Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:26:13.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

READING THE SECOND SEX IN 1950s AMERICA*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2013

ROSIE GERMAIN
ROSIE GERMAIN*
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
*
Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BUrog21@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Simone de Beauvoir's The second sex was first published in English in 1953, four years after its publication in French. Since the 1970s, many scholars have come to view de Beauvoir as the most important feminist thinker of the twentieth century and consequently to regard the initial American reactions to The second sex, which rarely discussed it in explicitly feminist terms, as showing that de Beauvoir's work had been misunderstood or misrepresented. This article focuses on what American commentators did say about de Beauvoir, rather than what they did not, and it shows that The second sex was quite widely, and often enthusiastically, discussed. Critics often saw de Beauvoir through the prism of social science, in particular anthropology and the ‘science’ of sexology. However, three things impeded a wholly sympathetic reception. First, unlike de Beauvoir, American writers believed that ‘modern’ society, by which they meant America, should combine female emancipation, especially at work, with the preservation of ‘femininity’. Secondly, de Beauvoir's view that ‘woman is made not born’ clashed with biologically determinist ideas popular among American social scientists by the 1950s. Thirdly, and most importantly, American critics were incensed by what they took to be de Beauvoir's denigration of motherhood.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 1041 - 1062
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Thanks to Dr James Connolly, Prof. Julian Hoppit, Prof. Peter Mandler, Prof. Richard Vinen, and the Historical Journal reviewers.

References

1 Moi, Toril, The making of an intellectual woman (Oxford, 2008), pp. 5, 177Google Scholar; Tidd, Ursula, Simone de Beauvoir (London, 2004), p. 118Google Scholar; Simons, Margaret, ‘The philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir’, Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 14 (1999), pp. 61–71Google Scholar.

2 Coontz, Stephanie, The feminine mystique and American women at the dawn of the 1960s (University Park, PA, 2011), p. 143Google Scholar.

3 Tarrant, Shira, When sex became gender (London, 2006), p. 190Google Scholar; Pugh, Martin, Women and the women's movement in Britain (London, 2002), p. 323Google Scholar.

4 Moi, Toril, ‘While we wait: notes on the English translation of The second sex’, in Grosholz, Emily R., ed., The legacy of Simone de Beauvoir (Oxford, 2004), pp. 37–68Google Scholar.

5 Kell, Norman, ‘Culture lag and housewifemanship: the role of the married female college graduate’, Journal of Educational Sociology, 31 (1957), pp. 87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Time, 23 Feb. 1953.

6 New York Times, 29 Nov. 1999.

7 Grosskurth, Phyllis, Margaret Mead (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Hess, Aimee, Margaret Mead (San Francisco, CA, 2007)Google Scholar; New York Times, 19 Nov. 1978.

8 Bair, Deirdre, Simone de Beauvoir (London, 1991), p. 382Google Scholar.

9 Wylie, Philip, Generation of vipers (New York, NY, 1942)Google Scholar; de Beauvoir, discusses Wylie in The second sex (London, 1997), p. 605Google Scholar. Given that there has been some controversy around the translation of The second sex, I should explain that I have used Parshley's 1953 translation because this is the edition to which those authors that I am discussing referred. I have checked all quotes in my article against the 2009 Borde/Malovany-Chevallier translation and, in these particular instances, there is no substantial difference between the two translations. I use the Vintage 1997 edition throughout.

10 Fulton, Ann, Apostles of Sartre: existentialism in America, 1945–1963 (Evanston, IL, 1999), p. 18Google Scholar.

11 Francoise d'Eaubonne said that she admired de Beauvoir's ‘optimism and pleasure’, which she contrasted with Sartre's ‘dark complicity in the sordid.’ d'Eaubonne, Francoise, Chienne de jeunesse (Paris, 1965), pp. 151–2Google Scholar.

