Why Machiavelli’s Sexism Still Matters in the 21st Century
Dated texts such as Antigone (written in or before 441 B.C.) and The Prince (speculated to have been distributed in 1513) showcase the gender roles of their time. In Antigone, the ruler of Thebes, Creon, suggests that agreeing with a woman is emasculating, and even woman herself Ismene highlights that woman are intended to be fragile in nature. Likewise, in The Prince, Machiavelli compares women to property by assessing that the easiest way to offend a country is to violate their people’s (men’s) property and women. Machiavelli also declares women resemble fortune and should be abused, writing, “Fortune is a woman and if she is to be submissive it is necessary to beat and coerce her. Experience shows that she is more often subdued by men who do those than by those who act coldly.”
While I believe most of us would agree that these statements of the inferiority of women are immoral, are they worthy of discussion? We can easily write off Sophocles and Machiavelli’s texts as products of their time. Perhaps it is not worth discussing the overt sexism in these works as it should be expected. Maybe because we understand the historical context of the words, we should take them with a grain of salt. In fact, classroom discussion was essentially halted on this topic as many of us agreed with this assertion: oh well, it was centuries ago. We are not like that nowadays.
However, the fact that these texts are so ancient is exactly what makes it important for examination. These texts are prime examples of the foundation of strategic political thought. Machiavelli and Sophocles are read by many individuals pursuing a collegiate education in America to perhaps enter into the political realm later in life. Their words are embedded into how we see politics today. I would like to be clear that in no way am I saying we have not made progress since these writings. We are absolutely in a differently gendered world now. We continue to make strides in gender equality. But I believe the implications of these old and dead political philosophers actually are still relevant to today’s political and moral world.
It is a fact that women are tragically underrepresented in the political realm. In the United States, women compromise half of the population, yet less than 20% of congressional seats. America ranks 98th in the world (http://www.representation2020.com/women-in-parliaments.html) for percentage of women in its national legislature. Only 25% of state legislative offices are held by women. Only twelve of the larges 100 cities have female mayors. Only five governors are women and twenty-four states have never even had a female governor.
And okay, while that is unfortunate, what does it have to do with Machiavelli? I believe the art of politics is still primarily based upon the texts of very old philosophers, including Machiavelli. Political Science students examine Hobbes, Voltaire, Plato, Aristotlte, Locke, Paine, etc. Political thinkers of today still base their education in ancient texts. The world of politics is shaped by all of these thinkers. And, for the most part, these thinkers were from a place of no, even remote, gender equality. Therefore, the world of politics is still seen as a man’s world.
Many people feel that politics is dirty and politicians must be ambitious and cut-throat to succeed. Politicians must be assertive as a weak politician could leave the country vulnerable. Politicians need be strong and stand their ground. And God forbid a politician incorporate emotions into his (or her, but likely his) judgement. These character traits—ambition, assertiveness, strength, rational versus emotional—are deemed masculine traits. Typically female traits such as being nurturing, compassionate, or even weak, are not associated with the political world. They do not fit.
And when a female politician does become successful, she must pay attention closely to the double binds that she faces. Even in the modern world, she faces a double bind of being strong enough to compete with men but not too strong as then she is a bitch. She faces a double bind of appearing maternal and nurturing (as that is what we want to see in a woman) but not letting her family or children get in the way of her job. She faces a double bind of being interrogated about how her children are affected by her job while a man would never be asked that question. She faces a double bind in that she must be aesthetically appealing as the media will report on her outfits but not to be too pretty as then she must be lacking brain cells. Even in today’s society, national news anchors focus on the first lady’s weight rather than her political campaigns (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/keith-ablow-michelle-obama-pounds). Scholars such as Sheryl Sandberg, Anne Kornblut, Jennifer Lawless, and Richard Fox discuss these double binds and other issues women face in politics in much of their work.
As of now, politics is still a man’s world, and perhaps it is because of how politics was perceived since its conception and the way foundational political philosophers such as Machiavelli wrote about it. So no, we should not just dismiss his words as irrelevant to today and no, we should not take them with a grain of salt.
Morality and Politics 
I definitely appreciate this post. In class I too caught on to the fact that we easily dismissed the profound sexism and prejudice toward women just because of the time periods of both Sophocles and Machiavelli. This is the 21st century and we are supposed to have broadened our minds and progressed significantly, we would never treat women the way those men did in their day. However, if we look at the world around us, especially the political, and dare I say it, the religious world sexism is still undeniably there. Yes, it has gotten better, we’ve had woman senators and governors and in other positions of political power but there is still a “glass ceiling”.
