• 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.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.5 no.1 s.9
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

This work has following two research goals. First, IVF treatments that have been recently going on in Korea are reexamined from the perspective of women's reproductive rights. Second, the intimate connection between IVF and therapeutic cloning research, in that remnant embryos and eggs that have been secured through IVF treatments have served as a main source of supply for therapeutic cloning research, has been emphasized. The fact that the influencing power of tradition on Korean families and women and IVF techniques eventually joined their hands in support of therapeutic cloning research is noted. Analysis of experiences of infertility by women in the realms of family, medical care during IVF treatment, and therapeutic cloning research that requires continuous supply of eggs leads to following conclusions. First, in the realm of family, infertile women were not only relegated to the status of abnormality but pressured to question their own womanhood. Under this circumstance, IVF treatment helped to reinforce the traditional concept of biological motherhood, thus categorizing married women giving birth to babies and married women who can't or refuses to do so to 'normal ones' and 'abnormal ones' respectively. Second, in the realm of medical care an infertile woman could rediscover her own body during the process of IVF treatment. By going through the processes of hormone treatment, implantation, conception, miscarriage, and so on, she could realize that her own body is understood in diverse ways to her, her family, and the medical profession. Third, in the realm of the state, IVF treatment that was serving as the main supplier of research materials for therapeutic cloning research has been able to avoid controversy in public discourses since the latter has emerged as a signifier of new national economic workhorse for the 21st century. As therapeutic cloning research went into high gear, the status of women as egg providers began to assume a political dimension. Women as egg providers are called upon to take on a paradoxical role as patriotic contributors to national economy on the one hand and as guardians of sacred 'life' on the other hand. The direction and progress of the research will depend on the ways that women comply, compromise, and/or resist the contradiction brought about by being assigned to assume these two identities: the one as a member of the nation requested to serve as a part of national economic development project, even though considered ineligible for financial recompense, and the other one as a guardian of sacred 'life,' even though she have to serve the research that is allowed to create a 'life' to destroy a 'life.'