Reason, Gender, and Morality in the History of Philosophy

Caleb Parsons

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

In her article “Reason, Gender, and Morality in the History of Philosophy”, Genevieve Lloyd traces the development of binary oppositions between men and women in Western philosophical history. Lloyd analyzes the binary oppositions perpetuated throughout Western thought to distinguish women’s intellectual relevance. Wary of relying on these gender binaries, Lloyd aims to establish that difference can exist between two groups of people, men and women, and not imply inequality. Lloyd elucidates further stating, “What is intended, of course, is an affirmation of difference without subscribing to any covertly assumed norm…” Since all of the philosophers Lloyd examines are men, they only put forth the male perspective on Reason, thereby excluding the woman’s perspective from the public sphere. Lloyd’s efforts in this article are to understand the strengths of femininity out of the binary oppositions found in Western philosophy without subscribing to the hierarchies that evolve out of the oppositions. Lloyd does not deny that there is a difference between men and women, but what she refutes is that men possess superior agency and ability to exercise reason. Conscious of the interwoven threads of gender norms, Lloyd is sure to explain that, “The ideals of rationality have incorporated a transcending of the feminine, and the 'feminine' itself has been partly constituted by its occurring within that structure.”  Lloyd understands that in order to analyze gender difference she must maneuver around the male norms that created notions of femininity in the first place. Once aware of the structures of male dominance, Lloyds argues that people will be better equipped to affirm the strengths of women's difference without playing into these structures.