Both Sophocles and Machiavelli implied that a woman would corrupt a man if given too much power. In all honesty I think they were afraid of womankind. I think they saw the potential a woman had but wanted to keep her in her place by any means necessary, so they weren’t overthrown. Think into the households of many families around the world, many men still use this way of thinking to keep their wives from realizing their potential and leaving them.
Sexism and the abuse of women was predominately accepted when Machiavelli and Sophocles were alive. It may not be socially accepted anymore but it does still exist today; more than we would like to believe or acknowledge.
Thank you for your thoughts!! I am glad that you mention the “glass ceiling,” as the whole concept of the glass ceiling is super interesting. The term was coined because the barrier for women and other minorities in politics is not seen; on paper, there is no reason why these groups can not occupy political office (or more political offices). However, a barrier exists in the political world, business world, and other realms of professional life; for example, Sheryl Sandberg, extremely successful businesswoman, in her book, “Lean In,” explains how during her undergraduate coursework, graduate coursework, and entry-level jobs, there was an equal ration of women to men. However, as she climbed the rungs of the corporate ladder, she noticed that she was almost always the only woman in the room. So, the glass ceiling is exactly what you say, “may not be socially accepted anymore but it does still exist today, more than we would like to believe or acknowledge.” Thanks for your thoughts! 🙂
Splendid post. Did everyone read that? We did truly mess up last class. A lot more could have been said about the she-elephant-in-the-room. Well, aside from “it was a different time.” Now, how might we refute that argument in the future…
– For starters, keep bringing up gender. Each time it pops up, do not let it fall away. There will be resistance, but that will be eminently part of the process. If we want sexism to be properly recognized, it must be a consistent threat to the dialogue
– See the validity of the “different time” argument, but know what it represents. Sophocles and Machiavelli are a long way behind us, and modern women enjoy more power than their ancient counterparts. The “different time” argument is true. Their time period allowed you to nonchalantly beat women. Today, no one should even argue for the beating of women, but we still want to evaluate Machiavelli’s distasteful metaphor about luck, since it is still useful. However, this does not mean the gender discussion should be derailed, because…
– That’s not what we’re arguing! Sure different time, but the same idea that informed these dead guys’ mores is still around today: femininity is inferior. Creon was losing a debate , so he pointed out his opponent was a woman like it would make her argument invalid. We wish call into question his reasoning as well as your willingness to let that slide. We feel femininity should be acceptable and can often be superior.
I could unpack this later. I think you gave me a substantial post.
Thank you for the reply!! Great, well-written thoughts here!! I love your suggestions and agree whole-heartedly. Yes, we need to keep bringing it up! As you say, the “she-elephant-in-the-room,” for some reason is not easy to talk about. Especially for women, who are less likely to negotiate their salaries or risk becoming a b-word if they are too aggressive. I also appreciate your acknowledgement of the validity that it was a different time. Progress has been made, undoubtedly, and focusing arguments entirely in the past would be flawed. But, yes, Creon’s words were a prime example of something that occurs still today, the inferiority of femininity. Thank you for your thoughts.
First of all, I’d like to say I really enjoyed reading your post! I loved the way you compared and contrasted qualities associated with women such as being nurturing and compassionate and pointed out how they do not fit well with the cut-throat world of politics. Furthermore, your statement about female politicians that read, “even in the modern world, she faces a double bind of being strong enough to compete with men but not too strong as then she is a bitch,” was spot on in my opinion. In many instances when we see a man being assertive and demanding he is often seen as a hard worker who knows what he wants and is willing to go to extremes to get it. However, when a woman does the same, she is overbearing and controlling and labeled a bitch. Not that I am saying that this is true in EVERY scenario, but it does happen more than it should.
Another part of your blog that really caught my eye was when you said that in our class discussion the general feeling about the sexism and abuse of women in our readings was “Oh well, it was centuries ago. We are not like that nowadays.” This really grabbed my attention because, respectfully, I don’t agree with that statement. I believe the argument was, as people living in a society with completely different social norms and customs, we cannot project our perspective of what is right and wrong onto another society. While a lot of people in class stated that they believed the sexism and abuse of women being depicted in both Antigone and The Prince was wrong, some students were trying to make the point that we cannot let our own ethnocentrism cloud our judgment when we are trying to interrupt an ancient text.
I am thankful you showcased how sexism was portrayed in Antigens and Machiavelli. I also agree with your point how the text was written centuries ago, unfortunately several men in power continue to operate this way. We have come a long way where organizations have updated their employee regulations to not discriminate against sexes in the United States. I too caught one in Antigone’s story where the women had no voice. Especially when Creon speaks to his son on how to carry on as a man in power and not let a woman allow you to stray away from his beliefs. Creon also tells his son if any women gets in the way, he needs to get rid of her at all cost. No interference from a woman will interrupt his rein while in power.
