfortunately this Venus is cadent (ineffective).
    • Mercury in Scorpio – undignified but extremely power closely conjunct an angle. Mercury is in the terms of Jupiter and hence Hilary will become great in the field of business and will not only be wise but also mix with famous people. But because Mercury is not in reception with the Sun, it has difficulty sharing its power.
    • Jupiter in Sagittariusvery strong in its sign of rulership. It is also dignified by triplicity and term and (because it is a diurnal planet and the Sun is above the horizon), it is thankfully in sect. Although not angular itself, it is in an angular house so this Jupiter is powerful. Because it is in reception with the Sun by triplicity, it gives the Sun all it has to give, which is significant.
    • Moon in Pisces casts a ray into Scorpio by trine – the Moon is dignified by triplicity and although not angular is in an angular house which gives it strength. Unfortunately, the Moon is in the terms of Mars and hence suggests that Hillary advances herself by dishonest means.
    • Saturn in Leo casts a ray into Scorpio by square – Saturn is dignified by triplicity and also in sect although cadent (ineffective). This suggests that Clinton will not only be the lord of buildings and estates but also have a noble father. Saturn in the terms of Mercury suggests Clinton will rule her father’s home because of her prudence but that she will receive sorrow from her partner and children.
    • Mars in Leo casts a ray into Scorpio by square – Mars remains undignified and cadent although it is in sect (being diurnal). Hence although it isn’t particularly helpful it isn’t harmful either and adds numbers to the Sun’s retinue.
  • Because the Moon’s doryphory FOLLOWS her, to determine Clinton’s lunar doryphory, we look at planets in Pisces (1-22) and Aquarius.
    • Saturn in Leo casts a ray into Aquarius by opposition– as noted earlier, Saturn is in reasonable shape and although fairly ineffective, it adds numbers to the Sun’s retinue which is helpful.
    • Jupiter in Sagittarius casts a ray into Aquarius by sextile and we already know how powerful that Jupiter is. Because the Moon is in a sign ruled by Jupiter (Pisces), it is in reception with Jupiter and so Jupiter happily and cheerfully gives the Moon all it has to give which is significant. Even better, the Moon at 22 Pisces is in reception with Jupiter by face and so it happily and cheerfully receives all that Jupiter gives. This is called mutual reception and as you might guess, mutually beneficial.
    • The Sun in Scorpio casts a ray into Aquarius by square – and although not particularly strong in its own right, at least the Sun adds numbers to the Moon’s retinue without causing trouble.
    • Venus in Scorpio casts a ray into Pisces by trine – and although dignified, is cadent and hence pretty effective. Again it adds numbers to the Moon’s retinue and while not particularly helpful, it does have reception by exaltation and triplicity and hence does what it can without causing trouble.
    • Mars in Leo casts a ray into Aquarius by opposition – Mars remains undignified and cadent although it is in sect (being diurnal). Hence although it isn’t particularly helpful it isn’t harmful and again, Mars adds numbers to the Moon’s retinue without causing trouble.
    • Mercury in Scorpio casts a ray into Aquarius by square – we already know that although undignified, this Mercury is extremely powerful because it is closely conjunct an angle. Although there is no reception between Mercury and the Moon (and hence they aren’t in close conversation) it can’t help to have such a powerful planet in the retinue.
  • A solar doryphory of all six planets is stunning and at least two of them (Mercury and Jupiter) are benefics and extremely powerful. This is very good.
  • A lunar doryphory of all six planets is equally stunning and of course Mercury and Jupiter are benefics and both extremely powerful. This is also very good.

Bill CLintonConclusion

However great both the lunar and solar doryphories, Clinton can only rise to the ‘Chieftain’ level because neither of her luminaries is in a masculine sign. However, I propose that if we look at Hilary and Bill as a pair, then his Sun in Leo (masculine and in rulership) along with his extremely powerful Venus in Libra (in rulership and on an angle) not to mention his Mars in Libra (although in detriment and hence damaged, it is closely conjunct an angle and hence powerful), and powerful Moon in Taurus (exalted), might just tip the balance and move her up that one crucial notch to King and Prince.

