In this reading Spelman attempts to explain Plato's view of women. Plato believes that women and men are equal. This is a striking contradiction to Plato's inegalitarian ideas. According to him, two principles structure society. First, different kinds of people have different natures. Second, the state is best served when people perform the duties for which their natures are suited. A distinction is made within nature, though. Nature is made up of both body and soul. Plato believes that there is a clear difference between body and soul. In his view, what makes a person able to rule is the soul, not the body. By this reasoning, a person with a female body can be a ruler if they have a ruling soul. This would seem to place women and men as equals. Despite the claim that women can be rulers because of their souls, Plato still views the characteristics of souls in dichotomous ways. "Plato is treating souls as if they are gendered- that is, he argues that some kinds of souls are manly, some are womanly; manly souls belong in males, womanly ones in females." (pg. 31). What Spelman sees as problematic in this argument is the idea concerning equality. Plato does allow that a woman's biology is not her destiny and that she has the intelligence and reason to participate in the running of society. But, this equality is only between philosopher women and philosopher men. He does not question the superiority of certain men and women over other groups of men and women. In Plato's analysis, the philosopher-ruler is the one who possessess the power to determine who's nature suits them to rule or be ruled. This gives a tremendous amount of authority and power to this position. Spelman sees this as a problem for feminists. Which women should decide who should be ruled? "How do we know which differences among us are significant and which aren't? Are some women in a better position than others to answer this?" (pg. 35). Spelman warns that holding Plato up as a feminist philosopher should be done with care. Even if he believed that women and men were equal in the soul, the other implications of his argument must be looked at.
Spelman, in this chapter, discusses Aristotle's ideas about women and men. This chapter focuses on his views of women and slaves. He believes that men are naturally superior to women. Women do possess reason, which is an uniquely human trait. However, they do not possess enough reason to rule. Women are to bear children and be their husband's companions. Slaves are to do menial labor under the instruction and supervision of others. Spelman believes that Aristotle views the relationship between man and wife as more equal than that between master and slave. But the male-female relationship is still one of rule by the male. Spelman points out that Aristotle's definition of woman implies a free woman. She says that the distinction between male and female is only relevant in relation to the citizens and becomes irrelevant when applied to slaves. Spelman relates this idea to a common thought among feminists. Many believe that the objective of feminism is to find cases of women being oppressed due only to their gender, irrespective of race, class, or sexual orientation. Spelman argues that this is false. She says that we can not look at a woman outside of her other social traits. "That is, no woman is subject to any form of oppression simply because she is a woman; which forms of oppression she is subject to depends on what 'kind' of woman she is."(pg. 52). Spelman believes that we can discuss gender outside of race and class if we use different terms. She believes that Aristotle is really talking about differences in masculinity and femininity. "What finally separates those meant to rule and those meant to be ruled, in both Plato and Aristotle, is being characterized as masculine." (pg. 54). Spelman believes that we must not only look at distinctions between women and men, we need to analyze distinctions between racial identities.
Summary written by Brooke Sams