Summary
Simone de Beauvoir begins her introduction by explaining that she chose to write a book about women because there is still a controversy over what it means to be a woman in the first place. Is “femininity” biological, or defined by behaviors, or nonexistent in the first place? She begins to define the category of “woman” by considering the fact that she feels the need to define herself first and foremost as a woman, while men do not feel the need to identify so overtly with their masculinity. Woman is “the Other” because man defines himself as essential to the world, and sees himself as the subject by which woman is defined. de Beauvoir also gives women responsibility for changing this duality, however, pointing out that woman must redefine herself as the subject in order to change her situation. She does explain that it is more difficult for women to change this dynamic than it would be for the proletariat, Jews, or African Americans to rebel against their oppression, because women cannot simply overthrow their oppressor—women do need men in order to survive.
de Beauvoir points out that writing about this duality is difficult because men and women both have such strong biases. To resolve this problem, she proposes a framework in which we do not consider how to achieve “happiness,” because this is impossible to measure, but rather how to define and achieve women’s “freedom.” In the first part of her work, she will consider three different perspectives on how to define women: biological data, the psychoanalytical point of view, and the point of view of historical materialism.
In her chapter on biological data, de Beauvoir primary considers two questions: “What does female represent in the animal kingdom? And what unique kind of female is realized in woman?” (21). She points out that division into two sexes is actually not universal in nature. For example, one-celled animals reproduce individually and hermaphroditic species do exist. She concludes that, when considering evolutionary theory, neither biological system can be called “superior.” She disputes the assumptions of philosophers like Plato and Hegel, who believe that division into two sexes is a natural state of being. She also points out that social theories that discriminate against women based on biology either make false assumptions or are too bold in their analogies; the relationship between gametes and gonads cannot be equated to the relationship between women and men. For example, two scientific biases against female biology are particularly misguided: females are not more “passive” nor the guarantors of reproduction, since sperm and ovum actually meet on an equal basis to lead to new life.
Overall, de Beauvoir cautions against assuming anything about the “battle of the sexes” in humans based on facts from nature. She cites several examples of different species in which the two sexes interact in very different ways, with either male or female dominating the other. In humans, she points out that puberty is more like a crisis for women, which weakens them more than it does men. For women, the body becomes “something other than her” in the sense that women must deal with childbirth and other functions that do damage to their own bodies, while men remain comfortable in their skin. Based on this, she points out that older women beyond reproductive age are sometimes considered a separate sex because reproductive capacity is so central to how we define females. She does concede that such biological facts about humans are important to consider in order to understand the female condition overall. However, she does not believe they lock women into any particular destiny, but are rather one piece of the puzzle.
de Beauvoir ends this chapter on biology by pointing out once again that we should not assume that nature reflects any subjective values. She also points out that certain traits are relative; for example, “weakness” is only negative relative to humans seeking a particular kind of “strength.” Biology is not enough to define the human condition because humans living in society are not simply a species in nature, but rather a group that depends on economic and social factors to contextualize its values. Moving forward, de Beauvoir wants readers to consider biological data in economic, social, and psychological contexts. Biology is not enough to explain why woman is “the Other” in society.
In her chapter on the psychoanalytical point of view, de Beauvoir evaluates and criticizes theorists such as Freud. Regarding Freud, she explains that he assumes women feel like damaged versions of men, but refutes this on the basis that society, not their own subconscious, teaches them to feel this way. Overall, she criticizes psychoanalysis for ignoring the question of choice and value and instead believing that certain drives are simply human givens. For de Beauvoir, values are involved in explaining how sexuality works in the first place. She references Sartre’s Being and Nothingness to explain her own theory that humans are actually focused on a “quest for being,” and sexuality is only one part of this quest.
de Beauvoir outlines certain ways in which her own theories will diverge from those of psychoanalysis. First, she does not limit herself to assuming that sexuality is a given, but rather defines it as something shaped by societal values. Second, by assuming that women operate in a world shaped by values, she affords them a greater degree of freedom; women are not simply unconsciously acted upon by certain drives or impulses, but rather have to choose between different values in everything they do. de Beauvoir rejects psychoanalysts’ vision of girls as torn between their father’s “viriloid” and their mother’s “feminine” tendencies. Instead, she sees women as caught between the role of an object or Other and the possibility of their freedom.