Ethics

Feminism and Jane Austen

Was Jane Austen a Feminist?

becoming-janeThis has not been the traditional view.  Indeed it was not until the 1960’s that Austen’s name was associated with feminism in any widespread way.

Although there are as many faces of feminism as one cares to discover, if the works of Austen are to be fairly evaluated, it should be in terms of feminism as it was understood in her time.  To do otherwise (however tempting), would be anachronistic.

This essay evaluates Austen’s portrayal of three of her heroines in regards to the goals of ‘Enlightenment feminism’ which asserted that men and women should share the same moral code in regards to conduct, feelings, and responsibility.

In Emma, despite being ‘handsome, clever, and rich’, we find a heroine flawed.    In economic terms, Emma Woodhouse passes with flying colors; an heiress of £30,000 is not easily dismissed.  But the citizens of Highbury do not value money nearly as much as they do character and in this regard the imperious Miss Woodhouse must learn that she has ‘been used to despise (Highbury) rather too much’.   In other words, Emma’s moral code is lacking and requires remedial work.

But instead of undertaking to improve herself of her own violation, Emma is instructed by Mr Knightly who appears to believe himself the more morally capable of the two (‘I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.  Bear with the truths I would tell you now, dearest Emma, as well as you have borne with them.’)

Not surprisingly, it is only when Emma becomes all that Mr Knightly would have her be, that he realizes he is in love with her for we all know the story of Pygmalion, the ancient Greek sculptor who fell in love with (and married) the statue he carved.  We have only to look at how Mr Knightly’s view of Harriet changes (the former ‘fair lady’ become ‘the foolish girl’ and ‘a greater simpleton’) when by refusing Robert Martin’s marriage proposal, she fails to conform to Knightly’s norm.  Luckily for Emma, she had learned her lessons well and so ‘what did she say’ when Knightly declares himself?  ‘Just what she ought, of course’ for ‘a lady always does.’

In Emma, although women may have been portrayed as capable of moral equality, they were also portrayed as incapable of forging a moral code of their own.

Likewise, Fanny Price in Mansfield Park with ‘all her faults of ignorance and timidity’ must be carefully tutored to the standards of her cousin Edmund.

Although Miss Price is oft portrayed as a plucky feminist who finally has the courage to speak her own mind (by refusing to marry Henry Crawford as Sir Thomas Bertramwould have her do), we who have followed her long, steady progress with Edmund know she did not reach that pinnacle on her own.

The scene in the East room provides the perfect example.  One morning Fanny escapes to her ‘nest of comforts’ in order ‘to see if by looking at Edmund’s profile she could catch any of his counsel’.  When in the flesh Edmund arrives to obtain ‘her opinion’ on ‘an evil of such magnitude as must , if possible, be prevented’, he begins by voicing his own.  When finished with his soliloquy, he asks Fanny whether she sees ‘it in the same light’.  When she has the temerity to say ‘no’, he recommends that she ‘think it a little over’ for ‘perhaps you are not so much aware as I am, of the mischief that may’ arise.

When Edmund’s love interest, Mary Crawford, speaks her own mind by refusing to agree with him regarding her brother, Henry’s, adultrous behavior, Mary is out and Fanny is in.  ‘Loving, guiding, protecting her (Fanny), as he (Edmund) had been doing ever since her being ten years old, her mind so great a degree formed by his care’, it should be little surprise that by end of the story he’s fallen in love with her  and ‘acknowledged’ her mental superiority.

However, in Northanger Abby, Catherine Morland, arguably the most feminist of Austen’s heroines, receives a very different moral education – that of first-hand experience (as we might expect with a man).

As a child, Catherine is left largely to her own devices allowing her to early on rely on her own judgment.   Later she navigates Bath with little or no outside guidance and moves on to her next adventure afflicted only by her love of Gothic novels and vivid imagination.   Convinced that General Tilney has murdered his wife, like Pandora she finally commits the unpardonable sin and opens that ‘forbidden door’.

