the role of courage in women

8/10/2019 The Role of Courage in Women

1/19

THE ROLE OF COURAGE INWOMEN'S MORAL ACTION

Thesis for a Bachelor's Degree in Philosophy at the CatholicUniversity of Leuven, Belgium

by Helen von Mott

Recently I had the honor to be a guest speaker at Berkeley University. Theevent was "Empowering Women's Sexuality" and I was the wrestlingsegment of the program. After speaking for a few minutes I brought out my

mats and asked for volunteers from the audience who would be interested incoming to the front of the room and wrestling with me. These women had notechnique, no skill, and I wasn't offering to give them any. "Try to kill me." Itold them, "I just want to feel how ferocious you can be. Don't worry, I won'thurt you, and I won't let myself get hurt. Show me how powerful you are."Every single woman in the audience wanted to wrestle. Every one. Many ofthem expressed a kind of wonder at how turned on they felt just being ableto "let go" like that. Many of them got turned on just watching. I wound uptaking my mats to a party after the lecture and wrestling the women therewho didn't get to wrestle in class. When I got tired, they wrestled eachother.

Helen von Mott

Helen von Mott is a person well accomplished in the area of female fighting,both theoretically and practically. This is her Bachelor's thesis which shewrote many years ago while at KUL (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), the

most important university in Belgium and one of the oldest and mostrespected universities in Europe.

In this essay I will explore how the concept of women as the "weaker sex"has led them to be viewed as naturally inferior. Women themselves haveinternalized this image, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. All moral action
http://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htmhttp://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htmhttp://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htmhttp://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htm


2/19

involves an element of courage, yet when women are viewed as weak bythemselves and others, they expect less of themselves and less is expectedof them. Their actions reflect this, as do their accomplishments. Traditionallywomen have been seen as being capable of courageous acts, but the type ofcourage attributed to them has been of a purely passive nature, the courage

of a martyr. Womens courage has been the courage of endurance, whilecourage to take action in the face of adversity has been a virtue of the male.Because of their perceived powerlessness, womens choices have been eitherseverely curtailed or eliminated altogether, and without choice, morality isimpossible. Only that which we choose to do freely is worthy of the name"virtue." It is due to this powerlessness that women often feel paralyzingfear when confronted with moral decisions. Moral decisions often involveconfronting men who do hold power within society. Women are taught tofeel inferior to men, and when confronted with the possibility of conflict witha man (even if he is ethically incorrect) a woman will often decline frommoral action, out of fear. Also, because women are taught to be weak, andeven to see this weakness as a virtue, they will often tend to avoid conflictcompletely. They will therefore neglect to defend a moral position, or declineto take action in the face of danger, even if by failing to do this a moralwrong is committed. Men also need to confront fear when faced with a moraldecision, but the issue of inferiority due to gender is non-existent. Becauseof this, men are more free to act more constantly moral than are women. Togain the same freedom, women must overcome their fear of men and thesense of their own powerlessness.

The first thing that a woman must gain control over in order to become

free is her own body. Being in conrol of her own body means being able tochoose courses of action without being constrained by fear of physicalintimidation. The concept of "womens weakness" has been used bycountless philosophers throughout the centuries to justify the lesser positionthat women occupy within society. Women have come a long way in gainingequal educational opportunities, but they are still less educated as a group(largely because less is expected of them) and the idea of women as "theweaker sex" remains. As long as this is so, women will never be seen astruly equal, because where reason fails to preserve the upper strata ofsociety for men, physical and therefore emotional intimidation often prevails.When women are taught to defend themselves physically, they will seethemselves as truly equal and will also be able to choose despite their fears.

The "naturalness" of womens weakness has been used as a tool fordenying women an equal place in society throughout the history ofphilosophy, despite the fact that no empirical evidence exists to substantiatethis viewpoint. The so-ca lled fact of a womans physical inferiority has simplybeen accepted as common sense. Other scholars have dismissed the
http://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htmhttp://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htmhttp://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htmhttp://www.fight-for-fun.org/fungrappling/thesis.htm


3/19


4/19

assessment of this outcome as an undesirable state of affairs. In everysociety some degree of repression is necessary, in order for the society tofunction. We take pride in our rationality, and that rationality itself requiressome suppression of the passions. Complete physical independence isnecessary in order for women to find moral equality in an increasingly

amoral society. Specifically, if women were educated as Plato described inthe Republic , todays frequent violence against women would hardly exist,because women would not be perceived as easy targets and objects ofderision for physical incompetence. Rather, they would be seen as fullequals: not persons with "complementary virtues" as Kant and Rousseauwould have it, but as fellow human beings.

Plato is often called "the first feminist," but this term is misleading. Inactuality he did not see women as genuinely equal to men, but instead tellsus "in general the one sex [i.e., male] is much better at everything than theother."

