Analysis of Lloyd's piece

Lloyd, Genevieve. Reason, Gender, and Morality in the History of Philosophy

Ultimate question: whether or how, implicitly or explicitly, the authors are extending or using the matter of binary oppositions such as reason/ emotion, masculine/ feminine, active/ passive, etc.

It has been normalized to believe that women think differently from men (that women are inferior to men, that women are lesser to men). Much of the assumptions regarding this gender dichotomy are due to the social construction of differences (through education, workforce, household, etc.). Lloyd analyses different philosophical views on the Genesis story, with a focus on the female/male oppositions.  Much of the critique centers on the disassociation between women and Reason (in this case, Reason is only achieved by men).

Lloyd explicitly analyzes the binary oppositions (reason/emotion, masculine/feminine, active/passive, vital functioning/generation, mind/body) by critiquing the works of Philo, Augustine, Aquinas, and Descartes (all of whom were men).  

Philo’s work acknowledges the idea of “sense perception” which is symbolic of the woman. “Sense perception,” for me, is the capacity of using our “senses” (sight, hearing, touch, taste, etc.) in order to understand and the outside world (the keen awareness of our surroundings). However, it is evident that the “sense perception” of women, according to Philo, was embellished with emotion. It was seemingly impossible for women, as they held no Reason, to properly understand the “public arena” (or the outside world). The men, on the other hand, had Reason. Reason acknowledged a sense of “moral progress”. In order to exhibit “moral progress,” one must deny any existence femaleness characteristics.

While Philo believed that women lacked Reason, Augustine saw that women were capable of Reason (as both men and women were granted Reason by God). There are, however, bodily differences between man and woman. These bodily differences are not solely in association to anatomy, but rather the psychological (emotional) differences. (Descartes separation of the mind and body reiterates this idea).

Aquinas believes that women were created for men. Thus, women serve as “generational” (reproductive) tools to elongate the possible livelihood of the male gender.

Descartes explained that Reason was not a biological trait, but rather a learned trait. Although Descartes acknowledged the presence of women readers (by writing in a shared language), he failed to include women within his methods. This is an example of active/passive inclusion of women. He actively (or perhaps, half-actively) introduced the subject of the woman. However, with his use of the mind and body separation, he further accentuated the male and female differences. (I read Descartes’ Discourse on the Methods a few years back and recall the lack of references towards the female mind or body. Within the whole text, Descartes speaks upon the experiences of the male; while ignoring any existence of the female. Some of the first philosophical texts to introduce the female (thoughts, perceptions, desires, intelligence, etc.) within the discourse were Montaigne and later, Rousseau.)