But even then when she receives a dressing down from her love interest,  Henry Tilney (‘consider the dreadful nature of the suspicions you have entertained’ and ‘remember that we are English’ and ‘Christians’), she is asked by him to not to do or think as he would ,but instead to ‘consult your own understanding’ (which she does to her shame).

Once her ‘visions of romance were over’,  she ‘was completely awakened.’  Catherine goes on to win the heart of the man she loves and to ‘begin perfect happiness at’ the age of eighteen, which as Austen reminds us is ‘to do pretty well.’

If the only goal of Enlightenment feminism was that men and women should share the same moral code, then Austen can be said to have wholeheartedly supported this through her fictional characterizations.

However if we look to the basic premise underlying Enlightenment feminism – that women, not having been denied powers of reason, must have the moral status appropriate to ‘rational beings’, formed in the image of a rational God – we must reach a different conclusion.  At least two of the three of Austen’s heroines examined were apparently presumed by the men in their lives as capable not of forging their own moral code, but only of regurgitating that of their lovers.

Feminism

if you were a literary agent …how would you respond?

Dear Ms Agent,

In the aftermath of The Great War when Europe is cloaked in social disillusionment, twenty-four year old, newly widowed, Sophie de Belcoupe returns home to Paris. With conventional ideals of the feminine thwarted, she determines it’s through art that she will forge her future.

Complications arise when, by accepting a job on a design project directed by her beloved, Uncle Maurice, she reencounters Andrew John Hancock, the young American artist with whom she’d once been in love.

As the project prospers so does Sophie and Andrew’s relationship. But both crash to a halt when, to cover his own misdoings, Uncle Maurice accuses Andrew of embezzlement. While clearing his reputation, Andrew uncovers dangerous secrets about Sophie’s family – secrets which blow apart her idea about who and what she was about.

Using old-fashioned philosophy and new-fangled psychology, Sophie  pieces herself together only to discover what she’d been led to believe she didn’t want, was precisely that which she did, the love of the man who honours her above all others.

According to Simone de Beauvoir, women are made, not born. The struggles of brave women like Sophie played a vital role in shaping twentieth century ideas of what it meant to be a modern woman. My complete 95,000 word historical romance, Adieu The Rose, further explores this theme, offering today’s women a unique view on their struggle to shape what it means to be a post-modern woman in the equally challenging twenty-first century.

I’m approaching you because of your excellent track record with unusual historical romance novels.

May I send you a synopsis and the first three chapters?

Regards,

DA Hopeful

Feminism

What 21st Century Women Might Learn From Simone de Beauvoir

We’ve Come A Long Way Baby – But Where Do We Go From Here?

Carrie Bradshaw, feminist icon from the hit series Sex and the City, has a good income of which to dispose as she pleases.  When not shopping for outrageously expensive shoes, she brags about sexual conquests with her female friends. Paradoxically, while enjoying these pursuits once reserved by the patriarchy for men, Carrie dreams of the day that her egoistical and fabulously wealthy prince charming, Mr Big, will sweep her off her prettily shod feet and carry her to patriarchal bliss.

And she’s not the only one.  It is sobering to realise that the immense popularity, especially with younger women, of the feminine paradigm Carrie represents, provides a gauge on how 21st century women view themselves as women.  Increasingly, young women are looking to return at least in part, to the pre-feminist, patriarchal, stereotyped norm.  We’ve come a long way, baby, but where do we go from here?

For help, we might turn to one of the founders of the feminist movement, the existentialist philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir.

In her groundbreaking work, The Second Sex (1949), Beauvoir argues that contrary to popular belief, femininity, or what it means to be a woman, is not organically or metaphysically predetermined, but culturally defined.