Another point to be made is that although Plato paid lip-service toequal education, his own academy consisted almost entirely of men, withvery few exceptions. Richard C. Lewontin describes the exchange in Book Vas "the earliest one in which intellectuals explain to each other whyaffirma tive action just wont work" in academic life." He says of Plato: "Isuppose he searched for candidates but none were suitable" (Lewontin,"Platos Women"), using the faulty arguments of todays professionalacademicians to underscore the faulty actions of Plato. Professor Lewontinsees the predominance of men in Platos guardian class as well as in his

academy as being comparable to womens situation in modern universities.

Plato also made it clear in the Republic that he did not advocateequality due to any belief in "human rights" in the modern sense, but for thegood of the hypothetical state. He felt that some women were better thansome men at some things, but that the male gender was the superiorgender overall. Therefore, the title of "first feminist" really is not applicableto Plato. Besides this, he tended to forget himself even in his theoreticaladvocacy of egalitarianism, and in the same book he refers to femaleguardians as "guardians wives." Meanwhile , in the Laws Plato is relentlesslymisogynistic, and in a warning that the failure to regulate the private realmendangers the state, he wrote:

It is a grave error in your law that the position of women has been left unregulated . . . the veryhalf of the human race that is generally predisposed by weakness to undue secrecy and craftiness

the female sex has been left to its disorders by the mistaken concession of the legislators . . . .Woman left without chastening restraint is not, as you might fancy, merely half the problem,


5/19

nay she is twofold and more than a twofold problem, in proportion as her native disposition isinferior to mans. Laws , 780e-781b.

In Timaeus , Plato explains that man has two souls. The immortal soulis situated in the head, which is the most divine part of the body. The mortal

soul resides in the breast, and is divided into two sections, one superior andone inferior. The superior section, he asserts, "is endowed with courage andpassion and loves contention; [the gods] settled it near the head . . . inorder that being obedient to the rule of reason it might join with [reason] inconstraining the desires" ( Timaeus , 70a). Plato compares this part of thesoul to the mens quarters in a contemporary Greek household, while thepart- soul that he compares with the womens quarters is the part that heassociates with bodily desires. (It is interesting to note that in Platos time,women were viewed as the more amorous or lustful of the two sexes, andthus more likely to be ruled by their passions.) Nancy Tuana, in her bookWoman and the History of Philosophy , feels that this analysis proves thatPlato associated the virtue of courage strictly with the male.

In addition to this, in Timaeus Plato tells us a creation-myth of how inthe beginning of the world there was only man, woman being a secondarycreation; a pattern familiar to most of us from the story of Adam and Eve.Each soul was assigned to a star, and was implanted in a body that wascreated as equal in perfection wit h all other men. Mans fate thereafter wasdetermined by how he responded to his bodily passions. If he conquered hisemotions, then upon the death of his physical body a man would ascend tohis assigned star. However, those men who were " cowards or led

unrighteous lives" (my emphasis) would be reborn as women! "At thesecond birth he would pass into a woman, and if, when in that state ofbeing, he did not desist from evil, he would continually be changed intosome brute [animal] who resembled him in the evil nature which he hadacquired" ( Timaeus 42b-c). There is considerable space for doubt as towhether Plato himself had a literal belief in this myth; the misogynistic senseof the piece is clear enough, nonetheless.

Despite all this, until as late as the 19 th century Plato remained theonly philosopher to have seen women on a reasonably equal footing withmen; therefore he deserves credit in that regard.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), on the other hand, believed wo mensinferiority to be entirely natural and firmly based on their physiology; thussetting the tone for philosophical discourse on the subject for thousands ofyears to come. Feminine inferiority, in his opinion, was due the fact thatwomen had "less heat" in their bodies than did men:


6/19

More females [infants] are produced by the young and those verging on old age than by those inthe prime of life; in the former the heat is not yet perfect, in the latter it is failing. And those[men] of a moister and more feminine body are more wont to beget females . . . . now all thesecharacteristics come from a deficiency in natural heat ( Generation , 766b 28-33).

In his Physiognomics , Aristotle discussed the body types of differentanimals, and concluded that by virtue of their physical makeup, womencould not help but be soft and cowardly. ( Physiognomics , 809b 3-10) Hesums up by saying: "the male is more upright and courageous and, in short,altogether better than the female." These statements show how his biasesaffected his science; but they likewise influenced his Ethics and his otherworks of philosophy as well.

In Aristotles Politics he argues that it is the nature of woman to beruled by man, just as passions must be ruled by reason. He says thatbecause "the male is by nature superior and the female inferior . . . the onerules and the other is ruled." ( Politics 1254b 6-14) Woman, by necessity,must be ruled: by her husband if she is "free," by her master if she is aslave. Women are capable of virtue; but the virtue of a woman is herobedience to a virtuous man. "The temperance of a man and of a woman, orthe courage and justice of a man and of a woman are not, as Socratesmaintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, andof a woman in obeying." ( Politics , 1260a 20-23) Aristotle leads the way forRousseau, Kant and others by laying the groundwork for the "equal butdifferent" argument, which is still popular today. Aristotle says that "theexcellences of the [woman] are in body, beauty, and stature; in soul, self-