12 See, for example, De Bosschère's, Guy article, first published in Le Figaro and republished in Galster, Ingrid, ed., Simone de Beauvoir: Le deuxième sexe (Paris, 2014), pp. 63–4Google Scholar.

13 Hoffmann, David, ‘Mothers in the motherland: Stalinist pronatalism in its pan-European context’, Journal of Social History, 34 (2000), pp. 35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mazower, Mark, Dark continent (London, 1998)Google Scholar.

14 Jeannette Prigent, ‘Kirche, küche, kinder’, in La nouvelle critique, printed in Galster, ed., Le deuxieme sexe, p. 282. Prigent later left the party and expressed regret for her attacks on Sartre and de Beauvoir.

15 Dambre, Marc, Roger Nimier, Hussard du demi-siècle (Paris, 1989), pp. 191, 255, 256, 294, 357, 373Google Scholar.

16 Moi, ‘While we wait’, p. 40.

17 Blanche Knopf to Harold Parshley, 2 Nov. 1951, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Records, 689 /13, ‘I like your preface very much indeed … The only thing that I want to point out to you is that existentialism is really a dead duck.’

18 Note the lengths to which both Edith Thomas and Francoise d'Eaubonne went to find a word that they might use instead of ‘feminism’. See Chaperon, Sylvie, ‘Une génération d'intellectuelles dans le sillage de Simone de Beauvoir’, Clio. Histoire, femmes et sociétés, 13 (2001), pp. 99–116Google Scholar.

19 Philip Wylie and Margaret Mead label it contemporary in their reviews of it in Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953.

20 Harold Parshley to Alfred Strauss, 7 Nov. 1951, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Records, 689/13.

21 Bierstedt, Roger, ‘The women books’, Antioch Review, 14 (1954), pp. 224–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Wylie, Generation of vipers, and idem, The disappearance (New York, NY, 1951); Klein, Viola, The feminine character (London, 1946)Google Scholar; Mead, Margaret, Male and female: a study of the sexes in a changing world (New York, NY, 1949)Google Scholar; Klein, Viola and Myrdal, Alva, Women's two roles (London, 1956)Google Scholar.

23 Time, 24 Nov. 1952; Time, 13 Sept. 1954.

24 Pilardi, Jo-Ann in Simons, Margaret, ed., Feminist interpretations of Simone de Beauvoir (University Park, PA, 1995), p. 39Google Scholar; Castro, Ginette, American feminism : a contemporary history (New York, NY, 1993)Google Scholar; Caine, Barbara, English feminism, 1780–1980 (Oxford, 1997), p. 147Google Scholar; Davis, Flora, Moving the mountain: the women's movement since 1960 (New York, NY, 1991)Google Scholar.

25 Young, William and Young, Nancy, The 1950s (Westport, CT, 2004)Google Scholar; Halberstam, David, The fifties (New York, NY, 1994)Google Scholar; Coontz, Stephanie, A strange stirring: the Feminine mystique and American women at the dawn of the 1960s (New York, NY, 2001)Google Scholar; Petigny, Alain, The permissive society (Cambridge, 2009)Google Scholar; Gilbert, James, A cycle of outrage (New York, NY, 1988)Google Scholar; Wilson, Dolly Smith, ‘A new look at the affluent worker: the good working mother in post-war Britain’, in Twentieth Century British History, 17 (2006), pp. 206, 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, Sara, Tidal wave: how women changed America at century's end (New York, NY, 2003), p. 18Google Scholar; Kaledin, Eugenia, Mothers and more: American women in the 1950s (Farringdon Hill, MI, 1984)Google Scholar, preface pp. 3 , 4, 12–13, 190.

26 Tidd, Simone de Beauvoir, pp. 115, 120.

27 Sartre, Jean-Paul refers to the fact that there is freedom within any situation in Being and nothingness (London, 1993), p. 549Google Scholar.

28 Gross, Neil, Richard Rorty: the making of an American philosopher (Chicago, IL, 2008), p. 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 De Beauvoir, The second sex, pp. 66–7.