Further, to maintain their superior, ‘top dog’, patriarchal position, men perpetrate myths that by their nature, women are dependent upon (and inferior to) them (Beauvoir, 281).  These myths force stereotyped roles upon women, depriving them of their existential freedom to live authentically in accord with their own values, a freedom always enjoyed by men.  To remedy the disparity, Beauvoir calls for economic, political, and reproductive (through birth control and abortion) parity between the sexes.

She does not advocate that men and women be equals.  Nor does she suggest that man is the ideal to which women should aspire.   This would serve only to maintain the perception that women are outsiders trying to infiltrate the norm. She cautions that in her bid for freedom, woman should not abandon her femininity, which (like childbearing) makes her truly different from man.  To do this, would be to renounce a part of her humanity (Mahon, 196). Besides, none the above will achieve the desired goal.  For Beauvoir, each of us necessarily is constrained by his or her situation, the socioeconomic, political, and bodily givens in which we live, work, and play.  It is parity in these respective playing fields that Beauvoir advocates and by definition this presupposes gender difference.

Sixty years later, feminism faces perhaps its most serious challenge.  In her book, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Susan Faludi chronicles the outrage of both sexes that feminists have encouraged women to focus on autonomy, independence, and career (traditional male concerns) at the expense of children and family (traditional female concerns).  Shattered lives and nationwide unhappiness is only result they see.  Have feminists ignored the advice from Beauvoir and forfeited their femininity in order to become pseudo men? Might Carrie and her compatriots be back paddling into the pre-feminist, patriarchal, stereotyped norm in a confused effort to regain their femininity?  Will this get anyone where they want to go?

If the goal is freedom for women – parity on the playing field – then Beauvoir would have to answer no.  She specifies the feminist battle will only be won when both women and men recognise each other as peers, each free subjects to pursue his or her own goals (Beauvoir, 754).  Firmly linking freedom to brotherhood, Beauvoir argues this is possible only when both sexes have equal access to their humanity without penalty to their economic and professional positions (Moi, 228).  To accomplish this, both men and women must take charge of their own existence, conscientiously exercising the choices with which they are presented.  Shunning this ultimate human responsibility by hiding behind predetermined stereotypes is the ultimate bad faith.

In conclusion, what advice might we give Carrie?  Beauvoir might say that while you’ve come a long way, baby, you have a long way to go. Take responsibility to make your life your own and stop blaming others when it doesn’t work out as planned. That’s good advice as far as it goes, yet still, its tone is essentially patriarchal.

Even as Beauvoir warned against women abandoning their femininity to become pseudo men, she was herself, so much the product of the patriarchy that she could only envision femininity vis a vis its opposition to masculinity (Léon, 147).  In that light, femininity could have little positive value as it is doomed by definition, to lack (of masculinity).  Subsequent feminists (albeit not existentialists per se) like Hélene Cixous, have glorified the feminine in its own right, with the view to denying the political, social, and economic significance of gender difference and instead making it a cause for personal delight (Léon, 148).

I suggest that if Carrie can transcend the traditional male/female stereotypes she seems to be straddling, and instead embrace that which it truly means for her to be woman she will have attained the real essence of Beauvoir’s existentialist, feminist ideal.  If that means a closet full of outrageously expensive shoes and bragging about sexual conquests then so be it.  If not, then we’ve come along way, baby, but its time for a direction change.

____________________

De Beauvoir, Simone.  The Second Sex, trans. by H M Parshley. London: Everyman’s Library, 1993.

Faludi, Susan. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Mahan, Joseph. Existentialism, Feminism, and Simone de Beauvoir. Palgrave Macmillan, 1997.

Léon, Céline T. “Beauvoir’s Woman: Eunuch or Male?” (137-167), The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir, ed. by Margaret A. Simons. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2006.

Moi, Toril. Simone de Beauvoir – The Making of an Intellectual Woman. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2008.

Tidd, Ursula, Simone de Beauvoir. London: Routledge, 2004.

Ward, Julie K., “Reciprocity and Friendship in Beauvoir’s Thought” (223-242), The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir, ed. by Margaret A. Simons. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2006.


%d bloggers like this: