Plato, in Book 5 of The Republic proposes gender-equality based on meritocracy. Plato advocates for a gender-neutral system of specialization and employment in his ideal community kallipolis. Plato was a pioneer of modern feminist thought. He allowed for some minor changes due to physical differences.
Plato’s statement that “one kind must practice the same thing as another, but that women and men have different natures” is contradictory. But we assert at the moment that different types of nature must do the exact same thing” (453e). Plato uses an analogy to show the absurdity in putting bald-headed and coiffed men into different occupations. He then distinguishes a more true difference between natures: a doctor and carpenter. In Plato’s meritocratic system, “if the class of women or men shows superiority in any art or practice, we will say that this art must be assigned” (454c). Plato recognizes, however, that “woman in general is weaker that man”, although Glaucon states that “many females are superior to many males” (455e-455d). In the Platonic world, women have the right to specialize in music, medicine, or warfare, depending on their nature. Specializations are “not only feasible but also beneficial for a city”, (457a). Plato recognizes that women are physically inferior and assigns “lighter portions of these tasks” to them (457a). Plato equalizes the living standards of men and women, saying that “nobody can privately own anything,” which includes lodging. The rulers will also regulate sexual interaction. The best males are forced to reproduce with the most beautiful women. The government takes care of the children, not their parents. Parents are forbidden from knowing the identity of their children. After a certain age (55 for women and 40 for men), they can have as many children as they like, provided they do not have any.
Plato’s argumentation is hard to digest in today’s democratic society. Ability is the most important factor in determining employment. The kallipolis achieves gender equality only through an elitist, meritocratic system. The government should not be able to control the citizens in any way other than to make sure that they are on an equal playing field. This is unfair for both genders. Eugenics is also unthinkable to us today. It denies people their right to procreate or care for family members, and it’s similar in spirit with Nazi philosophy. In spite of these reservations, the passage that I find most controversial in Book V is the one that says that women should have lighter duties because of “the weaknesses of the class” (page 457a). The problem has been the subject of many scientific experiments. The debates over the presence of women in the police or military raises questions. For example, a female officer on a local beat may not be as intimidating, but does this compensate for a lack of command authority? Does flexibility compensate for a less muscular female soldier? In a technologically advanced society, does physicality matter at all? Questions of brain differences are more complex. Some studies have shown that men are better at spatial skills than women from birth. However, other studies say the opposite. Even if the science proves that one gender is better in a certain field than another, it will not be true for all sexes. This perpetuates stereotypes and reinforces differences. We should use a modified Platonic System of allowing rather than assigning employment based on gender, and we should ban eugenics, as long as our society calls itself democratic.
Comments are closed.