A woman’s voice has come a long way from since the 19th Amendment was ratified. Women in politics slowly began emerging and I believe has paved the way of our future. I am thankful we don’t live in Antigone’s time, but I do believe by her disobeying Creon to bury her brother properly was a start of a feminist action. I knew immediately when she broke his law and carried on her way to properly bury her brother, her actions spoke louder than words by not caring about her consequence if she were caught. If she died, she was not worried about her afterlife because she knew where she was going and she was pleasing her Gods. Her feminist attitude allowed her to give her reasons to Creon and explain to him why she was right about burying her brother properly.
You have made a remarkable argument, and I could not disagree with you one bit. Our class discussion presented many views but the only evident consistency with our discussion, was that women were mistreated because it was a custom of Machiavelli’s times. As a female, it is truly degrading to irrationally assert that the dehumanization of women was a thing of the past and it is irrelevant to current times.
The illustrations you have presented demonstrate how previous perceptions of females seeped into current day politics and these sexists’ texts are “prime examples of the foundation of strategic political thought.” The influence that these old white men had on politics is still currently engraved within our functions of society.
With the compelling evidence you have presented, this reveals how women are not represented throughout politics. The political positions women hold are insufficient compared to their male counterparts. Therefore, to ignorantly assert that, what these old white men had to say is irrelevant, simply demonstrates how ignorant and foolish current society can be.
Even though you only addressed the national statistics regarding women in politics and how limited their voices are among their male counterparts. The factual evidence is dreadful because living in the 21st century you would have logically assumed that more women would have acquired higher political positions by now.
Personally, even though the national statistics provided are relatively low, there are international statistics that demonstrate how a vast majority of women don’t even have the right to vote let alone run for political positions. Women around the world still live in the times of Machiavelli. These women will not have any means to voice their concerns, when sexism is still prevalent throughout their society.
Overall, this all goes back to the political thought brought upon by these old white men. Instead of dismissing the customs of women, we need to address how those customs seeped into society and are still relevant. In other words, how can government be representative of society, when half of the population is not even represented?
I also am glad you brought up the issue of sexism in the class and on this blog. It is and has been an issue both then AND now. I have worked in law offices for and with attorneys now for the last 10 years, I’ve worked on the side of defense, on the side of the prosecution and now in civil law, and no matter what office I have worked in, men outnumber women by a wide margin. I worked for the county attorney’s office (I won’t say which) for six years and I conducted a count of male attorneys and female attorneys in the major crimes divisions of the office. ALL major crimes divisions had far more men than women, when I asked a reliable source whether or not there was a shortage of women in law school, the answer was “No, in fact, there are more women now in law school than men”. Then why are things so lopsided? There could only be one reason and that is, that sexism existed and still does. Good job on bringing this out and bringing it to everyone’s attention. We can’t let up whenever we see it, thinking that it doesn’t exist anymore. It rears its ugly head in many areas as you have pointed out, politics, criminal defense, criminal prosecution, not to mention law enforcement. Great blog.
I to would like to thank you for showcasing this in your blog. I spoke in class and stated that this was just the “times” not looking to the bigger picture. I am thankful that I currently work in an environment where being a female is not looked down upon. I think to often about the “glass ceiling” and if all of my hard work in school and life is ever going to pay off (or if I will always make less because I was not born with the right anatomy). I know that personally I have stated to my spouse that I am perfectly and totally happy with a small, more submissive, behind the scenes role in the job that I hold. I am sitting here pondering if that was the way I was raised or if somehow if it from some undue influence the outside world has put on me.
I know personally when it come to abuse and “making a woman submissive”. I DO NOT stand for this at all. Regrettably, I have a very close friend that I have know for almost 2 years that has stayed in an abusive relationship for longer that I would. Persons that are abused typically make excuses for their significant other and stay around for reasons that a “reasonable person” would not understand(today or 1000 years ago). I think that there is a more mental perspective that needs to be explored here (on both sides of the fence).
I would again like to thank you for you post! 🙂
Just a cool video I think will help facilitate discussion on this thread.
On a different note, I thoroughly enjoyed your post! I agree with a lot of the points you made and think you gave sufficient evidence for each. In particular, I couldn’t agree more with “So no, we should not just dismiss his words as irrelevant to today and no, we should not take them with a grain of salt.