Finally, in her chapter on historical materialism, de Beauvoir considers the role of history in shaping the difference between men and women. She considers Engels’ explanation that history is shaped by technology, and the development of private property led to women’s devaluation in society, as men became the breadwinners. However, she dismisses this theory as surface-level because it does not account for how these values developed in the first place. She points to factors shaping women’s condition that lie outside labor distribution; for example, childbirth and sexuality. Because these are not accounted for by historical materialists like Engels, she believes it is necessary to go beyond this theory in order to fully explain women’s condition in society.
To summarize, de Beauvoir rejects Freud’s sexual theories and Engels’ economic theories on the same basis: psychoanalysts base everything in sexuality while historical materialists base everything in economic situations, and de Beauvoir believes that the real answer lies somewhere in between. Once again, she emphasizes that the world is shaped by human values, and a human quest toward transcending ourselves. These are the most fundamental factors driving how we think of biology, psychoanalysis, and history.
Analysis
de Beauvoir begins her book by stating that the subject of woman is “irritating” to write about, especially for women themselves. She establishes early on that her book is meant as a corrective; she is not writing this because the subject is particularly compelling to her on its own, but because she feels the need to respond to earlier analyses of femininity that she feels are too flawed not to address. Thus, she spends the first section of this book responding to different systems for defining femininity—the biological, the psychoanalytical, and the historical or economic. She is not yet advancing her own opinions or making the case for a new system, but rather dismantling existing systems of thought.
de Beauvoir is also careful to address her own biases, in order to train readers in recognizing bias in general throughout the rest of the book. In the first paragraph of her introduction, she points out, “It is hard to know any longer if women still exist, if they will always exist, if there should be women at all, what place they hold in this world, what place they should hold.” She admits to the difficulty of defining femininity or womanhood, inviting readers to be critical even in their approach to her ideas. Later, she also writes, “If I want to define myself, I first have to say, “I am a woman’; all other assertions will arise from this basic truth.” This admission serves to reveal her own bias upfront. However, it also alerts readers to the impossibility of writing about this subject without bias.
de Beauvoir’s tone is often ironic, inviting her readers to laugh at the absurdity of certain assumptions and sway them toward her own interpretation of a situation. For example, in her first paragraph, she mentions followers of the theory of the eternal feminine, who “whisper, ‘even in Russia women are still very much women.’” She does not simply dismiss the theories of these believers outright by pointing out why they do not make sense. Instead, de Beauvoir paints a picture of their behavior and attitude in order to ridicule them; they “whisper” this belief to themselves, as though it were a closely guarded secret, and state “even in Russia,” as though Russia were an alien place for women to exist. Early on, then, de Beauvoir establishes a somewhat bitter tone in regards to previous theorists who perpetuated sexist notions. She does not have much patience for assumptions she believes to be ridiculous.
de Beauvoir is also careful to break down her aims and frameworks at the beginning and end of each chapter. She uses the construction “we will…” to outline her objectives. For example, at the end of her introduction, she states, “So we will begin by discussing women from a biological, psychoanalytical, and historical materialist point of view.” In this way, she invites readers to share in her goals and follow her in her journey through these various theories. This construction also makes clear that she is writing her own social theory, clearly broken down into different sections and arguments. Despite her occasionally ironic tone, de Beauvoir is writing a serious and thorough explanation of her beliefs, and not a personal polemic on the topic.
Furthermore, de Beauvoir makes frequent use of questions in order to stimulate her readers’ thinking and help them follow along with her logic. In her chapter on biological data, she does not simply state her own opinion, but rather begins by considering two foundational questions: “What does the female represent in the animal kingdom? And what unique kind of female is realized in woman?” By phrasing these frameworks for the chapter as questions, de Beauvoir invites her readers into her thought process. She began to consider this topic through these questions, and allows readers to begin in the same place. This way, as she lays out her answers, she is better able to keep readers engaged in her logical process. She also allows readers to consider the subject themselves before presenting them with her opinion, leaving room for a more critical reading of the text.
