The Analysis of Philosophers Against the Family Article by Christina Hoff Summers - Essay Example

?Introduction The article “ Philosophers Against the Family “ by Christina Hoff Summers is all about ideas of modern radical feminists and the real desires of an average woman. The author is contradicting the thought of certain philosophers and how they damage the concept of society and traditional norms. In this paper the concern is regarding the arguments made by the author and what she is trying to convey through her article. Her main opinion regarding the arguments of philosophers about marriage and social institution is a major discussion in this paper. The paper will also analyze the view of the author and how it has been justified in her claims. The conclusion drawn by the author is also a point that will be reviewed in the paper. The author is basically against the radical movement of modern day feminists. Summers is denouncing radical feminist movement and comments that their views are not connected to true aspirations of women. ( Thesis) Christina Hoff Summers in her article “Philosophers against the Family “is arguing about the absurdities of the modern radical feminists. She is claiming that what the radical feminist demands for is not the true wants of a woman. According to the author, a woman wants to be in a family and take care of her children and she does not wants to dominate men as feminist seek. A woman wants equal and fair rights in work place and society and does not want any extra ordinary power like the feminists perceive . Her aim is to show the world the true inner self of a woman and for this; she is out rightly demeaning radical feminists. According to her liberalism is advocating social reform with conservative spirits and it should not be supernal to the social institutions under which people operate. The radicals want to do away with social mores and institutions but the liberal focuses on social reforms. Summers aligns herself with liberal camp while attacking many of the radical ideas of modern feminists. The author has an idea that it is perfect to approach family ties and ethics from a liberal or conservative frame work but a radical approach can hamper the society and disrupts people’s happiness. Sommers understand that modern radical movement has neglected social institutions that do not fit in the traditional utilitarian or Kantian frameworks. Family is one of social institutions and philosophers have often ignored it or had made an attempt to change or abolish it dramatically. The author deems this and cites many examples where the radical alteration of family has happened. One of the philosophers like Allision Jaggar have termed family and marriage as similar to prostitution. According to Simon de Beauvoir a pregnant woman is an incubator and lacks subjectivity. Sommers focus on a communitarian approach where traditional sentiments and values have importance in formulating a system of ethics. The modern day feminists have failed to address or acknowledge and they go against ideas of average women and are not true feminists. The average women have been considered as a victim and as someone who does not understand her desires. According to Summers, the main stream feminists have lost its “natural essence” – average women. The author suggests that traditional femininity has been considered as quaint and cute by misogynist philosophers like Rousseau and Schopenhauer but not a trait of a serious human being. Sommers argue that “radical feminism creates a false dichotomy between sexism and assimilation." Radical feminists want to make people androgynous, to live as roommates and not as husband and wife. They want people to abandon traditional norms and superficial appearance. Sommers say that this is an unrealistic idea and also invites misery into people’s lives. Forcing people to give up traditional norms or family or make them dress in a certain pattern is not synonym to equality. The author states that the elite radicals are coercing people to behave in a manner that they deem appropriate. The author articulates some of the approaches of philosophers on family life to a contractual obligation. She is perplexed that in a radical feminist society there is no contractual obligation of woman toward her children or husband neither doe children have any duty towards their parents. Infanticide can also be justified. According to Michael Tooley, infants can be killed as they are not sentient beings. Howard Cohen advocates divorcing parents by a child in adopt a new caretaker. Author thinks that these arguments are “volunteer thesis” which makes family not obligatory but something which is optional and can change according to the convenience of the people. Sommers says that such arguments by philosophers ignores the obligation people have to each other and the virtue of being related and is in stark opposition to the belief of common man. She defends the traditional family and appeals to Burkean conservatives that the social institution has been historically developed based on certain wisdom. She comments that approach of liberals are more reasonable than radicals who believe that institutions can be reformed and obliterating them is not the only solution. She is of the opinion that feminists dismantling the families are the main reason for so many broken families in modern days. In her article she distinguished between liberals and modern radical feminists. She is awakening and alerting women against the unconventional strategies of modern feminists. Christian Sommers is definitely persuasive and an anti - feminist as she has argued that average women aspires nothing like a feminist. The author is right in her argument as social institutions are foundation of a society. She is arguing for the liberation of women in a liberal way and she intends to protect families and societies. She values morality and traditions and out rightly slams radical feminists. However, the author does not defend in outrageous way but in a submissive manner. Her conclusion is that moral philosophers are the one who give importance to family values and social insititutions.They need to be liberal and conservative and not radical. They should respect human relationships, traditions and social environment in which we live. Conclusion The article is an anti – feminist view of the author Christina Sommers and she is blaming the modern day feminist movement for uprooting the traditional social culture. The author blatantly opposes the view of feminists and terms them as unconventional or repressive to traditional culture. She argues that feminists are distorting the aspirations of average women who want a family life along with children and husband. She believes that a true feminist should be liberal but should have conservative values. Preserving the cultural values and social relationships should be the top priority of a true feminist. A family is a significant foundation to a strong society. According to her dismantling a marriage can only bring disaster to human beings and their relationships. She even states that the modern feminists are the reason for marriage failure in the current society. She is against the arguments of certain philosopher who disregard marriage and basic human relationships. She claims that these feminists are enforcing their idea of femininity on average women which is outrageous. The author believes that disconnecting or abandoning relationship and traditional values are not ideal characteristics of true feminists. According to her, a true philosopher or feminist should fight for the equal rights of women within the limits of social values. Read More