It started with a scandal. When The Second Sex hit French bookstores in 1949, the Vatican didn't just dislike it—they put it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, the list of forbidden books. Imagine that. A philosophy text sitting right next to Casanova’s memoirs as "dangerous" reading. People were literally throwing fits in Parisian cafes over what Simone de Beauvoir had to say about being a woman.
She wasn't just writing a history book. She was dismantling a myth.
Most people know the famous line: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." It’s everywhere. T-shirts, Instagram captions, tote bags. But honestly? Most people kind of miss the point of what she was actually doing with that sentence. She wasn't just talking about "gender roles" in the way we do now. She was diving into the terrifying realization that femininity is a construct—a costume that society asks you to put on every morning until you forget you’re even wearing it.
The Problem With Being "The Other"
De Beauvoir’s main argument in The Second Sex is built on the concept of "The Other." It sounds like heavy academic jargon, but it’s actually pretty simple. In almost every society, the "default" human is male. The man is the Subject. He is the Absolute. The woman? She is defined only in relation to him. She is the "Other."
Think about it. If a man is "human," and a woman is "not a man," then she is forever a secondary character in the story of humanity. De Beauvoir spent nearly 800 pages proving how this happens through biology, history, and even the way we tell bedtime stories to kids.
It’s a massive, exhausting read. But it’s also strangely liberating.
She takes apart the idea that there is a "feminine essence." You know, that vague idea that women are naturally more nurturing, or naturally more emotional, or naturally better at picking out throw pillows. De Beauvoir says that’s all nonsense. There is no biological destiny that makes a woman "feminine." It’s a process. It’s a social conditioning that starts the moment someone looks at a sonogram and says, "It’s a girl."
Biology Isn't a Life Sentence
De Beauvoir doesn't deny biology. She’s not saying men and women are identical in a physical sense. That would be silly, and she was way too smart for that. But she argues that a body is just a tool. A hand is for gripping; a leg is for walking. The fact that a female body can bear children shouldn't define her entire existence any more than a man’s ability to grow a beard defines his.
She looked at how nature is used as a weapon. For centuries, philosophers (looking at you, Aristotle) argued that women were "mutilated males" or "incapable of reason" because of their hormones. De Beauvoir calls out the hypocrisy. She points out that society uses "nature" to keep women in a state of immanence—basically, a state of stagnation where they are focused on the repetitive tasks of survival and caretaking, while men get to pursue "transcendence" through art, war, and politics.
Why the 1949 Launch Was Absolute Chaos
You have to remember the context. 1949. Post-war France. The country was trying to get back to "normalcy," which usually meant pushing women back into the kitchen after they’d spent the war years running things. Then comes de Beauvoir, sitting in the Café de Flore with a cigarette, telling everyone that marriage is often a "sinkhole" and that traditional motherhood can be a form of domestic slavery.
The backlash was visceral.
💡 You might also like: Why Ascend Spa Kew Gardens Is Actually Worth the Trip to Queens
The novelist François Mauriac actually wrote to the editor of the magazine that serialized the book, saying, "Your employer’s vagina has no secrets for me." It was nasty. It was personal. People weren't just debating her ideas; they were attacking her womanhood. They called her "unsatisfied," "frigid," or "man-hating."
But the book sold like crazy. 22,000 copies in the first week.
Women were reading it in secret. They were finding words for a frustration they hadn't been able to name. De Beauvoir wasn't just some ivory-tower academic; she was living what she preached. She never married Jean-Paul Sartre. They had an open relationship. They were the ultimate power couple of the Left Bank, and she refused to play the role of the "supportive wife."
The Mistranslation That Messed Everything Up
Here is something most people don't know: for decades, English speakers were reading a totally botched version of The Second Sex.
In 1953, Howard Parshley, a retired zoology professor (not a philosopher, mind you), did the first English translation. He cut about 15% of the book. He took out huge chunks of history and philosophy because he thought they were boring or "repetitive." He also messed up the technical terms. He turned de Beauvoir’s complex existentialist arguments into something that sounded more like a biological textbook.
It wasn't until 2009 that a full, unedited English translation by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier finally hit the shelves. If you read the old version, you’re missing the real Beauvoir. You’re reading a "Reader’s Digest" version that lacks the philosophical teeth of the original.
Is It Still Relevant Today?
Honestly, yeah. Maybe more than ever.
Even though we have more legal rights now, the psychological pressure of "The Other" hasn't gone away. We see it in the "mental load" of household management. We see it in the "pink tax." We see it in the way women are still judged more harshly for their aging bodies than men are.
De Beauvoir talked about the "myth of woman." This is the idea that "Woman" is an idol or a mystery to be solved. Men write poems about her, they fear her, they worship her, but they rarely treat her as a peer. This myth creates a trap. If a woman doesn't fit the "myth" (the perfect mother, the sexy muse, the virginal girl), she’s seen as a failure.
The Trap of Narcissism and Love
One of the most fascinating (and controversial) sections of the book is where she talks about how women are often pushed into "narcissism" or "devotion" as a way to find meaning. Since they aren't allowed to build things in the world, they build themselves as "objects" to be looked at. Or, they pour their entire identity into a man.
She writes about the "woman in love" who tries to find her own transcendence through her partner. It’s a losing game. It makes the man a god and the woman a servant. De Beauvoir argues that real love should be between two equals—two "subjects" who recognize each other’s freedom.
Practical Takeaways from De Beauvoir's Work
Reading The Second Sex isn't just an academic exercise. It’s a way to deprogram your brain. Here is how you actually apply this stuff to 2026:
- Audit Your "Shoulds": Look at the things you do because you "should" as a woman (or a man). Is that action coming from your own desire for transcendence, or is it a performance for "The Other"?
- Reject the Pedestal: De Beauvoir warned that being put on a pedestal is just another way of being trapped. If you’re being worshipped as a "muse" or an "angel," you aren't being seen as a human with flaws and ambitions.
- Economic Independence is Everything: This was her big one. She believed that without financial freedom, a woman can never be truly independent. She cannot be a "Subject" if she relies on someone else for her bread.
- Stop Chasing the "Eternal Feminine": There is no "correct" way to be a woman. There is no secret essence you need to unlock. You are what you do. Your actions define you, not your biology.
The book is long. It’s dense. It’s sometimes a bit dated in its descriptions of science or certain cultures. But the core of it—the demand to be seen as a full human being—is as sharp as a razor.
Simone de Beauvoir didn't just write a book; she handed women a map to get out of the "Other" territory. Whether we choose to follow it is up to us.
Next Steps for Deep Diving
👉 See also: 200g Sugar in Cups: The Math Most Bakers Get Wrong
To truly grasp the impact of de Beauvoir’s work, you need to see it in action. Start by reading the 2009 Borde and Malovany-Chevallier translation of The Second Sex—it's the only way to get the full philosophical weight. Pair this with a look at the life of Simone de Beauvoir herself; her letters to Nelson Algren or her memoirs like Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter show the messy, real-world application of her theories. Finally, look into the existentialist movement in post-war Paris to understand how her ideas on "freedom" and "choice" were part of a larger rebellion against traditional morality.