command and an industry that is not sordid." ( Rhetoric , 1361a 8-9) It istempting to think that Aristotle, by recognizing "industry" as a feminineexcellence, has seen fit to bestow upon woman a modicum of equality; butalas this is not so. For Aristotle the inclusion of industry as a feminineexcellence excludes women from the possibility of "higher" excellences. Thisis because he believes that to lead the life of an artisan or tradesman is"ignoble and inimical to excellence," and that "leisure is necessary both forthe development of excellence and the performance of political duties."( Politics , 1328b 36-1329a 2) Of course, both of these are excluded from thefeminine realm. Aristotles misogyny, and his belief in th e inferiority ofwomen, equating women with passivity and incapacity outside theirdomestic sphere, is a fundamental part of his metaphysics. Yet although weare taught that Aristotle was one of the greatest thinkers of all time, withmost of Western philosophy being based on his work, this element of histhought is hardly ever examined in an academic setting.

The object of this work is not, however, to catalog the pervasivemisogyny in Western philosophy, but to see how the perception of women as


7/19

inferior beings has stripped them of the courage necessary for morality.Therefore, having shown the low esteem with which women were held in thefoundational works of that philosophy, I will now go on by investigating thenature of courage and its evolution from ancient to modern times, withoutthe female. (It is interesting that the Greek word for courage, andreia , is

literally translated as "manliness," and the word "virtue" is itself taken fromthe Latin vir , meaning "man.")

Plato, in his Protagoras and Laches , discussed the nature of courage,but failed to come up with any satisfactory answer as to what courageactually is. He did conclude, however, that that an essential element ofcourage was the knowledge of good and evil, indicating a tie betweencourage and morality. His logic was as follows: Courage is a virtue that is tobe admired. Action taken in the service of evil is not to be admired; but toknow if an action is performed in the service of good rather than evil, theactor must be able to distinguish between the two. This definition seemsflawed, in that it digs too deep, and conflates courage with wisdom. Whatmotivates a courageous act in no way detracts from the strength of willneeded to perform the act.

Aristotle has a much more forthright approach to his examination ofcourage than his predecessor Plato. For Aristotle, "while [the brave man] willfear even the things that are not beyond human strength, he will face themas he ought and as the rule directs, for honors sake; for this is the end ofvirtue." ( Nicomachean Ethics III5a 10) For Aristotle, it is essential that inorder to qualify as brave, a man must not act out of passion, fearlessness

(rashness), ignorance, fear of punishment or pain, experience, or supremeself-confidence (i.e., a sanguine nature). Instead, he must act with regard toa noble end, despite any fear that he may feel. Aristotle also affirms thepossibility of sacrifice in acts of courage, saying: "It is for facing what ispainful . . . that men are called brave. Hence courage involves pain, and it is

justly praised; for it is harder to face what is painful than to abstain fromwhat is pleasant."

On this point I must agree with Aristotle in that the possibility of painmust be embraced in order for a physical act to be called brave.Unfortunately, women are sheltered from birth, and encouraged to fearphysical pain to the point of avoiding it at all costs. "Roughhousing" withparents (i.e., the father) is usually off-limits to female children, and whileboys are often allowed to work out their differences physically amongthemselves, it has been considered "unseemly" for young ladies to engage insuch "masculine" activity. In addition, hard-contact sports such as football,boxing, rugby, and wrestling have been customarily eliminated from thefeminine experience even in so-called egalitarian schools. So the perception


8/19

of woman as the "weaker sex" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Womenare denied the opportunity of engaging in strenuous physical activity, and sobecome unable to do so. The only time that touch is permissible to woman iswithin a sexual, or maternal, setting. Friends sometimes do hold hands orhug, but an aggressive physical attitude for women is actively discouraged

within the confines of modern society.

As a result, when put in a potentially hostile situation, women have thetendency to "freeze up." Nothing in their experience has prepared them fordealing with inflicted pain, and we fear that which we do not know. In thehopes of averting the path of aggression, women will often turn to the onlydefense that they have been taught: absolute passivity! (There is even apopular myth that says that this is the best way for women to deal withhostile situations. Lest any credence be given to this, I would like to pointout that in most reported violent attacks on women, when any strongresistance has been shown, the resistance has been enough to break off theattack altogether. In psychological profiling it has been shown that mostwould-be rapists prefer passive victims, so as to fulfill their fantasies ofomnipotence.) Women often harbor so much fear that the very threat ofphysical discomfort will be enough to dissuade them from doing what theyfeel is ethically right. Sometimes the passive defense works (although mostoften it doesnt), but every time it is used it fosters resentment, for it stripsaway honesty and forces women to use their weakness instead of theirstrength to defend themselves. Furthermore, it serves to convince women oftheir own lack of physical ability.

