Poli 310 Prof. K. Froese Alan Dar Plato Essay

Plato’s interpretation of Book V regarding female guardians supports two interesting theories. Plato supports the theory that men and women will have equality with regards to becoming warriors or guardians. Is Plato’s suggesting that women are equally as competent as men if properly trained? Or is there another theory that suggests Plato is not a feminist but a pragmatic chauvinist who takes women’s femininity away and turns them into men. The reason for this de feminizations is to provide the most cohesive and effective fighting force and preserve the survival of the state at all costs. This paper will discuss the two theories and provide insight into Plato’s line of reasoning and possible interpretation of his works. Plato makes a bold statement "In it he makes a revolutionary proposal that children should be brought up by the city rather than their biological parents and that men and women with the same natural ability should receive the same education and training and do the same kind of work. Hence there will be female guardians and rulers in kallipolis, as well as male ones" (1992 Plato Republic, Book V, p 122).

When one considers this statement today, we think that women are equally capable of joining the military branch and being as effective if not better soldiers than men. This is illustrated in the USA where women serve in all combat roles, from land force, air force and finally the last difficult barriers of sea. This took significant time to change and many male soldiers are still reluctant to have women in the battlefield. Now we like to think of countries like USA who promote equality of opportunity and who would truly hire the right person to do the job. Now imagine that your in Athens from 428-348 BC. The climate is of a long war where men die and rule by combat.

Two great city-states Sparta and Athens fight for supremacy in a long war. Spartans have a whole society devoted to discipline, inflexibility and military conquest they support order and hierarchy. The Athenians are democratic and flexible but more powerful by naval capabilities. The concept would be very radical to suggest that women who were not even considered citizens and were below male children to be entrusted to the most important and dangerous task of defending the city-state from invaders. Let us propose a theory that Plato is a firm believer in equality for all the sexes. We get an interpretation of what Plato was suggesting throughout our analysis and Socrates "Or should we keep the women at home as in capable of doing this, since they must bear and rear the puppies while the males work and have the care of the entire flock? Everything should be in common, except that females are weaker and males are stronger."(Plato Republic 1992, Book V p125). This statement suggests that women don’t have the opportunity to prove their equality because they are burdened with child rearing. If this was eliminated and the opportunity presented itself for women with some guardian potential to enter training perhaps they could achieve similar results as males. However that by sharing child rearing that women can have the opportunity to excel in guardianship. This theory can be supported if you think of it in today’s terms. In the 21 century regardless if your in the military or corporate world, many perceive having children as a liability to the development of your career versus being an asset. A female who enters the military with a child regardless if daycare existed or not would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to her male counter part to advance in the military. Your focus would be more likely on your child and would make you less likely to be focused on defending your citizens. By removing children from women and having them raised by the state women could devote themselves to the warfare and guardianship. This concept seems communist and barbaric to our western liberal democratic thinking. However, during Plato & Socrates time this theory had some relevance.

Plato is suggesting with the proper opportunity that women can do almost anything that a man can do. But at the same time Plato clearly states that some differences are unavoidable in reference to strength. If you analyze this statement in the past, it would be difficult to find many cases of women on average being far superior to men in physical warfare. There are legends such as Athena goddess of the hunt and other Amazon warriors from numerous tribes in the Roman Empire. There was no equivalent female Emperor during the ancient times that was at least discussed by historians in extreme detail. However, in modern times women soldiers do exist in small areas that are considered just as dangerous and elite as the male counter parts. For example the Israel army of today has male and female integration and has female soldiers in 1996 First class of women cadets entered Israeli Air force (IDF website Oct, 2001 <http://www.idf.il/english/history/landmark.stm >). This symbolizes equality and capabilities of women considering Israelis air force is considered the one of the top air forces in the 21-century. These numbers are more remote in elite forces but do exist.

Plato suggests that women can contribute to the safety and defense of the city-state, but to what extent in comparison to a male counterpoint is not clear. Plato statements do suggest equality between the sexes but Socrates realizes that perhaps people of his time are not ready for such bold and forward thinking statements. At one point Plato questions and even ridicules his own comments; "But perhaps much of what we are saying, since it is contrary to custom would incite ridicule if it were not carried out in practice as we’ve described. It certainly would. What is the most ridiculous thing that you see in it? Isn’t it obvious that women exercising naked in the palestras "(Plato Republic 1992, Book V p 126). This statement refers to the humorous if not mockery of women training in combat as men did in ancient times naked. Palestras is a wresting school and training ground and pancretian wrestling was a form of combat that soldiers practiced in the nude. If you suggested this in today’s terms that males and females train for warfare naked, it would sound pretty crazy to say the least. Part of the rationale behind this was the negative view of women in regards to sex as perceived as nothing more than bearing children or hollow vessels. However the highest form of sexuality in ancient times was between man and man. By our definitions this type of sex between man with man conduct in the 21 century is still considered taboo especially in regards towards the military. When you have a male and female together naked, its only natural to see sexual desires. Plato’s logic is that if their always-together men & women will become desensitized to each other and be more focused on the protection of the state.

