Simone de Beauvoir is one of those figures who got eclipsed by her famous boyfriend for a long time, and is only now getting properly recognized as a philosopher in her own right. She wasn't Sartre's assistant. She wasn't "behind the great man." She was, in many ways, the more rigorous philosopher of the two. She just spent most of her career being read as the partner of someone else, and she had complicated feelings about that her whole life.
She was born in Paris in 1908 to a wealthy bourgeois family. Her father was a lawyer. Her mother was devoutly Catholic. The family lost most of its money during World War I and the inflation that followed, sliding from upper class to genteel poverty. This had a useful side effect for Simone — without a dowry, she couldn't make a traditional advantageous marriage, so her father grudgingly agreed she should pursue a real career and a serious education.
She was a brilliant student. Devoutly religious until she was about 14, when she had a kind of sudden internal crisis — she was lying in bed thinking about God and realized, in a flash, that she didn't believe. Just like that. The whole edifice collapsed in an evening. She never went back to it, but she never quite got over the loss either. She'd write later that she spent her adult life trying to find something to replace the certainty that had vanished that night.
She studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and prepared for the brutal agrégation exams — the gauntlet that French academic philosophers had to pass to get teaching positions. In 1929 she came in second. The first-place finisher was Jean-Paul Sartre, who'd actually failed the exams the year before. The committee deliberated. Beauvoir was 21, the youngest person ever to pass the philosophy agrégation. They gave Sartre the top score because of his reputation and because he was a man, but multiple committee members said privately that Beauvoir was the more original philosophical thinker.
She and Sartre fell in love during that exam season. They made their famous "pact" — they would be each other's primary partner, but free to take other lovers, on the condition of total honesty. The pact lasted 51 years. It was, by all accounts, complicated, sometimes painful, and central to both of their lives.
She spent the 1930s and early 40s teaching philosophy in French high schools. She started writing novels in her 30s. Her first one, She Came to Stay, came out in 1943 and is essentially a philosophical exploration of the experience of becoming an object in someone else's consciousness — a theme she and Sartre were both working on at the time.
But the book that changed everything came in 1949. The Second Sex. Almost a thousand pages. A philosophical, historical, biological, sociological analysis of what it has meant — across history and cultures — to be a woman. The book did something nobody had done before. It treated the experience of being a woman as a serious philosophical subject, rather than as either a footnote in male philosophy or as an essentialist celebration of feminine nature.
One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.
That single sentence is one of the most important in 20th-century philosophy. She's saying: there's no inherent essence of "woman." Women aren't born with the qualities our cultures have assigned to femininity — passivity, nurturing, emotional sensitivity, etc. Those qualities are cultivated through a thousand acts of social training, from the moment a baby is dressed in pink. Womanhood is a role we are taught into. The biological fact of being female is one thing. The social construction of "woman" is something else entirely. And once you see the construction, you can question it.
The Vatican put the book on its index of forbidden books. Established critics — many of them men who'd been her teachers — denounced it as obscene, hysterical, ungrateful. Albert Camus apparently complained that she'd "made the French male look ridiculous." The book also got hate from women who felt she was attacking traditional femininity. It was a scandal.
And it sold a million copies in its first year. The argument got into the bloodstream of Western thought and never came out. Every wave of feminism since 1949 — second-wave, third-wave, intersectional, you name it — is, in some sense, in conversation with that book.
Her existentialist philosophy is more practical than Sartre's. Where he focused on freedom in the abstract, Beauvoir was always interested in how social conditions shape what freedom is actually possible for whom. Her 1947 book The Ethics of Ambiguity argues that genuine freedom requires us to want freedom for others as well as ourselves — that you can't be free in a world where other people are oppressed, because their unfreedom shapes the conditions of your own life. This was a real intellectual move beyond Sartre's individualism, and it's the foundation of her later political work.
Change your life today. Don't gamble on the future, act now, without delay.
She wrote a major novel, The Mandarins, in 1954, which won the Prix Goncourt — France's highest literary prize. She wrote four volumes of memoir. She wrote about old age in a 600-page book that's still one of the most rigorous philosophical treatments of aging anyone has produced. She wrote about her mother's death in A Very Easy Death, one of the saddest, clearest books about losing a parent ever written. She kept producing serious work for fifty years.
She died in 1986, six years after Sartre. She'd nursed him through his final illness. She wrote a memoir of his death called Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre that is unflinching about both his decline and the messiness of their relationship. They're buried in the same grave at Montparnasse Cemetery in Paris. Their grave is one of the most visited in the cemetery. People leave metro tickets on it — a reference to the way they used to ride around Paris together — and small notes.
The reason Beauvoir still matters to me is that she took existentialism out of the cafe and put it into actual life. The big questions about freedom, choice, becoming, identity — she made them concrete. How does becoming a woman in this society shape your freedom? How does aging shape it? How does losing a parent reshape your sense of who you are? She lived inside the questions instead of just diagramming them, and the philosophy came out richer and more useful than the men's version.
If you're feeling lost af and you suspect that part of the lostness is about who you've been told to be versus who you actually are — Beauvoir is the one who'll show you that the gap between those two is real, and that the work of closing it is your existential project. Not anyone else's. Yours. And no, no one's coming to tell you what woman, or man, or person you're supposed to be. The construction is the whole point. You can examine it. You can rebuild it. That's freedom, and it's also work, and there's no shortcut.