Sometimes it’s amazing what people will go through to prove a point. Let’s take it step by step. Biesecker thinks that two rhetorical defenses of Helen, which coexist in an environment with Pericles law, suggest a possibility that women could have status in Athens. Jacob chooses to analyze characters in Plato’s Gorgias as if each character were an actual person rather than a rhetorical device used by Plato. And Rhodes chooses to write a persuasive essay to persuade us to value Radical Feminist writings, but she never explains the specific values we should look to preserve.
Of the three, I find myself a bit more forgiving of Rhodes. Yes, her piece is vague, but she is also simply advocating further study. Jacob, on the other hand, wants to draw conclusions about Gorgias based on the character as written by Plato, who was clearly using the character to show his views of sophists and sophist rhetoric. How is it possible to draw such conclusions based on the writings of Plato who often and widely declared his hatred of Sophists?
Then we have Biesecker, who would draw some conclusion about women’s value based on a law designed to restrict citizenship in Athens. Biesecker then relates this law to the two defenses of Helen, as if they were responding to the law itself rather than Gorgias producing an advertisement and Isocrates arguing back at Gorgias. In my opinion, Biesecker drew a very weak link. It seems that Biesecker is grasping at straws here.