Perhaps another theory is that Plato’s suggestion that women become soldiers robs them of their femininity. By making women guardians Plato’s ultimate objective is chauvinistic. By making women into men they subject them totally to their lifestyle and prove that men are superior to women and that the only way for a woman to become an equal to a man is to adopt methodologies of man for example training for war.

Females during Athenian times had many important functions such as raising children, micromanaging the family unit and optimal foraging. Women are still needed to bare children and from a biological perspective still important to the survival of the state. Perhaps the war was going so bad that Plato suggestion was a tactic used to increase troop numbers to defeat the enemy. Perhaps another theory is to motivate the male guardians to fight harder because the war was going so bad that they considered introducing females into guardian posts because the males were not up to the task. This type of shame could be used to discredit women and motivate male guardians to fight harder. Or perhaps this intermixing would allow for better breeding of the guardians via Plato’s eugenics theory. Unusual mating rituals contribute to this theory.

Plato seriously questions the validity of his own logic that even if females are given the chance to be a guardian it would be a lost cause when he says "whether in jest or earnest-about whether female human nature can share all the tasks of that of t the male or none of them, or some but not others, and to ask in which class the waging of war belongs?" (Plato Republic 1992, Book V p126). Plato is asking can women be up to the task of warfare or are they typecast into specific roles predetermined by the gods or by man or by their own inability. If women are weaker than men physically then how can they be better suited for warfare? Considering one of the primary pre-requisites for combat is strength. Especially in

ancient times close quarter mortal combat was required to terminate your enemy. If you had an army of women armed with automatic weapons they could lay waste to many soldiers in ancient times. However, technology in the past did not always provide such a superior edge in comparison of 21-century warfare.

Socrates says "women of this sort must be chosen along with men of the same sort to live with them and share their guardianship, seeing that they are adequate for the task an akin to men in nature " (Plato Republic 1992, book V, p 130). Contradiction and further questioning of his original thesis are the norm for Socrates. His line of reasoning confuses even Socrates friends and some would argue that even Socrates is confused by his own contradictory logic. This question is highly debatable to him and no easy answer is present. For the philosopher who has an opinion on everything its generally not clear what Plato’s true theory is regarding the rationale behind females entering the guardian class. Let us suppose that a female guardian is as successful as a male guardian. Question is who will get more rewards after the conquests? The answer is males which reinforces Plato chauvinistic catch 22 scenario "among prizes and rewards of young men what are going in war or other things must be given permission to have sex with the women more often, since this will also be a good pretext for having them father as many of the children as possible" (Plato Republic 1992, Book V p 134). Does the successful female guardian get to have sex with the better males? No but in the end her downtime in bearing children could be considered a loss because she will have to produce offspring reducing her time in engaging in war and possibly dying from child birth. Therefore it’s a lose & lose scenario for the woman and a win & win scenario for the male. Plato although trying to preach equality, knows that it’s not practical and in the end will benefit more males than females. This type of circular logic could be used to turn women ultimately into shadows of men, not able to excel beyond certain fixed realms.

It is ironic that women even of the race as Athenian were not considered citizens. Citizens also had to own property and be active in the polis. Well since women in ancient times had no access, it almost seems like a token gesture to state equality with regards to women. Lets draw a 21 century analogy. Imagine that the war is going so bad in Afghanistan that the Taliban decided that women were permitted to fight in the war against the USA coalition. What would be the result of this equality in respect to guardianship? Even during the war women would not be treated equally as a Taliban soldier in regards to fighting capabilities. Their religion and perspectives of women are so inferior it would be difficult to raise the levels to true equality.

Let us surmise that Plato is suggesting throughout the reason for creating equality in the sexes is more for cohesion & survival of the city-state versus true equality of the sexes. The city was the most important entity in ancient times. If your city was destroyed your way of life would be destroyed. Is equality of the sexes a function of military survival or of true equality between the sexes in minds of Socrates & Plato? Although the philosophers provide argument for and against equality it is not certain that they come out with a definite conclusion supporting or not supporting full equality. This paper would argue that the Plato and Socrates exposed the theories of equality but the pragmatics and social acceptance of such concepts were too radical for the time and would not have been implemented. One can view this line of reasoning by evaluating our current treatment of women in the armed forces today. In only a few countries of highly liberal and democratic countries such as USA and or due to necessity such as Israel do women have high functions & responsibilities in warfare. Socrates line or reasoning is still relevant by illustrating the complexities of creating true equality in regards to men and women in the armed forces. One could argue that Plato was preaching survival of the state at all costs even if to make women more equal to men. Plato was not a feminist by our definition, but did flirt with the notions of quality between the sexes with theories that would have been radical for his time.