For the purposes of this paper I will use a very Aristotelian definition ofcourage. Courage is an affirmation of all that is noble within the humanspirit, but it is an affirmation that takes place in spite of worldlycircumstances. A courageous act involves the possibility of sacrifice, up toand including the sacrifice of ones own life. Fear is an essential part of anycourageous act, for courage lies in feeling fear and actively affirming what isright in spite of that fear. There can be no courage where there is no fear. Acourageous act for a woman, however, more often ends in the ultimatesacrifice than does a courageous act for a man. This is largely due to herlack of physical training and her own mental impression of her helplessness.As a result, women feel (often rightly) that for them there is no middleground regarding acts of courage. When they act in accordance with theirconscience against societys expectations, they often risk much more thando their male counterparts. This is because the personhood of the male isalready taken for granted within our patriarchal society. When a man assertshimself regarding what he believes to be right, there is no conception thathe is somehow "out of line," so long as he acts within the boundaries of


9/19

propriety. If however a woman asserts herself in the same way, she is oftenseen as "a radical," "a militant feminist," "masculine," or worse.

This type of societal reaction to womens strength is a form ofmanipulation and interferes with female autonomy. For the 18 th century

German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), autonomy was the sourceof human dignity and the foundation for all moral action. "Manipulation" canbe understood as anything that tries to influence a person to make rationaldecisions on irrational grounds. It can also be achieved by withholdinginformation, so that the person making the decision is incapable offormulating a rational basis for a decision. The conception of femininity is amanipulation that encourages women to base decisions regarding behaviorno on reason, but out of a desire to fit in with society. When women aretaught to be "feminine," their rights regarding the possibility of decision-making without undue, illogical interference are violated, including choicesabout moral action. (The same strait-jacket is the case for men and"masculinity"; but the limits, for men, do not affect the bounds for moralityand courage.) For Kant, one is under a moral obligation to do something if itis required by the principles one accepts as a rational being, free from"determining causes" and independently of all desire. For a woman,however, determining causes have typically become so much a part of self-image that it is virtually impossible for her to think rationally.

Feminine passivity often manifests itself in servility. When one isservile, one cannot be moral, for if one respected a system of moral rightsone would be compelled to learn ones place in it, to af firm it proudly, and

not to take abuses of it lightly. When a woman subjects herself to servitudeshe shows either an ignorance of her moral rights or a disregard for them.The same can of course be said of the subjector, but he doubtless feels

justified in thinking that the woman has waived her rights to autonomy infavor of an easier life. The problem with this agument is that some rights(e.g., the right to respect as a human being) cannot be waived. When awoman misunderstands her own rights or does not hold them in high enoughesteem, she can only be expected to make this mistake concerning therights of others as well. From a Kantian perspective, to behave in an ethicalmanner is to be aware of and to respect the moral law. This involves holdingthe mo ral system in esteem, and being unwilling to give up ones place in it.The moral law is a system of fundamental rights and duties. A personsrespect for humanity as a whole is evidence in that persons respect for themoral law. This system is universal. Therefore each person must treat his orher own rights with the same deference that he or she would treat the rightsof others. "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your ownperson or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end andnever simply as a means," says Kant. Servility is an immoral act because it


10/19

is a disregard for ones own place within the moral law. Forfeiture ofautonomy is immoral as well, because, as Kant saw it: "Autonomy is theground of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature, andtherefore lies at the foundation of all morality." Only fully autonomouspersons are capable of making the Good into the exclusive aim of their

actions. So in the sense that femininity encourages passivity, discouragesautonomy, and thus inspires servility, the idea of a "feminine nature" is itselfimmoral. (It is ironic that Kant himself would disagree with me on this point,since he, like Aristotle, believed womens morality to be "different" frommens moralit y.)

For Kant, woman was the "fair" or "beautiful" sex, while man was he"noble" sex. He believed that the "fair" nature of woman refined the noblenature of man. He wrote, in Anthropology : "As culture advances each partymust be superior in his own particular way: the man must be superior to thewoman by his physical strength and courage; the woman to the man,however, by her natural talent for gaining mastery over his desire for her. Ina still uncivilized state of affairs, on the contrary, all superiority is on themans side." Therefore the superiority of the woman to the man is not evendue to any autonomous talent she may bring to the relationship, but strictlyby her value as a sex object and manipulative skill in such a role. Womans"feminine charm" is given to her by the culture, while a mans naturalphysical superiority is given to him by birth. Kant also believed that reasonwas a defining characteristic of a moral entity, yet he discouraged womenfrom strengthening this capacity. He justified this in Observations by sayingthat deep meditation and sustained reflection "do not well befit" the female

sex. Further, even if a woman were to succeed in such endeavors, she would"destroy the merits that are proper to her sex . . . at the same time she willweaken the charms with which she exercises her great power over the[male] sex." So women are to be excluded from the realm of reason, andthus of morality in the Kantian view, not because they are incapable ofpursuing this goal, but because in doing so they would inhibit mensdevelopment. So much for a woman being an end in herself!

