Talk:Simone de Beauvoir

Horrible quality of article

Please, someone fix this article. It's so, so, so bad it's literally offensive. Everything is cited up the ass and yet completely inappropriate (example: "Sartre was dazzlingly intelligent and 5 feet tall. He allowed Beauvoir to talk about herself.") Can someone who actually knows something about Beauvoir please contribute to this article and ideally rewrite it from scratch because holy shit?

Additions re masculism

I need to admit that I have not actually read this work. What I've added is essentially my interpretation from my "Men in World History" teacher's explanation of the work. My understanding was that Simon was arguing within a dialectic: that for masculism to get anywhere further, they needed to stop arguing for a female ideal, or even a male ideal, and find the higher viewpoint. I don't feel up to the challenge of explaining this, however, so I've added what I consider a stub to a stub article.

French nobility?

Beauvoir is categorised as "French nobility," yet no reference is made to this in the article. As a rule, I object to any categorisation that isn't substantiated in the article, with the possible exception of stubs. Anyone have any info as to this claim? Buffyg 13:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm totally with you regarding your position on categories and articles. The addition was made by an anonymous user, who I tried to contact just now via their talk page. Hopefully we'll hear from them regarding the change. In the mean time, I'll do a little research. -Steven Mahoney 19:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, she does come from a family with a noble background (according to absolute Simone de Beauvoir by Florence Herve, et al) , which is also indicated by the 'de' (French for 'of') in her last name. I don't know if categorizing her as French nobility is useful although she is technically noble, since this isn't mentioned in the article (and shouldn't be considering the irrelevancy of this fact).--Carabinieri 20:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I read a history of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, that explained the difference between the British and French peerages. In the British peerage only the eldest inherits the title. Their siblings are commoners. In the French system all the legitimate offspring were nobles. The book said that, at the outbreak of hostilities, Britain had just 92 peers, whereas 1 in 25 French citizens could claim to be a noble. If it was one in twentyfive 212 years ago what fraction of the French population can claim noble blood today? Is it more than 4%? If it is significantly more that 4% I wonder whether it is worth mentioning? -- Geo Swan 23:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Even though the "de" does denote nobility, the de Beauvoir line is extremely obscure and no-one is sure of the origin thereof or of how much noble blood there still remained. Weili 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The de Beauvoir family was never aristocratic (they are not listed in any directory). The "de" particle doesn't necessarily denote nobility in France (as it was never regulated as it once was in certain German provinces). Many middle-class or aspirational families added the particle to their own name (as in the case of Dominique de Villepin). The de Beauvoir's must have added it to their own name. Avaya1 (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stubbing?

I've submitted this article for wikification, as the wikification seems to end prior to The Second Sex. I'd be happy to do it, but I don't have time at the moment. As well, what do you all think of stubbing--or re-stubbing, as the case may be--this article? It seems to be quite short for someone so well known and researched. --onesong

Definitely needs to be stubbed: the article is quite short and hardly covers any of Simone de Beauvoir's works (among the extremely important ones are Pyrrhus et Cinéas, The Blood of Others, Memoirs of a Dutiful Daughter, and Adieux) nor the questions about the relationship of her work to Sartre's. --Paultopia 16:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Studies at Ecole Normale Superieure

According to what sources did she not attend Ecole Normale Superieure? According to absolute Simone de Beauvoir by Florence Herve, et al, she did attend this school. The École Normale Supérieure article also lists her as an allumni.--Carabinieri 20:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

According to her own autobiography, she clearly states that she studied philosophy at the above-mentioned school - how can there be any debate about it? Weili 07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Petite

Should be petit.

for simone yes, for a man no —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.66.242 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus on philosophical writings

I just want to hastily point out that this page needs serious expansion on the philosophical side. This should be possible to do without doing original research now that she's finally been granted attention as an independant philosopher in several fairly recent publications. I might undertake expanding later on after or while I'm writing an essay on her at my uni. Meanwhile, well, I just wanted to point it out :-)

This article is terrible. "out a feminist existentialism with a significant Freudian" my computer didn't fully copy this little foible, but either way, de Beauvoir is not comparable to Freud. In fact, she strongly disagrees with his work in The Second Sex; the theme of transcendence alone opposes Freud.63.3.5.1 04:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, at least about Freud not being an influence. However, I couldn't find the sentence you are referring to. I did see that Freud is listed under influences in the information box. That should be removed, unless anything one has read counts as an influence. Nejtan 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It has already been fixed:) The new sentence reades... "De Beauvoir's The Second Sex, published in French in 1949, sets out a feminist existentialism which prescribes a moral revolution." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.200.19 (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Without making a big issue of it, I for one would very much appreciate a little more philosophical context as well. While reading The Second Sex english translation I find myself a bit bewildered by the whole immanence/transendence dichotomy in the existentialist context which as I understand mostly denies the existence of god, whereas a cursory scan of the wiki articles seem to treat these as opposing views as to the nature of god. Reading The Second Sex, however, immanence and transcendence are treated more as aspects of female and male conditions, that is human qualities, socially constructed or otherwise. Any thing that might shed some light on this would be appreciated. I will do some surfing in the meantime. InternetProtocolDroid 04:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In due course I'll try to add some useful philosophical material, though there are really major differences of judgement about the value of B's philosophical views as such (the importance of 'The Second Sex' as a feminist text is beyond dispute): she does go beyond Sartre in applying an existentialist framework in areas where Sartre never trod, but there is serious debate about whether or to what extent some of her specific philosophical views are different from those of Sartre and the status of any such independent views that can be identified. TEKARNSIDE 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Freud, it depends upon exactly what is meant by an 'influence'. Beauvoir, like Sartre, had very mixed views on Freud. Some aspects of psychoanalytical description or interpretation were regularly and systematically adopted by both, but both believed that the kind of 'determinism' that can be seen as at the heart of Freudianism is fundamentally mistaken. Their own brand of 'existentialist psychoanalysis' bases everything upon free and fundamental CHOICES made by the individual. (A fascinating short work by Sartre effectively claims that we CHOOSE our emotions!) TEKARNSIDE 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

