Kipnis argues that monogamy is a social constructuction which creates citizens who follow capitalistic ideals. Within Kipnis’ essay she only focuses on romantic relationships and believes that adultery is the key to initiating new modes of thinking. In order to create social change, I do not believe committing adultery is the right solution because adultery is an excuse to run away from problems. Taking a closer look at the author’s argument, one can see that the author is not against love. Nowhere in the text does she protest against a mother’s love for her child or the love we have for our friends. Instead, the author challenges ideals about romantic love and the glorification of romantic love within American capitalism. I noticed that Kipnis limits her analysis of …show more content…
A nuclear family consists of a couple and their offspring. The nuclear family ties to Kipnis argument in that this very small, intimate, basic social unit can be used to reproduce citizens who have accepted the capitalist work ethic and strive to continue its legacy. However, by only focusing on romantic love, Kipnis disregards other forms of love such as love within a family or the love within a friendship. The solution to initiating social change is to eliminate the idea of the nuclear family and embrace the various types of family structures, in order to deal with each household's specific needs.
Kipnis’ biggest flaw is that she only focuses on the structure of a nuclear family.
According to Kipnis, the married couple is the most common form of adultery(393). As couples and romantic love become the focal point of her essay, Kipnis shoves her argument into a small confined box that allows her to ignore other types of household structures. Either that, or Kipnis believes that every household consists only of two people. For Kipnis, the purpose of focusing on the nuclear family