In one of the other comments on this post, a student referred to us as “people living in a society with completely different social norms and customs (than Machiavelli’s world/society/customs).” What I think a lot of people are so quick to forget is the affect that philosophers of Machiavelli’s (and even much earlier) time have on us today. A point which you mentioned. Gianni Vattimo said: “The classics, the things that have held out…involve me, what I am is largely the fruit of their endurance.” In one of my other classes, we talked about how ancient books and other art forms are so thoroughly ingrained and intertwined in Western culture that we hardly can decipher the origins sometimes. These books have already shaped us and made us who we are. You may never have explicitly read Plato, but many of your ideas and opinions are derived from him.
There’s a reason the saying is “Hindsight is 20/20.” We like to separate ourselves from things in the past as a way to write it off completely. Those were different times, different people, etc. But how much of it still the same? I liked the fact that you didn’t ignore the relevancy of these ancient opinions on today’s society. Great post!
Wow! I am all for this discussion of gender and its relevancy! Also, really love Scandal so, to the post before me by cindylyon, great job to you too! Reading this blog about the differences between male and female politicians in America reminded me of some disturbing clips I’ve seen and I thought this was the perfect place to reference them.
Although the clips present gendered ridicule not only pertaining to female politicians, I think it does a fine job at showcasing the ignorance and the progress we still have to make.
In an effort to play devil’s advocate, in the blog it was mentioned that perhaps it was the ancient texts that are taught throughout political education that encourages a male dominated environment. However, I would like to know how this translates into society beyond the political realm (is society outside of politics just as gendered in thought), and furthermore, if it is, what is the cause? I am a senior in my undergrad and it was not until this class that I ever even heard of Machiavelli or read anything by Sophocles. My point being, I do not think these influential texts are quite as common outside of political/higher education spheres.
I also wanted to make a brief statement about the masculine v. feminine traits that were presented in the blog. It amazes me that after all this time we are still associating dominant, aggressive traits to males and the “soft”, submissive traits to females. Have women not done enough throughout time to “prove” ourselves equal and just as capable as men? Or have all the successes of women throughout history just been exceptions to this bias rule we allow society to continue to adhere to?
This is awesome! I love it and it made me think about things. For example why, especially in the US known as the land of the free, do we not have more women in politics? It is so hard because of this stereotype already created and being fed still with regards to what is considered a politician and a good politician.
I would agree that attitudes of sexism should never be taken lightly or easily brushed off. I also agree that, although there has been substantial improvement, politics is still a “man’s world.” However, I do take issue with the suggestion that the academic engagement with the great political philosophers from Plato through Hobbes and into the present day, is largely responsible for the male dominated political landscape today. I am not entirely sure if this is the argument you are presenting so please forgive me if I have misinterpreted your post. One of the reasons why I would disagree with holding the classic political philosophers and our continued engagement with them today, responsible for the male world of politics is because it is not clear to me that their sexist attitudes substantially shape their political philosophy. I certainly believe this is the case with Machiavelli, but I don’t see how sexist attitudes, though present, substantially shaped the political thought of Hobbes, Locke, or others in nearly the same way or to the same extent. Secondly, I would argue that even if there were more classical women political philosophers, I think that sexism would still be a tremendous problem to combat in contemporary politics.
Thank you for this post! I’m currently grappling with a paper for my rhetorics class that examines how Machiavelli’s treatment of gender norms still bears relevancy today, especially for queer-identiifed people such as myself. What I find most interesting about this post is that it highlights the tendency of dominant identities in culture to glorify only the intellectual schools of thought that protect their dominance. Machiavelli’s attitudes toward women in The Prince and The Discourses are directly contradicted by his portrayals of women in his fictional works, such as Clizia, La Mandragola, and The Golden Ass, where women are upheld as competent, compassionate, intelligent, and ultimately the embodiment of the best of humanity. Indeed, the character of Sofronia in Clizia has repeatedly been examined as the only character of Machiavelli’s creation who embodies all of the ideals of his archetypical prince. In this, Machiavelli seems to assert that the traits of an ideal ruler are not contingent upon the gender of such an individual, an idea that would have been nothing short of revolutionary in Renaissance Florence, where the deeply held belief was that gender was the ultimate determinant of an individual’s personality. In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli performs social masculinity by degrading women, but in his personal works, he reveals an outlook on gender that is regarded by some as being proto-feminist. So it is of little wonder to me that the Machiavellian viewpoint that was selected by political and philosophical schools of thought is the one that negatively portrays women, because it is in the best interest of the dominant ideals of masculinity to keep women oppressed. Had we chosen to wrap our intellectual identity of Machiavelli around his fictional works instead of his political works, we may have an entirely different conception of Machiavellianism altogether.