30 New York Tribune, 22 Feb. 1953.

31 Barnes, Hazel, The story I tell myself: a venture in existentialist autobiography (Chicago, IL, and London, 1997), p. xvCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Coffin, Judith, ‘Beauvoir, Kinsey and mid-century sex’, French Politics, Culture and Society, 28 (2010), pp. 18–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953: Philip Wylie had discussed de Beauvoir in terms of her scientific credentials and argued that although de Beauvoir did not always provide solutions for women, like the greatest scientists she knew how to identify the problems which, in this case, was to ask the questions, ‘What is woman? What is man? What is sexuality?’.

34 De Beauvoir, The second sex, pp. 393–415, 737.

35 New Yorker, 28 Feb. 1953.

36 Kluckhohn, Clyde, ‘Sexual behaviour in the human female and the second sex’, Perspectives USA (Spring 1954), pp. 144–7Google Scholar.

37 Parshley, Howard, The science of human reproduction (New York, NY, 1933)Google Scholar. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Parshley reviewed books on human sexuality in the New York Herald Tribune, cited in Gillman, Richard, ‘The man behind the feminist bible’, New York Times, 22 May 1988Google Scholar.

38 Bingham, Adrian, Sex and the British press (Oxford, 2009)Google Scholar.

39 Alfred Knopf to Howard Parshley, 27 Nov. 1951, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Records, 689/13.

40 New Yorker, 28 Mar. 1953.

41 Coffin, ‘Beauvoir, Kinsey and mid-century sex’: some critics who urged de Beauvoir and Kinsey to be read together, or reviewed them together, include Kluckhohn, Clyde, ‘The female of our species’, New York Times, 22 Feb. 1953, pp. 3, 33Google Scholar; Lewis, Naomi, ‘The last thing civilised’, New Statesman, 14 Nov. 1953, p. 606Google Scholar; Mangus, A. R., ‘The second sex’, Marriage and Family Living, 15 (1953), pp. 276–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Bierstedt, ‘The women books’.

43 McIntosh, Milicent, ‘I am concerned’, in Geddes, D., ed., An analysis of the Kinsey Reports on sexual behaviour in the human male and female (London, 1954), p. 146Google Scholar; Rudikoff, Sonia, ‘Feminism reconsidered’, Hudson Review, 2 (1956), p. 181Google Scholar. Rudikoff argued that Kinsey saw women as lower than dogs because he suggested they did not respond to psychological stimuli, while dogs did.

44 Margaret Sanger to William Cole, 26 Jan. 1953, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Records, 1177/ 21.

45 Rudikoff ‘Feminism reconsidered’, pp. 179, 185.

46 De Beauvoir, The second sex, p. 733.

47 Ibid., p. 689.

48 For UK, Halsey, A. H., British social trends since 1900 (Basingstoke, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; USA Figure Three, ‘Women labor force participation by age, 1950–2000’, in D. Cotter et al., ‘Gender inequality at work’, Report for the Russell Sage Foundation and Population Reference Bureau (New York, NY, 2004), p. 78.

49 New York Times, 18 Jan 1956; New York Times, 9 Sept. 1951; New York Times, 11 Mar. 1955.

50 Mike Wallace and Pearl Buck, The Mike Wallace Interview, ABC (8 Feb. 1958), transcript accessed on the Harry Ransom Center website, 27 June 2012. Pearl Buck recognized that women may have to suspend other professions while they had young children, but still agreed that women should be able to enter both worlds of motherhood and career in their lives.

51 Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953.

52 Chicago Daily Tribune, 1 Mar. 1953.

53 De Beauvoir, The second sex, p. 697–8.

54 Howard Parshley, ‘Translator's preface’, in de Beauvoir, The second sex, pp. 9–10.

55 Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Clara Thomspon to William Cole, 16 Mar. 1953, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Records, 1177/ 21.

