The Feminist Challenge
"The feminist objection to the rationalist and Judeo-Christian views of human nature is that they are fundamentally sexist--that is, it discriminates against women." So says Manuel Velasquez in his examination of what he calls "the feminist challenge."Â It is a startling claim with disturbing implications. The basis of their argument seems to make sense. At the heart of the feminist challenge, however, lies a troubling paradox--one that, unintentionally or not, condemns every man as sexist, no matter how he approaches this challenge.
One obvious problem with this challenge is the assertion that a sexist view cannot be correct. Assume for the sake of argument that the feminists are correct and the rationalist/Judeo-Christian views of human nature are fundamentally sexist. To then throw out those views would be to say that an idea or belief system can be invalidated simply because it is distasteful. Consider Darwin's Theory of Evolution; the idea of "survival of the fittest"Â is upsetting to many, as it seems to imply that the weaker members of society (such as the elderly or disabled) are less valuable than the rest. This is a valid objection, but as Darwinists will point out, the fact that a view is troubling or seems to favor one set of people over another does not make it necessarily false. Truth is an idea that matches reality--not an idea that makes everyone happy.
All of that is irrelevant, however, given that the feminist challenge is based on a critically flawed premise--one that says that to value reason above emotion is fundamentally sexist. In reality, however, this view is not sexist until it is taken a step further (associating reason with males and emotion with females). There is nothing inherently sexist about Plato's admonition that appetite and aggression should be controlled by reason. Aristotle certainly made a sexist blunder in associating reason with males, but is he the definitive voice of the rationalist view? Do the rationalist and Judeo-Christian views of human nature, in their basest forms, not simply warn of the deceptiveness of emotions--something experienced by both women and men?
The real problem with the feminist challenge, then, is that it hypocritically associates emotion with women and reason with men--by saying that it is sexist to value reason over emotion--even as it condemns that very view as sexist. By its own admission, then, it is fundamentally sexist in and of itself, while still branding the rationalist/Judeo-Christian view as fundamentally sexist. "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." Similarly, it cannot be said that it is sexist to value reason over emotion unless men are more reasonable than women, which feminists say is untrue. This is not simply a matter of a perplexing dilemma without an obvious solution; it is an impossibly unfair paradox.
Feminist philosophers like Gail Stenstad and Genevive Lloyd should certainly be commended for challenging the norms that have stood for centuries and for drawing attention to a group that has long been overlooked. But they would do well to advocate their cause with a more solid argument, one not built on sexism. By focusing so much attention on alleged sexism, they are downplaying the cause for which they fight so desperately--to be recognized for their humanity, and not for their gender.