Simone de Beauvoir Explains “Why I’m a Feminist” in a Rare TV Interview (1975)

In Simone de Beauvoir’s 1945 novel The Blood of Others, the narrator, Jean Blomart, reports on his childhood friend Marcel’s reaction to the word “revolution”:

It was senseless to try to change anything in the world or in life; things were bad enough even if one did not meddle with them. Everything that her heart and her mind condemned she rabidly defended—my father, marriage, capitalism. Because the wrong lay not in the institutions, but in the depths of our being. We must huddle in a corner and make ourselves as small as possible. Better to accept everything than to make an abortive effort, doomed in advance to failure.

Marcel’s fearful fatalism represents everything De Beauvoir condemned in her writing, most notably her groundbreaking 1949 study, The Second Sex, often credited as the foundational text of second-wave feminism. De Beauvoir rejected the idea that women’s historical subjection was in any way natural—“in the depths of our being.” Instead, her analysis faulted the very institutions Marcel defends: patriarchy, marriage, capitalist exploitation.

In the 1975 interview above with French journalist Jean-Louis Servan-Schreiber—“Why I’m a Feminist”—De Beauvoir picks up the ideas of The Second Sex, which Servan-Schreiber calls as important an “ideological reference” for feminists as Marx’s Capital is for communists. He asks De Beauvior about one of her most quoted lines: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” Her reply shows how far in advance she was of post-modern anti-essentialism, and how much of a debt later feminist thinkers owe to her ideas:

Yes, that formula is the basis of all my theories…. Its meaning is very simple, that being a woman is not a natural fact. It’s the result of a certain history. There is no biological or psychological destiny that defines a woman as such…. Baby girls are manufactured to become women.”

Without denying the fact of biological difference, De Beauvoir debunks the notion that sex differences are sufficient to justify gender-based hierarchies of status and social power. Women’s second-class status, she argues, results from a long historical process; even if institutions no longer intentionally deprive women of power, they still intend to hold on to the power men have historically accrued.

Almost forty years after this interview—over sixty since The Second Sex—the debates De Beauvoir helped initiate rage on, with no sign of abating anytime soon. Although Servan-Schreiber calls feminism a “rising force” that promises “profound changes,” one wonders whether De Beauvoir, who died in 1986, would be dismayed by the plight of women in much of the world today. But then again, unlike her character Marcel, De Beauvoir was a fighter, not likely to “huddle in a corner” and give in. Servan-Schreiber states above that De Beauvoir “has always refused, until this year, to appear on TV,” but he is mistaken. In 1967, she appeared with her partner Jean-Paul Sartre on a French-Canadian program called Dossiers.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newsletter, please find it here.

If you would like to support the mission of Open Culture, consider making a donation to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your contributions will help us continue providing the best free cultural and educational materials to learners everywhere. You can contribute through PayPal, Patreon, and Venmo (@openculture). Thanks!

Related Content:

Free Online Philosophy Courses

Lovers and Philosophers — Jean-Paul Sartre & Simone de Beauvoir Together in 1967

Jean-Paul Sartre Breaks Down the Bad Faith of Intellectuals

Simone de Beauvoir Tells Studs Terkel How She Became an Intellectual and Feminist (1960)

The Paris Review Interviews Now Online

Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Washington, DC. Follow him at @jdmagness

by | Permalink | Comments (13) |

Support Open Culture

We’re hoping to rely on our loyal readers rather than erratic ads. To support Open Culture’s educational mission, please consider making a donation. We accept PayPal, Venmo (@openculture), Patreon and Crypto! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (13)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Hanoch says:

    Debate may still rage on but, unfortunately, that is often due to misinformation. Certainly in the U.S., at least, men and women enjoy equal rights and opportunities. Of course, with the likes of honor killings, genital mutilation, and political repression still occurring in certain cultures, De Beauvoir still would have much to be dismayed about.

    • SVI says:

      Especially since the age of consent she fought so hard against has been instituted. She wouldn’t be able to have sex with 14-year-old girls today.

  • Adrienne says:

    In response to your comment, Hanoch, I find it ironic that we felt the need to pass the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 if men and women in fact do enjoy equal rights and opportunities. Usually we are culturally a bit off from our legislation (proactively or retroactively)…

  • Hanoch says:


    Unfortunately, legislation is driven by politics, not necessarily by economic reality. The statistical disparity in pay between the genders is driven by factors that are based on differing career choices (on a statistical basis) by men and women (e.g., differing fields of employment, number of work hours, etc.). When the differences in career choices are controlled for, however, (e.g., an individual man and woman are in the same field, in the same region, work the same hours, maintain the same years of uninterrupted employment, etc.), there is no statistical difference between the genders in pay. When you think about this from the perspective of supply and demand, this is not surprising. If it were otherwise, businesses would have to make the conscious decision (on a large-scale basis) to forego profit by hiring more expensive labor. There are several economists who have written on this issue.

  • Kathryn says:

    QuERI – the Queering Education Research Institute. I think they shared it first, but not absolutely certain.

  • Andi Fastweg says:

    She was a communist: Americans should hate her.

  • zeynep ekmekci says:


    do you know where i can find rest of the interview?

  • Steve Corner says:

    and you’re a fascist, the entire world should hate you.

  • Steve Corner says:

    and you’re a fascist, the entire world should hate you.

  • C says:

    It’s aamazing what you can learn from a website by the kinds of comments a post like this generates on its audience.
    So sad.

  • Namrata vyas says:

    how far Simone de beauviour’s concept of feminism is relevant to south Asian English literature, South Asian women writers?like, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. ?

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.