La Beauvoir

Per the literature, I note that sophisticated side references to Simone de Beauvoir use the term "la Beauvoir" (of course), so I created a redirection as such. Other more banal references simply go by full name, whereby only the name "la Beauvoir" had failed to enlighten the uninitiated as a potential link, which had not been previously provided. The new redirection seems to have worked out quite well (très bien). -Wikid77 12:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistranslation?

This article says that The Second Sex was badly translated. The basis of this statement is I believe this article http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EED6163FF931A1575BC0A9629C8B63&pagewanted=all

However I just read The Second Sex and can verify that this statement of the article,

"In addition to misconstruing words and phrases, the American edition deleted nearly 15 percent of the original French text (about 145 pages), seriously weakening the sections dealing with women's literature and history -- Beauvoir being one of the first to declare these as legitimate subjects for study. Gone were numerous quotations from women's novels and diaries, including those of Virginia Woolf, Colette and Sophie Tolstoy, that she used to support her arguments. Little-known historical accounts of women who defied feminine stereotypes, like Renaissance noblewomen who led armies, also vanished from the English edition."

Is untrue. While its possible portions were deleted, (I can not testify to that) quotes from Virginia Woolf, and Sophie Tolstoy were in fact included. I read the 1986 version, so perhaps this information should be included. 216.201.33.24 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a single Beauvoir scholar with a knowledge of both languages who does NOT accept that Parshley's translation is a highly misleading one. There are flagrant misunderstandings of the French, and the omissions as such are highly significant in both their scope and their nature. These are detailed in a number of academic articles (the fact that some quotes from Woolf and Sophie Tolstoy remain does not, of course, mean that none have been omitted!). TEKARNSIDE 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see how that is relevant. I read The Second Sex 1980's edition, and it included all the information that these articles say it didn't, what's more her existentialist philosophy was clear to me, of course I also had a basic grasp on it. Example when she talks about things going against her feminine nature, she is talking about the existentialist social construct, not the essentialist nature.

I haven't read the french version, as I am not proficent in french, so I can't say, but as most of these complaints come from the feminists that de Beauvoir detested, I am skeptical of these claims primarily because feminists in recent years have quite often fabricated all kinds of complaints.

An example of all this is the inclusion of a statement about Mary Wollstoncraft in the discussion of The Second Sex, yet Mary Wollstonecraft was only mentioned once, or twice, in passing, and had less then two sentences devoted to her, so that statement is really erroneous. 216.201.33.27 00:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is sad that 216.201.33.27's latest comments about Parshley's English translation, The Second Sex- like his/her earlier comment, which illogically argued that because some Woolf and Sophie Tolstoy quotes remain, it therefore follows that others have not been omitted! - should do still more to mislead readers into believing that the translation of Le Deuxième Sexe is a good, or even adequate one.

How can anyone who has not read 'the french version' (sic) and is not 'proficient in french' (sic) possibly be in a position to judge whether the English translation is a complete and accurate rendering of the French?

In addition to committing further errors and illogicalities, 216.201.33.27 makes it absolutely clear that he/she has NOT done what a number of scholars proficient in both French and English have done, which is to compare, thoroughly and systematically, the French and English texts. At the very least, it is incumbent upon anyone wanting to make any worthwhile pronouncement on this issue to read carefully the original article by Margaret Simons which drew attention to the inadequacy of the translation by listing errors and omissions. Only by showing Simons to be wrong can anyone mount a serious defence of Parshley's translation. I have checked for myself: the English translation is very selective and contains many misleading mistakes.TEKARNSIDE 16:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

216.201.33.27 if you look at the The Second Sex's article you will see that the problems with the English translation of the book are recorded and analyzed by Toril Moi's article 'While we wait: The English translation of The Second Sex' in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society vol. 27, no 4 (2002). TEKARNSIDE is correct the fact that some quotes from Woolf & Sophie Tolstoy are retained does not explain why others are omitted. Nor does it ameliorate the standard of the translation from the french. However the fact is Wikipedia makes determinations based on reliable sources and verifiable information. 216.201.33.27 you would need a major source to back up what is an "exceptional claim" that feminists have "fabricated" complaints in regard to this book.
Please bear in mind that wikipedia is not a forum and not a soapbox, making flamebaiting remarks like "feminists in recent years have quite often fabricated all kinds of complaints" is an inappropriate use of wikipedia's talk-space see WP:TALK--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(please note that I fixed the indention of this converstaion for readability's purposes--User:Cailil16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC))

