Radical Feminist Movement: Philosophers against the Family - Essay Example

Radical Feminist Movement: Philosophers against the Family In her paper labeled as “Philosophers against the Family”, Sommers criticizes modern feminist philosophers disliking their approaches to empower women around the world. In this essay, I will explicate and evaluate the argument posed by Sommers in which she maintains that the average American family is in danger because of many modern feminist philosophers. First, I will assess on what grounds Sommers argues against contemporary philosophers and what factors in particular make her talk disapprovingly about their efforts. Then, I will examine the main potential reasons offered by her in support of her conclusion that the American society is confronted with a difficult situation because of radical feminism. I will also discuss the issue of an average woman’s needs and if they set in contrast with the elitist radical movement which concentrates on furthering wrong ideas. Finally, I will examine one objection raised by Marilyn Friedman on the subject of modern feminist ideology to estimate the extent to which Sommer’s position on the same subject could be held viable. First issue raised by Sommers in her argument refers to how unfortunate is it that a false contrast is created between sexism and assimilation by radical feminists. This false contrast serves to prevail the misleading feeling as if there were nothing in between the notions of sexism and integration. She strongly argues against this popular view promoted by many modern philosophers that all women are controlled by more powerful men in one way or another. She clearly rejects the idea of male dominance and does not favor it, but she stresses on telling black from white and appreciate the mockery of radical feminism which is totally oblivious to an ordinary woman of the middle ground. This inability of the modern feminists to appropriately recognize the preferences of an average woman who could actually be happy in her own way surrounded by a family and children can be terminally harmful for the American society because it threatens the possibility of a good family life. According to Sommers, the importance of not viewing all women from all social classes in the same dark light cannot be stressed enough because neither all women are brutally chained by powerful male groups, nor are they all desperate to be freed by radical feminist warriors. She uses the example of what most average women need to support her argument and explains how they come across as happy and satisfied individuals who feel blessed and not controlled by having children or a husband and devoting time to take care of them. It is not always essential for a woman to feel victimized because she can be genuinely happy even if she is not really financially independent. There is nothing objectionable in desiring this sort of life and the problem with radical feminists is that they identify such women as oppressed and victimized creatures who need to be liberated. A woman who embraces her femininity, is a wife and a mother, can still desire potential opportunities and fair treatment at her workplace. Sommers uses this argument to defend her position that there is nothing wrong with the feminist movement because the actual problem lies not in promoting women’s interests, but in cultivating misleading ideas. She criticizes radical feminism and wants it be differentiated from liberal feminism. The latter philosophy encourages women to have equal rights as men in all professional areas and recognized as creative people, but discourages mutilation of valuable social bonds like marriage and motherhood. If a woman is married, depends on the other person for financial support, and decides to stay at home catering to the needs of her family, the radical feminists start portraying such a woman in very dark colors and blame the man for multiple incorrect reasons. Such sort of femininity is abhorred by radical feminist movement and in the name of freeing women from stereotypical clutches, they only ignore the actual needs of women characterizing them as a product of false consciousness and lack of awareness. Sommers wants to prove through her argument that women who are actually treated as objects or automatons should be conscientiously differentiated from women who desire to maintain a balance between work and family life. She wants to convey this message that both groups are in need of help and their interests should be promoted. But not only the interests of each group are different, they also need to be helped in differing ways. The issue with radical feminists which is criticized by Sommers in her argument is that they cruelly refuse to acknowledge the middle ground in which a woman is not oppressed, wants to stay feminine, and also demands fair treatment at work on equal basis with men. I believe the explanation offered by Sommers to prove her argument that the radical feminist movement is misleading is quite convincing, but cannot be considered absolutely decisive. On one hand, it is convincing because injudiciously corrupting men as offenders and portraying all women as victims is empty mockery and nothing valuable or revolutionary can come out of this flawed strategy. Instead of investing efforts in the futile competition of who wins against whom to see women emerge as victorious and make men surrender, the need of the time is to acknowledge the potential danger posed by modern feminists on the American society. On the other hand, I do not consider this argument decisive because it conveys the message that radical feminism holds resentment and anger toward men which is not really true considering myriad beneficial ideas promoted by this philosophy. However, I consider this argument to be put forward in a constructive manner and it is certainly an interesting educational read. I think the theme of Sommers’s argument is that such modern feminist philosophy has ignored myriad social institutions. Family is one important social institution and radical feminists are busy in mutilating it by advocating harmful ideas. Any woman wanting a family or children is not considered the right kind of feminist by modern philosophers and this approach is condemned by Sommers. But, I think that holding an entire organization or movement responsible or blaming it on account of a bunch of people who actually promote misleading ideas is not a wise strategy. Same is stressed by Marilyn Friedman also who disapproves of Sommers’s argument doubting if she even likes women at all the way she lashes out against modern feminist movement. It is claimed that Sommers ignorantly portrays modern feminists as man-haters. She rejects to acknowledge the notion of a sex-gender system on which the philosophy of feminism operates and such an attitude raises questions about her repudiation. It is justifiably claimed by Friedman that except for man who really oppress or exploit women, radical feminism does not encourage feelings of resentment against men (Friedman, 1995, p. 30). In conclusion, radical feminism is criticized by Sommers for different reasons and most important of them is that it does not appreciate the needs of women in the middle ground who are not victimized by men but want equal rights at work. Many women welcome a sense of femininity and do not mind in depending on a man who would provide for them. I discussed in the paper why Sommers disapproves of modern philosophers in her argument and how she wants feminism to actually work for the betterment of the society. She stresses that instead of generating feeling of hatred for men, family values should be promoted too in addition to empowering women. But, she fails to address many facts in her argument and ignores the real aim of radical feminism which is to identify men who really oppress women without holding all men responsible. Reference: Friedman, Marilyn. (1995). Political Correctness: For and Against. USA: Rowman & Littlefield. Sommers, C.H. (1994). Philosophers Against the Family. In M. Daly (Ed.), Communitarianism: A New Public Ethics (pp. 230-235). USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Read More