Analysis of Philosophers against the Family by Christina Hoff Sommers - Book Report/Review Example

? The discrepancy between the ideals brought about by radical feminism and to the understanding of sexism to its very nature and the manifestations of femininity as an inherent woman’s characteristic makes the integration of the two as fundamentally discordant. The principles of feminism and its objectives of assimilation and to a large extent, sexlessness, achieved though androgyny boxes up the concept of feminism to the point that to be sexist actually comprehends a number of characteristics and view. In this regard, even women who are comfortable and enjoy their femininity would be regarded as sexist by the radical feminist. Christina Hoff Sommers, in “Philosophers Against the Family” discusses that there is a false dichotomy as there is the great divide which distinguishes the radical feminist from the simply feminine and the mutual exclusivity of the two concepts which completely overlooks the reality that both can co-exist. Sommers (2005) offers that there is a middle ground, though this has not been widely recognized by both views, especially radical feminism in the United States. Liberal feminism gives focus on reforms which touches base on the very root of feminism. The oppression and the discrimination that necessarily entails sexism as commonly seen in the workplace and in society is the very nature that belittles women and that affects them on a regular basis. This is the fight of feminism on a daily basis that is in the heart of the average woman and her understanding of what feminism is. This, however, is far removed from the philosophical feminist’s view. “But to be antisexist in the technical, radical philosophical sense is not merely to be opposed to discrimination against women; it is to be for what Wasserstrom calls the assimilationalist ideal” (Sommers, 2005, p.313). The truly antisexist in this sense would neither fight nor agree for laws that give preference to women such as maternity leave. Equality is achieved by overlooking and consequently extinguishing gender and all notions that come with it. The wider perspective that transcends the philosophical feminist movement is best understood by first appreciating the average woman. “The average woman enjoys her femininity” (Sommers, 2005, p.314). She has goals which include being with a man, having children and maintaining a career with the same opportunities that her male counterpart has. “These are the goals that women actually have, and they are not easily attainable. But they will never be furthered by an elitist radical movement that views the actual aspirations of women as the product of a false consciousness” (Sommers, 2005, p.314). The goals and aspirations of the average woman must first be understood in order to make a correlation with these and how they are achieved. The characterization of a woman in the realistic sense juxtaposed to the ideal woman of the radical feminist movement made by the author brings forth a wider understanding on why the two concepts cannot meet. The illustration made by the radical feminist movement of the woman is arguably deductive and brings it to a realm that makes it incomprehensible most especially to the average woman herself. The false consciousness that is attributed her makes her very existence appear to be a pretense together with all of her life’s worth along with all her hopes and dreams. Sommers is correct in concluding that goals for marriage, family, career, and more logically, equal opportunity for all of the foregoing are the main points that calls for what is deemed as the average woman’s feminist ideals as oppose to the scholarly feminism written of extensively. Radical feminism, at the heart of it, attacks societal pressures to conform to gender roles which has been proliferated for ages and has been inculcated in every person from the moment of conception. The idea of an assimilationist society is the very purpose of many feminist movements which has often been likened to Marxism in many regards. Citing the famous feminist Simone de Beauvoir, Sommers discusses that marriage per se is not the tragedy but the loss of autonomy by the woman. “De Beauvoir criticizes the family as an unacceptable arrangement since, for women, marriage and childbearing are essentially incompatible with their subjectivity and freedom” (2005, p.311). The assimilated society, as envisioned by these philosophers would entail of a family not segregated into units defined by the matriarch and the patriarch where roles are not defined by whether a person is male or female. The primary issues of child-bearing and child-rearing and how they are viewed to be implemented are other aspects of the radical feminist movement which goes directly against the flow of the normal society as we currently know. The child would be reared by the community as a unit and not based on biological paternity. More drastically, child bearing must be implemented in such a way that even a man may be delegated to carry the fetus in his womb and not solely by the woman. The primary goal is to break away from the traditional family and create “a society that is both classless and genderless” (Sommers, 2005, p.312). The author’s discourse on radical feminist movement cannot be categorically said to be against it. What Sommers indicates is the actuality of the possibility of reconciliation between two views and how the immediate goals of the average woman can be achieved. In this regard, there must first be a conscious effort to break away from radical feminist movement and its disposition toward exclusivity. Assimilation, realistically speaking, could not be achieved anytime in the near future. Nor is an androgynous society plausible together with child-bearing by the male body feasible in today’s current social norms and even technologically. Strictly speaking, a society where there is neither male nor female but a community of persons who all partake directly and in every step of the family duties and responsibilities they must fulfill without regard to particular common acceptations of gender roles is far from being achieved as we stand today. Holding on to these ideas causes the average woman to lose grip of her reins on feminism. There is thus created a great divide between the radical feminist and the women which consists of its very constituency. The woman who enjoys her femininity and marbles at the miracles of child-birth alongside the appeal of a family loses connection to feminism as she is regarded as a product of false consciousness. There should be no dichotomy. The main point of the discourse is a move toward liberal feminism as a guiding agent which could help the average woman in achieving the fight for antisexism as she understands it and to achieve the goals that immediately affects her and her life. Adherence to radical feminist movement would not allow for the completion of the equality that she has been fighting for. This is what Sommers points out as a defect in American feminist movement. It devolves from the fight of women in the annals of society against the discrimination that they continue to endure. Radical feminist movement offers contempt rather than solution. “The actual concerns, beliefs, and aspirations of the majority of women are not taken seriously except as illustrations of bad faith, false consciousness, and successful brainwashing” (Sommers, 2005, p.314). “Philosophers Against the Family” argues for the middle ground as opposed to the radical feminist movement which diminishes the value of the woman in the establishment of the family and the influence of femininity in her own being. Surely, a woman should not be delineated as to prevent her from enjoying the pleasures that come necessarily in her womanhood in replacement of an assimilationist ideal that would hardly bear fruit and continues to be confined in the spheres of philosophical theories. Sommers (2005) concludes the paper fittingly by saying that “A moral philosophy that does not give proper weight to the customs and opinions of the community is presumptuous in its attitude and pernicious in its consequences” (p.320). The philosophy itself must address the problem and offer a suitable solution toward its determination. Otherwise, it would remain superfluous and far-removed from the very people whom it seeks to illumine. Reference Sommers, C.H. (2005) Philosophers against the family. In D. Boonin & G. Oddie (Eds.), What’s wrong? Applied ethicists and their critics (310-321). New York: Oxford University Press Read More