The early philosophy of sexism

Post Reply New Topic

Aristotle was a brilliant Greek philosopher and scientist who inspired many great minds of the western world.
He was also a sexist that inspired other ignorant sexists.
Aristotle thought that woman's inability to produce semen is her deficiency. A woman, Aristotle declares, is as it were an infertile male. A male is male in virtue of a particular ability, and a female in virtue of a particular inability.
According to Aristotle, woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, while at the same time being more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory.

Aristotle's view on women influenced western thinkers up until the middle ages.
Aristotle had been a student of Plato who viewed women as equals.
The reason that Aristotle's sexist ideas were more influential than Plato's is not because he was a better philosopher. Most people would agree that Aristotle was better.
It was because men wanted to feel dominate and powerful. They wanted to oppress woman and felt hatred toward them.

It was not known that a woman took part in the creative process of childbirth until 1828. They thought that sperm went into the woman and somehow a child came out of her.
All the pain of childbirth and possible death that the woman had to go through. She did not even get credit for creating her own child.

Have any modern studies disproven these particular observations?

more compassionate and easily moved to tears may be true for most woman. What studies have ever proven that a woman is less hopeful than a man, more false of speech and has a more retentive memory?

What Aristotle said would be similar to me saying this: A man is less compassionate, masculine while at the same time insensitive, more likely to be jealous,more aggressive,more apt to be a serial killer or dictator. He is less creative than a woman. More arrogant and false of speech,more deceitful and less intelligent.

History can never justify discrimination against any gender,race or religion.

Old Aristotle does seem to have a point there.

If he said that I'd agree.

Wouldn't someone have noticed before then that children inherited characteristics from the mother as well as the father? Also, what would have been the problem with incest, if the sperm was all that counted in the production of a child?

There is strong speculation from pre history that before modern religions women were venerated much more than they are today. From cave paintings and artifacts of the ancients it appears they had reverence for the woman as the creator of life. It is modern religion (The OT story of Adam and Eve) that puts woman lower than man.

There would have been a time in our past when people had not yet made the connection between sex and babies. So it stands to reason that women would have been seen as the givers of life.

There is also speculation that those cave paintings and artifacts merely represented our species' first attempt at porn.

LOL perhaps.

I think feminist philosophy which largely involves a critique of male dominated philosophising in the western tradition has quite a substantial body of literature.

I'm not sure it is accurate or at least uncontroversial to say that Plato viewed women as equals. I once tried in an essay to defend Plato against various charges of sexism made by a feminist philosopher.

The way I would see the matter at the moment, if invited to express my view, would be to say that any criticism of either men or women that is based on the shortcomings of one as opposed to the other, relies on the idealisation and therefore generalisation of particular features that one or the other may or may not have. In reality, each of us just is who s/he is, does what s/he does, in particular and actually, and therefore, is immune to the conclusions of any intellectual exercises that stray from this reality.

And that's why all this praise for Aristotle and all other 'great men who contributed to our society' goes down the toilet.
If it wasn't for one it would be for another.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNDTUUmz_9s&feature=related[/youtube]

You are very wrong. It would be ignorant to discredit the great contributions of all sexist males throughout history.
Aristotle was a brilliant in the fields of science,philosophy,metaphysics and logic. His inferior views of women were not so brilliant.




I am sure someone noticed that but Aristotle believed that a child was created from sperm and menstruated blood in the womb.
perhaps the problem with incest could be blamed on the menstruated blood in the womb combined with the sperm. Aristotle is dead so we cant ask him.

I cant imagine why any feminist philosopher would accuse Plato of sexism. Plato's ideas on the importance of men and woman to society was equal.
He believed that men were physically stronger and that women had emotional strengths. He had the most feminist views of his time.

You can tell everything about a Man by the way he treats Women.
If it wasn't for them, some great woman would have done the same job. Some other gifted individual would figure things out, sooner or later.
I do not wish to discredit anyone but rather to point out that humans have a tendency to aggrandize certain historical personas.
Thought is independent of whoever got a glimpse of it 'first'.

It's open to debate and it has been debated.

I refer you to Thana (1994) Feminist Interpretations of Plato

From the introduction:

"... a surprisingly large number of articles have been devoted to the question of Plato's feminism. While the majority of feminists have concluded that Plato's philosophy is sexist ... (p. 3)"

It seems there is also much support for your interpretation but it is not self-evidently the case or, I would hope, beyond your imagination to think otherwise.