Kyle Pizzichili
Contemporary Moral Problems
3/18/14
Dr. Miller
Section A: Gender and Ethics, Same Sex Marriage
2.) Family Life and Fatherhood: Anderson argues that gender equality in the home will
not necessarily lead to a breakdown of family values. Explain his reasons for this claim. How
would a neo-traditionalist like Blankenhorn respond? Be sure to explain why Blankenhorn
rejects the “New Father” model of fatherhood/masculinity. How would a care ethicist respond to
Anderson’s article?
In “Is Equality Tearing Families Apart?” the author, Joel Anderson, argues against neotraditionalists, such as David Blankenhorn, whom believe that gender equality (pro-equality)
conflicts with ideas of pro-family. Anderson states, “...those [neo-traditionalists] who have
worried most about the decline of the family often view campaigns for gender equality with a
similar degree of suspicion and hostility” (337). The neo-traditionalists that Anderson describes
believe that genderless parenting, selfish individualism, and competing agendas are the main
factors that are tearing families apart (338). Anderson, on the other hand, believes that a
successful and good society in today’s world must be both pro-equality and pro-family (337).
Anderson strongly believes in the elimination of inequality between sexes, as well as a stable
family life.
A neo-traditionalist strongly agrees with the “male-breadwinner/female-homemaker
model” which is the belief that the man of the house must provide for his family, whereas, the
female must take care of their children and home. The neo-traditionalist would argue that having
a distinctive role is essential to maintaining an identity either as a mother or father which gives
the family “much needed stability and complementarity” (338). Neo-traditionalists view
women’s role as a natural nurturer and also as the primary care giver to children, and they view
men’s role as the provider and protector. Neo-traditionalists also strongly disagree with the father
figure in families today that have gender equality known as the “New Father” (338). The “New
Father” must place emphasis on both home-making and breadwinning in order to prove his selfPage | 1
worth to his family (338). The neo-traditionalists are against this “New Father” because they
believe families will lose the benefits of diverse role models and fathers will lose the feeling of
having a unique contribution to the family, denying them the masculine pride they feel when
providing for their family and being a role model of strength for their children (338-339).
Anderson argues that genderless parenting does not eliminate role differences but that it allows
one to not be limited to a specific role (339). And I believe a family can greatly benefit from this
new family style, it allows children to view each parent in a number of ways which will
positively influence them because of the diversity they are exposed to. He goes on to say that
men can be “mothers” and women can be “fathers” (339). Anderson believes women should
have the right and opportunity to enter the job market and pursue a successful career just as well
as a man would (340). And for this to be possible the “New Father” is essential to assist in being
the care-giver and home-maker at times (339). It is a little give and take to find a balance
between pro-family and pro-equality which leads to a successful family. Anderson makes very
valid points and our ever changing world demands evolution from the traditional malebreadwinner/female-homemaker model.
Another issue neo-traditionalists have with gender equality is that they believe too much
focus on “equal power and equal negotiating positions” can destroy the “climate of love and
trust” within a family (340). Neo-traditionalists believe that stressing on the equality of
negotiating positions can be detrimental to a family’s stability (341). Anderson argues that
families that have an equal take on negotiating techniques are more successful. Anderson states
that if a couple’s interests are balanced and their negotiating techniques are equal, neither side is
able to take advantage of one another and the stability of the family is strengthened (342).
Neo-traditionalists blame the intense competition of the labor market on women’s
Page | 2
(feminists) campaign for equality (343). Another belief that neo-traditionalists have is that
increased individualism society faces is threatening to the family (342). The neo-traditionalist
outlook is that without women fully participating in the job market there would be no competing
agendas (344). However, Anderson explains that it is important for every individual to choose
their line of work so they can establish their own individual identity and prove to others their
self-worth (343). Anderson believes that in the demanding and expensive world we live in
families are most effective when both the mother and the father work in the labor market, as well
as divide parental care duties and housework (344).
A feminist or care ethicist would disagree with the view of the neo-traditionalist and
Blankenhorn. Although neo-traditionalists believe that women are the primary care giver and
also play the biggest role of nurturer, they do not believe in gender equality to a certain degree.
Both the father and the mother could help nurture, develop, teach, and provide care to children;
which leads us back to the ideal of the “New Father.” The world we live in is ever changing and
constantly evolving and we must adapt and change our ways when it is necessary. Anderson
successfully describes the need for “genderless parenting, equal power, and freedom of
opportunity” in today’s society and also states that there is no conflict between pro-equality and
pro-family because they must be in equilibrium (337).
Section B: War, Violence, and Non-violence
3.) Martin Luther King Jr. says injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Explain what he means. If the injustice is extreme enough, would he support violence? Explain
the steps involved in a non-violent campaign. Construct an opposing position to King using your
understanding of just war theory. How would King respond to this opposing position?
In “Letter from the Birmingham City Jail” Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the steps to
his non-violent civil disobedient campaign. King states that all communities and states are
related and that “[i]njustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (305). In his case he was
Page | 3
in Atlanta and could not sit back while he knew injustices were occurring in Birmingham. He
describes a sort of chain reaction or butterfly effect when he writes, “[w]hatever affects one
directly affects all indirectly” (305). People think if the there is an injustice occurring in the U.S.
but it is not necessarily near them then it is not their “business” and citizens believe that they are
not required to get involved. King then goes on to explain the four steps to a non-violent
campaign, the first step is to determine that injustice is occurring by the collection and
analyzation of facts (305). The second step is negotiation with the sole purpose to end the
injustice that is occurring (305). The third step King says is self-purification (“a cleansing
process that steels one against hatred and revenge”) (305). And the final step in a non-violent
campaign direct action (305). There were horrible injustices being done to “Negroes” in
Birmingham such as brutality, segregation, bombings, etc. (305).
After failed attempts at negotiation with political leaders King and his followers went
through a self-purification. To do so, they held non-violent workshops and prepared themselves
mentally to receive blows without violent retaliation and prepared themselves for jail if
necessary (305). Direct action is needed when negotiation fails so that a “creative tension” is
created not allowing the community to ignore the issue any longer (306).
If the injustice was extreme enough King would still never resort to violence. He states in
his letter that, “it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends,” which means to use
violence to “cure” injustices is wrong and there are other ways to accomplish goals such as his
four steps to a non-violent campaign (312). On the other hand, according to the just war theory if
there is just cause, right intention, and the action of war will “do more good than harm” (the rule
of proportionality) then violence can be justified (Lackey, 267). For example, self-defense can be
grounds for just cause, or to protect loved ones from harm. Also political leaders have an
Page | 4
obligation to keep peace between nations and if something should jeopardize this then a violent
campaign must be put into play. King would argue, however, that violence will just bring about
more violence and that a non-violent campaign is the most successful way in dealing with
injustices. I would agree that in certain situations a non-violent campaign, similar to that in
Birmingham which Martin Luther King Jr. was involved in, are very successful and the better
option, however sometimes a just violent campaign is inevitable and the last resort.
Page | 5