I have now added to the page The Second Sex a careful and extremely detailed summary of the content of the original edition of Le Deuxième Sexe. Because of the very length of the two-volume book (nearly 1000 pages), I hope that the summary will be useful for a number of purposes, but simply looking at the way in which Parshley has altered the numbering of some parts, sections, chapters and added his own titles to chapters that have no title in the original already tells us something about how he fails to respect Beauvoir's text. TEKARNSIDE 15:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to what was written, first off I never said that other quotes had not been deleted, hoever that I have read articles presented claimed that all of this had been deleted, which was not true. Or when they claimed that history part about women leading armies in Medieval Europe or about literature was deleted, that wasn't true about the edition I read.

Secondly as for feminists fabricating things, I did not say they had fabricated anything in regards to this book, I said that many feminists are known for fabricating facts and this may be a case of this, example of feminists hoaxes being Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth which claimed that 100,000 women died a year from anorexia, or the claim that SuperBowl Sunday is the most violent night of the year.

By the way so far nobody in this conversation has stated they themselves have in fact read The Second Sex, (apart from myself) or read it in both langauges, so far your entire arguement is based on what other people have said, and I was providing what I know based on the articles I have read and included, I was not aware anyone said that some quotes had been retained while others were deleted, so far all articles I have read said all quotes by these people have been deleted.

I am not claiming an absolute on any of this, or that parts of it may have been mis-translated, I am simply stating that some of this stuff which was included in the article I provided, was not entirely true as far as the edition I read, which I provided examples of to let people know. That doesn't mean that there may not be problems, but I was raising a valid, and legitimate concern.

Additionally I don't appreciate your rude tone, or flippant attitude, especially since you haven't refuted anything I have said, only responded with sarcasm. This is a place for open discussion, if you have more information than I or anyone else does you can provide it and include it without resorting to a snobbish, arrogant, condescending tone, so knock off the abnoxious attitude. 216.255.40.151 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe this last intervention speaks for itself, in all respects!! I personally have read both the French and the English versions of Beauvoir's text in full (and, indeed, as I mentioned, have compared many sections in detail) - it was part of my professional work to do so. If I am given precise enough references, I shall be happy to take up specific SERIOUS points about the original text and/or Parshley's translation. TEKARNSIDE 17:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI 216.255.40.151 I have read the book. Also please review WP:TALK - wikipedia is not a forum for debate. We make judgements on what is included in articles on verifiability (ie that it has been shown in published scholarly research elsewhere) not truth. In short 216.255.40.151, if the newspaper article is flawed then use the scholarly source--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

i have cited the moi article Michelle````. i think it is obvious from this discussion that not having a section of the viability of the one and only translation of The Second Sex is once more a silencing of de Beauvoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me1atwiki (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Have reverted article to this state have a number of edits from Indian IPs adding spam and unsourced connections to Sarojini Sahoo. If there are any connections between the two please source them - I'd love to read about it. But until such information can be surced it has to stay out--Cailil ^talk 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

i have cited the moi article ````

Carole Seymour-Jones

I have just been listening to a programme on Radio 4 with Carole Seymour-Jones, author of the book Dangerous Liasons, which is about the relationship between Sartre and de Beauvoir. I've not added it to the 'further reading' section of this article, but from the talk, it sounds like it would be a useful resource for these articles. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Slight Vandalism

As of 3:58 AM EST on Monday, August 24th, 2009, there is a bit of vandalism under the section "Sexuality, existentialist feminism, and 'The Second Sex'". A part of the section reads,

"She rode through the streets of America on her armadillo crying to all that the British were coming and would destroy them if they did not give women equal rights. This action gave women the same rights as men from voting to using the men's bathroom. Simone de Beauvoir was a great figure in the modern feminist movement."

I will however edit this article to delete this vandalism, I just felt it necessary to bring it to attention in the discussion section before I made the edit, in case something should go wrong with the edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uofkentucky2008 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Does anyone kow what the little notes, held down by pebbles, on her grave / headstone are? (See the phot of her and Sartre's grave). Katie1971 ( Let's talk!! ) 09:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I took the photography, so I could tell you. They are one-way metro tickets. Though, I can't tell why people are putting them there. //Aerin, 2010-04-26

Relations

Really, I can't see the point of using such a big space of Beauvoir's biography for pointing out several people she had affairs with. Sure, the relationship with Sartre is famous, but all her lovers are not. In comparision, the page on Sartre mentions the polyamorous relationship with two sentences, not more. Delete the catalogue aria? //Aerin, 2010-04-27

Beuavoir wrote multiple books which use her affairs and relationships as source materials. Since she used these relationships in her books, it seems inappropriate to delete them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.173 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)