Plato's Republic proposes an ideal city, in which there are three main classes of citizens; first, the city is governed by a guardian class, also known as philosopher-kings, whose rule is enforced by the auxiliary class; warriors who defend the State from both external attacks and internal disputes. Finally, the largest class of society, the producers; a group of citizens who perform every job excluding warriors and rulers. The producer class, for example, includes doctors, lawyers and carpenters. This division of citizens was supposed to represent the Platonic ideology of the tripartite soul; reason, spirit and appetite, whereby each class is dominant in one element of the psyche. The producer class is dominant in appetite, the auxiliary class in spirit, hence their ability to defend the state, and the guardians dominant in reason, meaning they are better able to govern the city. What is interesting about this proposal is that Plato argues that there is no reason why women should not be accepted into the ruling classes. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Plato uses the Socratic dialogue in Book V of the Republic, to argue that to the extent that they meet the same requirements as men, women can become part of the auxiliary or guardian class, and therefore should receive the same education and training as men. This was an incredibly radical position to take in contemporary Athenian society, so in his dialogue Plato describes the arguments that would be made against his proposals, which Socrates then denies. The first argument proposed against Socrates' suggestion of female auxiliaries and guardians is that women and men have different natures, and, since social roles are determined by nature, women and men should play different roles in society. However, Socrates skillfully emphasizes the futility of this argument with the analogy of bald and shaggy men. Socrates notes how (by the same reasoning) if bald men become shoemakers, since they have a different nature from long-haired men, we should forbid long-haired men from shoemaking. This illustrates how differences in nature have no bearing on the ability to groom in the same way that hair (or lack thereof) has no impact on the ability to shape. Socrates goes on to discuss two types of differences in nature, in which he highlights that the difference between a male doctor and a female has no impact on skill, compared to the difference between a male doctor and a male carpenter. This is an important distinction, since the difference in nature is only relevant with respect to the ability to perform a particular job. Regarding this dispute, Julia Annas argues that Plato's argument is invalid against anti-feminists, since he agrees with their ideology. For example, Socrates asks "are there occupations that contribute to the functioning of the state that only a woman can do?", assumes that the answer is obviously "no", and then states that "the only sex is, therefore, to speak, of far beaten in every field by the other.' Annas points out that it is not a feminist argument to say that men can surpass women in everything. I think this willingness to accept that women are less capable than men is inherently anti-feminist, and it is It is extremely important that Annas highlights this gap in Plato's line of argument. He fails to state that there are no specifically male skills, while a true feminist would deny the assumptions on which it is basedthis topic. Lesser, however, argues that Anna's point does not harm Plato's case, since Plato does not mean to argue that females are as good as males, but rather claims that gender differences have little effect on differences between individuals' abilities to carry out certain tasks. I agree with Lesser to some extent; regarding this particular section of Plato's argument, Anna's criticism is perhaps somewhat misplaced. However, it appears that Lesser is focusing a little too much on the content of Annas' argument, rather than on the key issues it highlights. The way Plato formulates this argument highlights his inherent misogynistic ideology, and while Anna's dispute does not directly harm the argument, it demonstrates the anti-feminism in Plato's ideals. An additional controversy discussed is that women carrying, giving birth to, and raising children would affect their ability to govern as a guardian/auxiliary class. This argument allows Plato to introduce his proposal for community life, which included the abolition of the nuclear family so that women could not raise their children alone. The ideology behind this proposal was that the most important contribution to the organization of a community is unity and that concepts such as "mine" and "your" promote individual goals, which breaks this unity. Socrates argues that the destruction of the nuclear family will orient us towards unified goals, as people would take for granted that every child is theirs, which would encourage people to take part in a collective relationship. Eliminating the privatization of feelings would coordinate the city towards a shared interest in improving society, in which individual desires are of secondary importance. I think it is important to point out here that Plato's admission of women guardians is clearly not a feminist position, as it does not consider women's desires, nor is it done with the intent of liberation. Julia Annas draws attention to the fact that Plato discusses the liberating effect that community life will have on society, but does not describe the liberating effect on women's position in the family – rather, he presents it as something from which man is liberated . It is quite obvious that Plato's reasoning in support of the abolition of the nuclear family is not based on the fact that women currently suffer from denial of opportunities; rather the state would benefit from having the best possible citizens, and so it logically follows that potential attributes/qualities are wasted if half of these citizens stay at home (as represented by the nuclear family). I completely agree with Annas' position; Plato is not a feminist based on women's rights or liberation, rather he simply promotes the use of women to provide utility to the state. This point is further emphasized by Plato's authoritarian ideology; if a woman did not want to be a guardian, Plato would still have forced her to serve the state. This only highlights the lack of feminist intention behind Plato's ideals; he clearly does not consider the liberation or desires of the women whose lives he intends to change, but sees them simply as a byproduct of the health of the state. However, Lesser argues that Plato would deny Anna's criticism that personal fulfillment and public efficiency are mutually exclusive. According to him, if women knew that their abilities were used for the benefit of society, this, in turn, would increase their sense of self-realization; the two would improve each other. Although I understand the point Lesser makes and, to some extent, it seems logical.