59 Magnus, ‘The second sex’, p. 277. Mangus was a sociologist at Ohio State University.

60 Parshley ‘Translator's preface’, in de Beauvoir, The second sex, p. 10.

61 Rowbotham, Sheila, A century of women: a history of women in Britain and the United States (London, 1997), p. 274Google Scholar.

62 Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953.

63 These books are discussed together in Rudikoff, ‘Feminism reconsidered’; Bierstedt, ‘The women books’; Kell, Norman, ‘Culture lag and housewifemanship: the role of the married female college graduate’, Journal of Educational Sociology, 31 (1957) pp. 87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Quoted in Faver, Catherine A., ‘Gender roles and social change: reviewing the sociology of Mirra Komarovsky’, Gender and Society, 3 (1989), p. 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tarrant, Shira, ‘When sex became gender: Mirra Komarovsky's feminism of the 1950s’, Women's Studies Quarterly, 33 (2005), pp. 337, 341Google Scholar.

65 Pearl Buck on Mike Wallace TV show, 8 Feb. 1958, transcript accessed on the Harry Ransom Center website, 27 June 2012.

66 Reporter, 14 Apr. 1953.

67 Tarrant, When sex became gender, p. 83.

68 De Beauvoir, The second sex, p. 734.

69 Buhle, Mari Jo, Feminism and its discontents: a century of struggle with psychoanalysis (Cambridge, MA, 1998)Google Scholar.

70 De Beauvoir speaks fondly of motherhood in The second sex, p. 526.

71 Moi, The making of an intellectual woman, p. 206; de Beauvoir, The second sex, p. 501.

72 De Beauvoir, The second sex, pp. 501–42.

73 Ibid., p. 528.

74 Moi, ‘While we wait’, p. 57. Moi argues that a key issue of translation lies in the meaning of the word ‘actuellement’, which Parshley translates as ‘actually’ but which means ‘today’ or ‘in the present circumstances’.

75 Montagu, Ashley, The natural superiority of women (New York, NY, 1952), p. 238Google Scholar; Mead, Male and female.

76 Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953.

77 New York Times, 22 Feb. 1953.

78 Saturday Review 21 Feb. 1953.

79 Tarrant, When sex became gender, pp. 80–1.

80 Mead, Male and female, p. 342; Mead, Margaret, ‘The epilogue’ to Report of the president's commission on the status of women (New York, NY, 1965), pp. 192, 183Google Scholar.

81 Montagu, Ashley, The natural superiority of women (London, 1970 edn), p. 288Google Scholar.

82 New York Tribune, 22 Feb. 1953.

83 Saturday Review, 21 Feb. 1953.

84 See Bauer, Nancy, ‘Must we read Simone de Beauvoir?’, in Grosholz, , ed., The legacy of Simone de Beauvoir, pp. 115–35Google Scholar, at p. 116.

85 Jonathan Cape to William Koshland, 8 May 1952; Howard Parshley to Harold Strauss, referring to Cape's call for references to ‘international sexologists’ to be cut, 2 July 1952, Harry Ransom Center, the University of Texas at Austin, Alfred A. Knopf Records, Inc. 689/12.

86 New York Times, 29 Nov. 1999.

87 Listener, 11 Jan. 1951; Time and Tide, 28 Nov. 1953; Listener, 18 Jan. 1954; New Statesman, 14 Nov. 1953; Times Literary Supplement, 1 Jan. 1954.

88 Listener, 18 Jan. 1954, p. 309, New Statesman, 14 Nov. 1953.

89 Montagu, Natural superiority of women (1952 edn), p. 238.

90 Millett, Kate, Sexual politics (New York, NY, 1971)Google Scholar; Rowbotham, Sheila, Promise of a dream: remembering the sixties (London, 2001)Google Scholar; Friedan, Betty, The feminine mystique (New York, NY, 1963)Google Scholar; Mitchell, Juliet, ‘The longest revolution’, New Left Review, 40 (1966), pp. 11–37Google Scholar.