In the Kantian analysis, the purpose of women is to refine men byencouraging in men the noble qualities that they are attracted to, e.g.,wisdom, courage and accomplishments. Men in turn are attracted towomens beauty. Therefore, although a woman is capable of reason, it is herproper place to see the world not through the eyes of reason, but throughthe eyes of beauty. He writes: "A womans education is n ot instruction butguidance. She must know men, rather than books." Further: "One will seeknot to broaden [womens] total moral feeling and not their memory, andthat of course not by universal rules, but by some judgment upon theconduct that they see ab out them." So womens moral instruction is to be


11/19

based on emotion, instead of reason. "Women will avoid the wicked notbecause it is unright, but because it is ugly; and virtuous actions mean tothem such [actions] as are morally beautiful. Nothing of duty, nothing ofcompulsion, nothing obligation!" ( Observations .) However, he points out inhis Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals , that true moral action should

not be based on feelings, but instead on universal principles founded onreason. It seems then that Kant advocates the socialization of women intoamoral creatures. This can be summed up in his view of the maritalrelationship: "The principal object of marriage is that the man shouldbecome more perfect as a man, and the woman as a wife." ( Observations .)The moral goodness of women therefore, is again defined in terms ofservility. Yet as we have seen, in the Kantian analysis morality and servilityare mutually exclusive ideas. According to Kant, people have a duty toperfect themselves. Despite this, he argues against women perfectingthemselves as women , because in doing so they would be less apt to servemen.

Kant bases this servitude on womens natural weakness. A womansbiological timidity is the natural result of having to bear the fetus.( Anthropology .) The woman is dependent upon the man in her entirety. Kantargues that this protection is a womans right, and not a liability. Obviouslythis is a hollow argument, for this reliance strips women of their autonomy,which is, as we have seen, necessary in order to live a moral life. Menbecome their wives "curators" and dictate to them not only what theiractions should be but what their very will consists of. ( Anthropology .)Unfortunately, Kant is correct in his assessment in that this is how society

has traditionally operated; but he is wrong in calling this state ofdependence "natural."

In The Phenomenology of Spirit , the German philosopher Georg Hegel(1770-1831) writes that human relationships are based on the fight forrecognition. This is what he refers to as the master/slave relationship.Although Hegel used the terms "master" and "slave" rather more literallythan I will employ them herein, there are definitely parallels between theHegelian historical situation in which "Man" has found himself, and the roleof women. (Simone de Beauvoir saw this as well, and believed that thetendency to oppress others was natural to human consciousness; again, weshould not confuse natural with desirable. In her central work The Seco ndSex, she wrote that oppression is the result of the "existents" desire to fleefrom herself/himself by identifying superiority as the oppression of another."In each man that exists today, the husband wants to find himself in hiswife, the lover in his mistress . . . he is seeking in her they myth of hisvirility, his sovereignty, of his immediate reality.") Hegel believed, ironicallyin retrospect, that a free society would come about with the ultimate victory


12/19

of Napoleon Bonaparte. For Hegel, history is the history of warlike mastersand working slaves. To be human is to be one or the other. For the master,recognition is valued above life itself, indeed, the way one gains recognitionis by risking ones life, for risking ones life is the base level o f human value.The recognition that a master gets, is that of being called "master" by other

human beings. This recognition is empty, however, because what the masterreally wants is recognition by an equal, and this he cannot get from a slave.Two masters could never recognize one another, because they would alwaysfight to the death.

The slave is the slave because he was not willing to put his life on theline and the master was, and therefore the slave was dominated. However,because mastery is actually an impasse, the slave can realize what themaster cannot: that is, real freedom. That is actually what the masterwants, but cant have because he is trying to gain freedom throughdomination, and that does not work.

Freedom, and the idea of freedom, only become possible through themaster as a catalyst in the life of the slave. Because the slave has beensubordinate, he recognizes the value of autonomy. At first he sees thisautonomy as only belonging to the master, but he can see what freedom isand so begins to desire it for himself. The slave has an advantage, in that hedoesnt want to be what he currently is, while the master is unwilling tochange, although he isnt truly happy. But although the slave can see whatfreedom is, the reality is that he is still a slave. He became a slave becauseof his fear of death. He automatically assumes that the master can kill him.

His knowledge allows the master to retain his position without having tofight. Because the slave will not risk his life, he is dependent on the master .To overcome his slavery he must overcome his fear of death. The goal of theslave is not to become a master himself, but to evolve out of slavery. Whenthere are no more slaves, then mastery is impossible. The slave sees thatthe meaning of recognition (and therefore freedom) lies in mutualrecognition . He can see this, while the master cannot, because the slave iscapable of seeing the humanity and the autonomy in the master as well as inhimself, while the master only sees himself as truly human. Only if the slavecomes to find his own existence in and for himself can he realize a humanitythat is mutually recognizable. The slave can only change the fight betweenhimself and his master by changing the conditions in which the fight takesplace.

It is important to note here that for Hegel, the slave and not themaster was responsible for transforming nature. The master needed only todominate the slave, and the slave would change nature according to themasters whims. The reason that womens slavery has been so difficult to


13/19

combat lies here. Women are subject to a peculiar kind of slavery thatdenies them access to the world. Hegel assumed that when the slave workedhe made new conditions for himself, and when he worked again he improvedon those conditions, so there was a constant process of improvement.

For women, this is not so. Like the Hegelian slave, women aredominated by the fear of losing their lives. Because women are unwilling torisk their lives, they become dependent on men. They are not recognized asequal human beings, because they are not willing to risk as much as men inorder to assert their humanity. Even if a woman is willing to risk her life forthis, it is still assumed that she is not, and she is treated with less respectthan a man. At the very least, she is challenged more than her malecounterparts, for she is seen as a natural slave, and her attitude ofautonomy is viewed as disrespect for her masters. However, because herwork cannot change the condition of the world, it is impossible for her to endher slavery in the way that Hegel described. However, Hegel also said thatthe slave must change so that he no longer fears death from the master.

Hegel uses the term Bildung , which can be translated either as"transformation" or "education." Here I shall use the term "educativeforming." Women are not put in positions where they can change the worldthrough work, but they do have the opportunity to be educated. Througheducation, women can see the ideal of freedom, just as Hegels slave couldsee freedom through his work. Women must also learn to think about theeducation they receive, for often the education given to women educatesthem to think like slaves. Education can free women from their economic

dependence, but often dependence on men by way of protection is imposedby the framework within womens own minds. In order to overcome thistendency, women must transform themselves through physical education .This physical transformation will engender a psychological transformation, sothat women will no longer fear death at the hands of their "masters."Educating women to the possibility of their own strength will allow formutual recognition to take place. This will also be of benefit to men, for thelove and recognition they will receive from their mates will be the love andrecognition of equals, not subordinates. When women are seen as human,moreover, men will be less able to commit unethical acts toward them. Thisis true even if men at first do not see women as equals, for in defendingthemselves, women will keep unethical acts from taking place. Thus theeducative forming of women will not only lead to their emancipation, but willalso lead to an ethical education for many men, as well. Through mutualrecognition, both genders will benefit.

Hegel saw that when the slave had the idea of freedom, but could notyet act on this idea, he put up mental defenses to justify his inaction. One of


14/19

the justifications was that of stoicism. In stoicism, the slave tries to convincehimself that it is enough to know he is free, and the real conditions areunimportant. The problem with this argument is that it amounts essentiallyto lying to oneself. External conditions are precisely what determine theextent to which a person is actually free. All persons are free, but freedom

always lies within a limited situation with a finite number of possibilities. Soall people are free, but some people are more free than others. To know thatyour soul is free, is not sufficient to feel free. To be free is to be free incomparison with others who are free as well.

To justify external situations, a slave often results to solipsism.Solipsists will say to themselves: "Nothing is real, except what I make ofreality." At the core of this is contradiction. It is impossible to affirm reality,and simultaneously to deny its existence. The outcome of full-blownsolipsism is suicide, the supreme act of denying the outer world. Suicide canoften take the form of denying the probably outcomes of self-destructivebehavior. Solipsism is an illusory freedom, and often ends in the tragicdestruction of life. If real freedom were gained, solipsism would beunnecessary, because women would have more actual options, and wouldnot need to choose imaginary ones.

Christian theology, for Hegel, was the third and final way that a slavecan convince himself of his own freedom while retaining his subservientstatus. To the Christian way of thinking (in common with more than oneother religion), the contradiction between the ideal and the real is anecessary part of existence. Through his religion, the slave convinces

himself that no ideals can ever be recognized in this lifetime. He seeseveryone as a slave, with God being the ultimate master. What happenshere is that the slave takes over his own slavery. Even if he were freed, theslave would still see himself as a slave to God.

The philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900) saw theentirety of Judeo-Christian ethics as "slave morality." By contrast, he sawpower as the fundamental goal of human existence. Some would argue thatthe Nietzschean "will to power" was not necessarily power over others (as ithas been often interpreted and applied), but the power to affirm ones ownexistence by the ability to say "yes" to whatever life may throw in onespath. He described the "sacred yes" as the state of mind in which "the spiritnow wills its own will" ( Thus Spake Zarathustra ), as opposed to the will ofthe priests, the authorities, et cetera. The individual will was all-important,and a willl that was genuinely free from traditionalist dogma was thefoundation for the true mode of human being. The "first order will" is the willof the actor, while the "second order will" is the will of the he who is actedupon. Essential to the first order will is a will to an activity. "Muscular


15/19

anticipations" are an essential part of a persons will. The will itself doesntcause physical activity, but some kind of physical activity is the ultimategoal. Nonetheless, freedom of action is not a prerequisite of freedom forNietzsche, but rather, in order for freedom of will to occur, a person mustwant to do something. Some activity must at least be anticipated by the

person; and this desire to act must be his own desire, not one that isimposed. Because women historically have been denied the possibility ofaction through economic, social, and physical repression, their first order willhas been taken from them. Because they are ignorant of the possibility ofcreating their own existence, women often take a laissez-faire approach tolife in general. Women in this category arent motivated to do anything,because in their hearts they hold the conviction that they cant do anything.In order to exercise free will, women must know their options. In order forwomen to know their options, they must have experience of them. Onceagain, women can only experience these options through education, andthat education must be both moral, mental, and physical.

For Nietzsche, the fundamental difference that distinguishes the mastermentality from the slave mentality is that those with the master mentalitysee the good as that which is strong, and the bad as that which is weak. Onthe other hand, the slave mentality sees the good in that which is weak, andevil in that which is strong. The term "evil" as opposed to "bad" denotes acertain judgmentalism in the ethics of a slave, for it emphasizes a mode ofbehavior that is absolutely forbidden on a universal, as opposed to apersonal, level. Slave moralities want to claim that they are not founded onhuman ideologies, but are in some way objective, and therefore more "real"

than master moralities. "At the heart of the slave morality s absoluteness," ithas been said by a commentator, "lies the moral agents eschewal ofresponsibility for the creation of his own morality."

Nietzsche disagrees with Hegels notion of freedom, and even with theidea of freedom itself. He saw that the term "freedom" was ultimatelyarbitrary, since it was an ethical value, and therefore an "artificial" creationof man. So the modern notion of freedom, for Nietzsche, is merely a type ofconformism. In his view, the freedom won by Hegels slave was wo rthless,since it was a slaves form of freedom. When the weak prevail in a society,then slave moralities become established as the norm. A result of this typeof morality is a slavish nature, some of the characteristics of which are:resentfulness, self-deception, meekness, and weak will. These are preciselysome of the personality traits that arise out of womens fear of mensstrength. Instead of embracing and saying "yes" to the possibility of physicalconflict, and thus being able to go beyond it, women put on the mask ofpassivity and become stuck with it, paralyzed by their inability to choose.When a woman seeks to be "feminine," she further affirms her weakness by


16/19

conforming to societal norms, without questioning how those norms affecther humanity. Assuming the values of the "feminine" woman does away withthe need for a free and creative assertion of ones own individual being,because the values of femininity are accepted as absolutes. A woman cannotbecome her own person when she strives for the artificial goal of femininity.

Embodied in the victory of the slave is the spirit of revenge. This is trueas well of victories won by using guilt and sex as weapons. Instead of actingto assert her own strength, the woman reacts to the strength of the maleand thus is diminished in both his eyes and her own. In The Genealogy ofMorals , Nietzsche tells us that reactive forces have to do with negation ordenial, whereas active forces have to do with affirmation. Reactive forces arecharacterized by resentment, bad conscience, and an ascetic ideal.Resentment is not a natural feeling, but rather an imaginary form ofrevenge. When women resent the autonomy of men, they deny their ownresponsibility and by doing so, put themselves in an even more passiveposition. The resentful woman will try to separate force from what it can doby accusing men of putting her in a position of subservience. Instead ofembracing the positive qualities of physical power, she will generalize andsay that all physical aggression is evil, because it was used against her as ameans of subjugation. When women feel resentment they often accuse menof being at fault for their own failures, without taking any kind of action toimprove their worldly situation.

Bad conscience is where a person turns against self, and is acontinuation of resentment. Once again one fails to take action, and instead

looks for an agent upon which to heap the blame for ones situation in life.Bad conscience is different from resentment, however, in that now oneself isthe recipient of blame. An internal sense of pain develops through theimposition of guilt. The truth of either the resentful womans perception ofthe world or the "bad conscience" womans perception is not the issue. What is the issue is that both perceptions limit the possibility for positive action totake place.

Slave morality finds the justification for both resentment and badconscience in the ascetic ideal. The triumph of reactive forces comes aboutthrough fictions, which have real effects. First, accusation is used to getactive forces to limit their power, and then bad conscience is used to getpeople to accuse themselves. In subscribing to an ascetic ideal, peoplenegate the existence of this world in favor of another. For women thishappens by way of denying their actual feelings and desires, in favor of whatthe "should" feel or desire. Women negate actuality in favor of the illusive,fictitious ideal of femininity. But real emotions and desires cannot benegated, and women only become more resentful. Nietzsche points out that


17/19

the resentful person can never love or respect another in the active sense.The person who resents builds up her hatred and resentment so that eventhe dearest and most loving memories have an undercurrent of hatred tothem. This type of bitter hatred and resentment is often stereotyped in theperson of the so-called "militant feminist," which I prefer to call a

"matriarchist." The loss of the ability to forget is a key characteristic of theresentful person, and clearly this is true in the case of the matriarchist, whois unable to forget the pain that has been inflicted on her by men in herpast. Because she cannot forget, her ability to receive new impressions isseverely impaired. She despises the passivity that is expected of her as awoman, but instead of taking action in a positive way (that is, throughcreative strength), she falls back on the conditioning of passivity, andinstead of embracing the world, shuns it in the form of "gender separatism."Her mind is constantly focused on blame and accusation; thus her ability toadmire, respect or love is dulled by the onslaught of her constant hatred. (Iuse the matriarchist here in order to illustrate a point, but this type ofattitude can just as easily be found in a housewife, maid, waitress, or anyother woman who is not satisfied with her life and feels that herunderachievement is due exclusively to mens domination over her.) When awoman blames man for her worldly position, she effectively gives up herpower over her own life, and therefore her own moral action.

