Gender and Plato

I remember walking around the mall with my girlfriend this week and began to notice just about every store was promoting “Pride” merchandise. The colors of the LGBTQ+ were everywhere and I started to think about the debate. I decided to watch a video on the debate and quite frankly both its bias and its lack of insight were quite uneventful to me. Then, I remembered my time in college where I read Plato’s famous work, “The Republic”. I decided to turn to chapter 5 where he talks about the education of women and children in his grand political design and saw just how ancient this discussion on gender roles was and how it has come time to see the different angles of the debate. 

Now I must, of course, give the disclaimer that I am an Orhtodox Christian and, thus, my views are aligned with Church doctrine and teaching. Whatever may be my view, however, I intend to give an expository view for the purpose of understanding and not a rhetorical view that can sway an opinion one way or another. What I intend to write is simply an summary and interpretation of Plato’s work to better understand the debate that the world is currently having on the issue of Sex and Gender. (Also note that the “Side Note” will be written in brackets. You can choose to read these or not as they are stream of conscious thoughts that come to me as I write and read the work) 

Plato begins his argument by stating that what he may say will be looked at as absurd. Society, Plato thought, would be shocked by his comments because they run too contrary to their beliefs and thus he may be in error. Socrates says in the work, “ [T]he danger is not that I shall be laughed at.... but that I shall miss the truth where I have most need to be sure of my footing and drag my friends after me in the fall.” He is assured by his hearers (particularly Glaucon) that they will challenge him and not hold it against him for preaching the wrong thing. He should continue to speak his mind on the matter even if it runs contrary to what is held by society. 

(Side Note)Now, Plato has never really been one that is afraid to counter society’s way of thinking. He often portrays Socrates as one who will question societal norms so that they live a lives of virtue rather than the materialistic life of popularity or wealth (see the Apology). In “Meno”, Socrates would even go against the societal rules by stating that a slave can be just as educated and worthy of rule as his master. This will go against Aristotle’s views on Gender and Class in his works “The Politics” which I hope to comment on later. 

Plato begins with his thesis that men and women should receive the same education, even in matters of military training. The purpose of this training is to train future leaders, the Gaurdians, which Plato seems to hint that he wants the women to have a place in. To prove the validity of his point he uses an analogy between sexes of hunting dogs and their accepted gender roles. “Are dogs divided into he’s and she’s, or do they both share equally in hunting and in keeping watch and in other duties?.. No.. they share alike and the only difference between them is that the males are stronger and the females weaker.” This idea of nature will form the thesis of Plato’s theory for education and gender in general. 

In the next post I will explore Plato’s thesis on the difference of nature between men and women and that impact on their education and societal roles. For now, what do you guys think? Does the differences in men and women force us to imagine them in differing societal roles?

(Side Note) Some things that I thought about when considering his argument. What about women as mothers and their vulnerabilities (and their children’s vulnerabilities), especially during pregnancy? Plato in earlier and later chapters states a society should promote people to the best possible station to match their talents. Men, being naturally stronger by admission of the author, would seem better suited for studying warfare and combat. However, as was pointed out in the play by Aristophanes, “Lysistrata”, women must also bear the trials of warfare. Any reading of the “Iliad” will tell you that women are often victims of warfare. How would this theory of woman fighting change the dialogue between Andromache and Hector?  Might this change if a woman is trained in combat?  Now, if a woman is trained in combat, what is the opportunity cost on her and society?