Download Firestone Response

Snitzer 1
Erin Snitzer
Professor Klobucka
WGS Capstone
20 February, 2017
Firestone’s Critiques of the Nuclear Family
Throughout Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex, almost every facet of
society and its gendered structures are broken down and heavily criticized at their base
levels. In particular, the family structure created by patriarchal civilization is a heavy
target. Aside from the obvious dichotomy and imbalance of the modern family, Firestone
takes aim at the impracticality, inefficiency, and expectations of child rearing all involved
in the nuclear family. While she compartmentalizes and offers solutions to all of these
issues, there is still a lack of analysis in pertinence to non – heterosexual living
arrangements, even in the polyamorous communities she proposes.
In the chapter titled “Feminism in the Age of Ecology” Firestone highlights the
many pseudo – scientific and popular lines of reasoning for maintaining a patriarchal
family structure and not releasing the means of reproduction. One point she asserts that
provides a great example of the issues ingrained into the nuclear family structure is that it
allows for a mental disconnect from the general populous. Specifically she claims that
patriarchal structure encourages, “Us – Against – Them chauvinism (blood is thicker);
the division between … the public and the private … the privatization of the sex
experience; the power psychology; and so on.” (222-223) Due to the nuclear structure
Snitzer 2
containing a hierarchy that carries throughout generations – and relying on the persistent
creation of generations – citizens dissociate empathy for any lives other than those of
their progeny and their significant others. This subsequently halts revolution for fear of
the individual ego; and also creates a microcosm of this dichotomy.
Allegorically, men begin to dissociate empathy for women and children in the
interest of their own power. The nuclear structure asserts that men should be the head of a
household and should be willing to risk their lives for their family and/or country. When
men do not allow women and children physical, fiscal, nor political autonomy they can
then claim that it is in the interest of the family structure, when it is factually in the
interest of maintaining patriarchal power. In this sense, men become a family in and of
themselves that will only fight and defend their own; and women must – as Firestone
asserts – wage revolution against them as men would’ve done against their own state or
republic.
Something that Firestone curiously omits from her analysis of the nuclear family
is its absolute reliance on heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality. Throughout
the chapter titled “Conclusion: The Ultimate Revolution” she introduces alternatives to
the modern family structure. This includes a lack of maternal and paternal relationships to
children, community parenting, and non monogamous relationships. (270-271) Although
Firestone abandons all other facets of heteronormative relationships in striving for a
utopian and egalitarian household structure, heterosexuality is still the only discussed
sexuality that is qualified for kinship. Lesbian and Gay individuals are still viewed as
outsiders even in this extremely liberal definition of family. This could be for a few
Snitzer 3
reasons, one in particular being that Lesbian and Gay couples cannot biologically
reproduce in and of themselves. While in the previous chapter Firestone asserts that,
“Artificial reproduction is not inherently dehumanizing.” (227), she still structures a
family around how children are raised and how dependent they should or shouldn’t be on
the adults in their community. For efficiency’s sake, Lesbian and Gay folks are not
particularly needed in this system an are subsequently re - oppressed by a system that is
meant to be egalitarian.
Firestone does a brilliant job in analyzing the issues with the nuclear family
structure. In particular, she assesses the ways in which a patriarchal system dichotomizes
the public and the private; and therefore women and men. We learn from Firestone that
revolution cannot happen if we do not first rethink the way we view a family unit. While
she succeeds in this realm, she ultimately fails to discuss the inevitable inclusion of
Lesbian and Gay relationships into this heterosexual “utopian” view of kinship. As long
as Lesbian and Gay folks are removed from the possibility of revolutionary family
structures, they cannot participate in revolutionary action under Firestone’s dialectic.
Snitzer 4
Works Cited
Firestone, Shulamith. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New
York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks, 1970. Print.