Hegel and Misogyny
G.W. F. Hegel had very clear ideas on the educational and intellectual abilities of women. Observe:
Women can, of course, be educated, but their minds are not adapted to the higher sciences, philosophy, or certain of the arts. Women may have happy inspirations, taste, elegance, but they have not the ideal. The difference between man and woman is the same as between animal and plant. The animal corresponds more closely to the character of the man, the plant to that of the woman. In woman there is a more peaceful unfolding of nature, a process, whose principle is the less clearly determined unity of feeling. If woman were to control the government, the state would be in danger, for they do not act according to the dictates of universality, but are in influenced by accidental inclinations and opinions. The education of woman goes on one only knows how, in the atmosphere of picture thinking, as it were, more through life than through the acquisition of knowledge. Man attains his position only through stress of thought and much specialized effort.1
Yes, Hegel actually states that “The difference between man and woman is the same as between animal and plant.” Hegel is not simply positing differences in abilities or inclination between the sexes, it appears that a woman’s intellect and nature is fundamentally alien to that of a man’s—and fundamentally inferior. Throughout the passage extract Hegel talks about men and women as if he were discussing two entirely different species; and not species as it applies to, say, human v. chimpanzee, but species as it applies to chimpanzee v. jungle flora. Chauvinism was no doubt the norm in Hegel’s time, but it takes much ‘specialized effort’ to be this degrading.
At least we’ve found something Kant, Schopenhauer, and Hegel can all agree on …
CITATIONS:
1. G.W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right, trans. S. W. Dyde. New York: Dover, 2005, p.87.
Comments
6 Comments so far
Has Larry Summers been reading too much Hegel?
I wish these kind of discussions could take place these days.
Rupert, please expand – what do you mean exactly?
Moral philosphers throughout history virtually to a MAN ( there are no important female philosphers) have made comments on the lack of a moral sense in women– and that weakness is obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology. Hell, Carol Gilligan tried to invent an “Ethic of Care” to save women from their demonstable inferiority at abstract moral reasoning. Having women serve on juries– has had the expected results in them acquitting any woman of virtually anything, esp if her victim is a man.. the examples are endless.
Calling these philosphers “sexist” etc is merely uttering a conclusory epithet.
Yes Jay, philosophy has historically been almost exclusively a men’s club, with the door firmly closed to women. Pretending that this is proof females can’t do philosophy is absurd – there were no black South African presidents under apartheid either.
As for important/influential contemporary female philosophers, you can start with: Philippa Foot, Hannah Arendt, Mary Midgley, Judith Jarvis Thomson. You can continue here. The very existence of these prominent female philosophers constitutes direct evidence against your assertion that women have a “demonstable inferiority at abstract moral reasoning” (an assertion that you in no way substantiate, but the way).
Hegel was in so many ways a failed philosopher, but at least on this issue he gets it.