it is no doubt impossible to approach any
human problem without partiality: 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. Instead of trying to conceal those principles
that are more or less explicitly implied, we would be better off stating them
from the start; then it would not be necessary to specify on each page the
meaning given to the words “superior,” “inferior,” “better,” “worse,”
“progress,” “regression,” and so on. If we examine some of the books on women,
we see that one of the most frequently held points of view is that of public
good or general interest: in reality, this is taken to mean the interest of
society as each one wishes to maintain or establish it. In our opinion, there
is no public good other than one that assures the citizens’ private good; we
judge institutions from the point of view of the concrete opportunities they give
to individuals. But neither do we confuse the idea of private interest with
happiness: that is another frequently encountered point of view; are women in a
harem 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 happiness 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 condemned to stagnation,
under the pretext that happiness is immobility. This is a notion, then, we will
not refer to.
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex
