First Response to Holden Hill Natashia Gushue, St. Francis Xavier University

First Response to Holden Hill Natashia Gushue, St. Francis Xavier University

The article entitled "Efficient Causation in Aristotle's Reproductive Causal Framework" by Holden Hill investigates claims of sexism against Aristotle's theory of reproduction. Hill argues that Aristotle's theory of reproduction is not sexist because of efficient causation within Aristotle's framework of opposites and by considering the impact external causes have on shifting material causes. However, I believe even with these considerations, Aristotle's theory of reproduction is still sexist. The sexism comes from Aristotle's use of language, that opposites are only inherently equal in proportion, not value, and it is built on sexist assumptions.

Hill argues against the Thomistic account of Aristotle's theory of reproduction. He cites Generation of Animals as evidence against the claims of sexism derived from the Thomistic approach. Aristotle writes, "For when the first principle does not bear sway and cannot concoct the nourishment through lack of heat nor bring it into proper form but is defeated in this respect…. Now the female is opposite of male" (GA IV, 1, 766a17-21). The language Aristotle uses is sexist. He states "proper form" regarding male implying that female is improper. Proper as has the connotation of being better than that which is improper. Hill uses this passage to demonstrate that Aristotle regarded male and female as opposites.

Aristotle's framework of opposites is founded on his idea of ratio and proportion. Opposites are inherently equal in proportion but not necessarily in value. Take, for instance, these two examples, day and night, and good and evil. Day and night are both equal in proportion and equal in value. However, good and evil are opposites that are equal in proportion but not equal in value. Good is undoubtedly better than evil. The notion of opposites only necessarily being proportionally equal but not necessarily equal in value in conjunction with Aristotle's language usage; it is reasonable to conclude that Aristotle viewed male and female as equal in proportion but not equal in value. Thus, viewing males as better than females even though males and females are opposites. Furthermore, Aristotle's theory of reproduction is based on a sexist assumption. Hill asserts that Aristotle indicates that the reproductive process beings with males not because of a teleological process but because the male form is prior to the female form in a temporal sense. Modern biology suggests that the reproductive process starts more female, which is why men have nipples, not male. Aristotle had no way

of knowing which sex is prior in an embryo. He assumed that an embryo must start male even though it takes both a man and woman to create a child. There is nothing inherent in watching the causal process that would insinuate that an embryo must start male; he assumed that conclusion.

In Hill's paper, he argues that Aristotle's theory of reproduction is not sexist. Yet, although I do not believe Aristotle's theory of reproduction is sexist in the way the Thomistic view suggests, it is evident that it is nonetheless sexist. I am not suggesting throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We can acknowledge that Aristotle's theory is sexist and still consider if there is anything worthwhile in the theory. Just because a theory is sexist does not mean the theory is wholly wrong. There might be something to gain through its study. However, studying the theory without acknowledging or blatantly denying sexism does not improve critical analysis or assist anyone in deciphering the truth.