Home / Top Stories / Aristotle’s Sexist Legacy
Aristotle’s Sexist Legacy
How many times have you heard the argument that men are more rational than emotional, whilst women are more emotional than rational? The idea that women are genetically less capable than men of rational thinking has no scientific basis, and yet it is entrenched in our culture. And to make matters worse, this old idea keeps rearing its ugly head in the sciences as an excuse for why there aren’t more women in the field (e.g., Larry Summers). So, where does this idea come from in the first place? Well, the answer to that question was illuminated when we recently stumbled across a paper written by law professor Dan Burk, entitled “Feminism and Dualism in Intellectual Property,” in which he applies feminist theory to the study of intellectual property laws. If you haven’t read many academic law papers before, it is worth mentioning that Plato, Socrates and/or Aristotle are frequently referenced since, as EVERYBODY knows, our legal system is heavily based upon Greek philosophy (as is our government, and much, much more). In his paper, Burk summarizes the core argument found in Aristotle’s Politics: “Aristotle justifies the practice of slavery by arguing that: just as the mind or spirit is superior and should rule the body; just as men as a gender are by nature rational and therefore superior, and should properly rule over women; just as humans are by nature rational and therefore superior to animals, and should rule over them, by the same logic, some classes or races who are more rational should properly rule over other races, who should properly be slaves.” Wow- this is both sexist and racist! Aristotle has been hailed as one of the most influential minds in all of history. We would definitely agree that Aristotle’s ideas have had tremendous staying power, including the sexist ones. Sigh. Now we feminist chemists can no longer romanticize those old Greek philosophers because if we had been alive during those times, we would not have been allowed to study science- or rather the “natural philosophy” of that day and age. In fact, Aristotle is still thwarting women’s ability to study science 2,300 years later. That, my friends, is what they call a sexist legacy.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Thanks for your incredible questions and answers! (Hope you wont mind the link to and blogroll of your post and blog now at my blog).
June 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Aristotle also thought the earth was immobile because he was too lazy to go out and experiment
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Enough with the anachronistic judgements on historical figures! why should bad history be any more acceptable than bad science? Darwin and Einstein made mistakes. Is anybody seriously contending that they aren't titans of science? Applying contemporary feminist theory to Aristotle,let alone blaming him for contemporary sexism in science,makes about as much sense as the phlogiston theory does to an analytical chemist!
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to be THE most influential philosophers on modern thought. Should we ignore the effects of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to exert incredible influence on modern thought. Should we discount the powerful influence of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:45 am
There are plenty of ideas that pervade modern thought, whose roots can be found in ancient, outdated philosophy. Often times, erroneous ideas, such as the specific brand of sexism that Aristotle peddled, survive for years and people lose track of where they came from. People will then think there is some validity to the erroneous thought because they have heard it said for so long. Therefore, it is highly valuable to trace such thoughts to their origins. By doing that, we can invalidate the thought and reveal that it is simply an error that has been repeated enough times that people think it is a fact.
You seem to think it is implausible that historical figures would leave ideological legacies which can still be seen in today's society? What about the historical figures of Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha? Despite the age of their philosophies, these figures continue to exert incredible influence on modern thought. Should we discount the powerful influence of religion too, just because it happened a long time ago?