5.2: The Natures of Men and Women

See 451c-457c. Throughout this passage, when Socrates refers to the “guardians,” he means both the rulers and the auxiliaries from whom the rulers are to be recruited. Should the wives of the guardians live lives separate from the lives of their husbands? Should they stay at home and tend “the puppies” while their husbands – the city’s “guard-dogs” – are out caring for “the flock”? Glaucon answers no, that everything should be shared, and the women should serve as guardians. Glaucon doesn’t explain why he answers in this way. In all likelihood, this is not how his own mother behaved. Free women in Athens at the time lived lives remarkably separate from those of their husbands. They managed the household (particularly water-gathering, cooking, and weaving), directed the household slaves, gave birth to and cared for the children, but did not shop in the agora, did not attend theater productions, did not serve in the army, and did not participate in political decision-making. So what is Glaucon thinking, giving Socrates the nod and agreeing that these women should be, not just the wives of the guardians, but guardians who are wives? It is not hard to imagine what he might be thinking. The guardians are unusual persons with an unusual upbringing and unusual concerns. They live separated from the others in the city, owning nothing themselves but everything collectively. How could a guardian be married to anyone but another guardian? Would the wives have private property but not the husbands? How could a man keep the city as a whole his top priority and yet be joined in marriage to a woman focussed on private concerns? Glaucon and Socrates agree that women well suited to serve as auxiliaries should receive the same upbringing and education in music, poetry, and physical training as the men, and even exercise naked alongside them in the palestras. People may think this is ridiculous, but that is only because, lacking wisdom, they overvalue what is conventional; and it is foolish “to take seriously any standard of what is beautiful other than what is good.” But is it in fact good for women to serve as guardians? What of the principle that everyone in the city is to do the job for which he or she is best suited by nature? Men and women are clearly different by nature. Does it not follow that men and women should do different work? Socrates replies to this objection, first, by noting that some natural differences between persons are irrelevant to the successful performance of some jobs (whether one is bald or long- haired, for instance, is irrelevant to making shoes), and second, by claiming that the natural differences between the sexes are irrelevant to doing the work of the guardians. It may well be that “one sex,” the male, “shows greater mastery than the other in pretty much every area”; nevertheless, he insists, “many women are better than many men at many things.” It is not clear what Socrates means in suggesting that men are superior to women – perhaps that if one studied the distribution of attributes such as strength, intelligence, and spiritedness in the population it would turn out that the median for men would be higher than for women (or something like this) – but whatever he means exactly, his point is that, with respect to doing the work of the guardians, some women are by nature first- rate. And this is all that matters when it comes to selecting guardians for the city.

• Would it be problematic for a guardian to be married to anon-guardian?
• Is there anything wrong with men and women exercising together naked? Can our present social conventions regarding nakedness – no exposed genitals, no exposed female breasts, etc. – be justified?
• What do you understand masculinity and femininity to be? Are these traits good? Should boys be raised to be masculine and girls to be feminine?
• Is it true that natural differences between men and women are irrelevant to doing the work of the guardians? Do the strongest, smartest, and most spirited of women belong on the battlefield alongside the strongest, smartest, and most spirited of men?
• Is it true, on any reasonable interpretation of the phrase, that men show “greater mastery” than women “in pretty much every area”?
• What do we mean nowadays by “discriminating against” someone, and what makes this a form of injustice?
• Socrates argues that there is no good reason why men and women who are similar in soul should not study together, train together, and work together. This suggestion, a remarkable innovation for Socrates’ day, is fairly common practice in contemporary America. And yet, we still set limitations.

Consider school sports teams. We still have men’s basketball and women’s basketball, men’s soccer and women’s soccer, men’s volleyball and women’s volleyball, and so on. Women rarely get to wrestle, and almost never get to play football. Can this be justified rationally? It might be said that women are on average weaker than men. But, Socrates would say, so what? The strength of the average man or woman is irrelevant. What matters is even matching. A tall brawny woman is likely to be a better basketball player than a short flabby man. The idea wouldn’t necessarily be to have the best women players play with the best men players. The idea would be for the best players to play together, the mediocre players to play together, and the poor players to play together. If all the players on a given team were women, or were white, or what have you, it wouldn’t matter. The point would be even matching, not forced integration. Is there a good reason not to continue the sexual revolution and achieve equal treatment in school sports?