• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.126
• /
• pp.159-190
• /
• 2013

Feminist critics have criticized Aristotle as a sexist, misogynist, male chauvinist or masculinist, or, at least, their chief spokesman. Indeed, he says in the Politics that the male is by nature superior to the female and, also, that women possess the same deliberative part of the soul as men, but without authority, etc. In the Generation of Animals, he claims that the male supplies the form and the efficient cause, whereas the female supplies the material cause only in reproduction and describes the female as a mutilated being. When these remarks of Aristotle are read without considering their overall context, it hardly seems possible for him to escape from such severe criticism and condemnation. On the contrary, in what follows, I shall claim that the criticism and condemnation that has been ascribed to him is unfair. Although it is undeniable that Aristotle has made such remarks, it does not immediately follow that he was a sexist. In particular, I shall show his view on the status of men and women by analysing the value of matter and form ascribed in two of his main philosophical theories, the theories of hylomorphism and four causes. In consequence, we shall arrive at the conclusion that, since the theories do not imply the significance or necessity of either form or matter alone, but of both, there is no sign of sexism or misogyny or male chauvinism in Aristotle.