Sally Haslanger's Is Equality Tearing Families Apart

Many people look at the difference between men and women to be much more then just Biological. Men are generally seen as much stronger and more skilled. Women are looked at as weak and dependent on a men’s protection. These different roles and stereotypes are given to men and women not based on their personal strengths and weaknesses but based on whether they are male or female. Many argue whether this is morally right or wrong; men and women obviously have very different opinions, luckily there are many philosophers who offer up theories as too the morality of gender roles.
In Sally Haslanger’s Gender and Social Construction: who? What? When? Where? How? It is discussed how gender is not natural it is something that is socially made up. If …show more content…
It is discussed how he feels equality is not tearing families apart. Things such as Workplace equality, do not destroy a family’s. Complications in schedules brought about by both parents working is something to be considered but it can be worked out. The benefit to women of greater equality outweighs the inconvenience to men of shared responsibility in their home. Later in his writing Anderson responds to Blankenhorn’s view that equality is destroying the family. Anderson’s feels that promoting equality between males and females does not mean losing the roles men and women play as mothers and fathers. The main issue, Anderson proclaims, men and women can have more than one role. The roles could be maintained, but the question of who should fill those roles can be kept open. The idea that a mother would fit the role of nurture is not necessarily true. Anderson feels that as humans a lot of our dignity is earned by not doing what is easy , but by doing what doesn’t necessarily come naturally to us. Anderson’s responses to German sociologist Ulrich Beck that the negotiation on an equal footing between males and females is required and that families can be well-maintained along with equality for women in the …show more content…
He takes the debate between the rights to marriage for same sex couples. Jordan has two theories. The parity thesis and the difference thesis; the parity thesis being in support of same-sex marriages, and the difference thesis being against same-sex marriages. As Jordan discusses these two theories he concludes that it is okay to discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexuality. Jordan says that same-sex couples can be discriminated against in the public sector, but not in the private sector. Meaning that we should only be able to discriminate homosexual behavior if it is done in public, but not if done in private. This attack is based on his assumption that people enjoy seeing heterosexual acts done in public. Jordan bases his theory on his claim that homosexual behavior is only acceptable in private because a public act may involve an unwilling participant. I disagree because following this logic, a heterosexual act, or any act for that matter, done in public involves an unwilling participant if