In order to act morally a woman must not blame, but accept and affirmthe good within her. She must be able to grasp her own life, its past, presentand future, and welcome it as the creative force which brought her intobeing. She must say, "I am good, and every other consideration is

secondary." Only then will she have the freedom of will , the strength, andthe courage to take the necessary action to create her own life. To be able tocreate ones own life is for Nietzsche true freedom, and only in this way ismoral action possible.

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), probably the leading womanphilosopher of the 20 th Century, believed that no matter how compelling thesocial forces involved in shaping feminine nature may be, women can alwayschoose to change. Her purpose in writing her landmark feminist work, TheSecond Sex , was to examine the forces that shape womens behavior so thatwomen could free themselves from oppression, through understanding. Shebelieved that women should exhibit personality traits that society typicallyconsiders "masculine," because "masculine" virtues are the ones that mosteffectively deal with the problems of everyday life.

She begins The Second Sex , unsurprisingly, with a critique of theAristotelian conception of woman. She critiques his opinion (as well as thatof Kant, Hegel, Sigmund Freud, et al .) as "naturally" inferior, by pointing out


18/19

that the formal cause of a fact or condition is not its final cause . A strictlybiological understanding of women, argues de Beauvoir, goes far in the wayof limiting her possibilities. She criticized Freuds theory of "penis envy" bypointing out that of course the woman envies the man (especially given therelative conditions of freedom and power between the genders in Freuds

time and place), but it is his freedom (or in the words of de Beauvoir, his"transcendance") and not his male member that is the object of this avarice.Freud saw aggression in women as attempted compensation for their penis-less condition. For Freud, the "normal" woman was the one who gave up anydesire for an active life and instead passively awaited impregnation. (Freudis still seen as the father of psychology, and at least some psychologists andpsychotherapists still see his many works as the fundamental texts of theirscience. It is not difficult to imagine a strong woman getting angry when sheis told that she is abnormal because she wants an active life, and thenhaving her anger held up as proof of her "typically emotional" nature!)

Although womens bodies are on the whole weaker than those of men,for de Beauvoir physical strength should in no way limit human potentiality.The females wa y of dealing with the world is naturally more limited, throughthe restrictions of menstruation and gestation, but de Beauvoir dismissesphysiological critiques of equality, writing in The Second Sex : "wheneverphysiological fact takes on meaning, this meaning is at once dependent on awhole context; the weakness is revealed as such only in light of the endswhich humans propose, the instruments available, and the laws which areestablished." The point she is making is that in a technological society suchas ours has long since become, physical strength is less or not relevant. As

the times and social settings change, so too will the most valuable humancharacteristics.

While I agree with de Beauvoirs assessment of values, I disagree withher dismissal of the importance of physical strength. The body is essential toour existence, and without the ability to keep their bodies safe, women willcontinue to be dependent. It seems that de Beauvoir never even consideredthe possibility of a woman being able to assert herself physically as adefense against a violent man, but rather believed that if women were seenas equal then mens respect for their humanity would act as a defense. Shewrites: "If the respect or fear inspired by women prevents the use ofviolence towards her, then the muscular superiority of the males is nosource of power." But as is evident by mens treatment of other men,respect and even fear are not enough to prevent violence, so the muscularsuperiority of the male will continue to be the source of power. It is a fact ofbiology that women, in general, will not ever be as strong as their malecounterparts, but, as anyone who has studied martial arts will tell you,muscular strength does not always equate with physical superiority.


19/19

Although women may be weaker, as long as they are familiar with their ownbodies and have been educated in their use, this weakness need not resultin dependence.

In closing, I maintain that as all moral action involves an element of

courage, and only freely voluntary actions are worthy of the name "virtue,"the perception and self-perception of women as powerless, inferior to men,and lacking in courage, have militated against moral action by womenthroughout history. In order to defend their moral positions, consistentlytake moral actions and stands, even in the face of danger, women mustreject dependence on men by preferring equality, reject "female weakness"by cultivating moral, mental, and physical strength, reject fear of men andthe sense of powerlessness, in favor of bold, self-reliant, and risk-takingactivity, and reject passivity and withdrawal in favor of active, courageousinvolvement with the world. Doing so will result in courage; courage willresult in womens freedom to choose moral a ctions and defend moralpositions in the only meaningful way, through personal volition.

It is my belief that only in the next generation are we going to trulyunderstand what the female body is capable of, and that the world haspossibly never really experienced a 'real' woman. What I mean by that is awoman who has been encouraged from birth to compete and use her body in

an athletic fashion. A woman who has been raised well nourished, educatedand exercised in order to further her own individual development. A womanraised to be a human being, not merely a brood mare/companion. She is anew species. I feel like I have accomplished quite a bit in my life, but nomatter what my skill, it won't come close to being able to compare with thatof a girl in training from the time she was eight! When that little girlbecomes a woman she won't have to manfully assert her equality with theopposite sex, it will simply be assumed. She will be a woman that has grownup without ANY fear of men. In the history of the planet that has never beenpossible. Thinking about that gives me some hope for the future even inthese dark times.

the role of courage in women

Documents