George Mason University professor Bethany Letiecq blames marriage for a societal culture of 'White heteropatriarchal supremacy' and called for its disruption.
I read through her article, and some of her points are valid; it leaves a general so what?
One of her complaints is that you can’t leave your SS with a partner. That is correct. That isn’t an issue with WHNF, as she uses the phrase. SS would quickly become bankrupt if you could give it to anyone. To me, this is very much a lack of economic understanding on her part.
She also mentions immigrants, which is a tad racist in her context. White people can be immigrants.
Most of her gripe seems to be that WHNF is the dominant culture in America, which is a silly argument since WHNF formed us. It would like going to an African nation and complaining that black people dominate their culture.
But White supremacy is more than an ideology. It is also a multidimensional and interconnected system of structures, laws, policies, rules, regulations, and processes by which people racialized as White maintain and control power, wealth, and resources for their own and their family’s structural advantage in an unequal society.
I’m not too fond of word salad like this. You see it in the social sciences when focused on BS. It is the babble to sound like you know what you are talking about because you can’t actually show it well. The basic premise is that everything is weaved together to prevent everyone who isn’t white, heterosexual, and married from being successful. In the past, that was true, but less so nowadays.
She also brings up Floyd twice for some reason. Floyd’s death has nothing to do with white supremacy or even that he was black.
Studies have repeatedly shown that a two-parent household produces better results than a single-parent household. She complains that TANF spends money on that premise. The easiest solution is stopping government welfare, which would correct most of her complaints.
It is also odd she never talks about the breakdown in the family structure being caused by the push for more welfare.The war on poverty destroyed the black nuclear family, and as such, we should end or heavily restrict all welfare programs. Let each family build their families as they want but without the government paying their way.
I read through her article, and some of her points are valid; it leaves a general so what?
One of her complaints is that you can’t leave your SS with a partner. That is correct. That isn’t an issue with WHNF, as she uses the phrase. SS would quickly become bankrupt if you could give it to anyone. To me, this is very much a lack of economic understanding on her part.
She also mentions immigrants, which is a tad racist in her context. White people can be immigrants.
Most of her gripe seems to be that WHNF is the dominant culture in America, which is a silly argument since WHNF formed us. It would like going to an African nation and complaining that black people dominate their culture.
I’m not too fond of word salad like this. You see it in the social sciences when focused on BS. It is the babble to sound like you know what you are talking about because you can’t actually show it well. The basic premise is that everything is weaved together to prevent everyone who isn’t white, heterosexual, and married from being successful. In the past, that was true, but less so nowadays.
She also brings up Floyd twice for some reason. Floyd’s death has nothing to do with white supremacy or even that he was black.
Studies have repeatedly shown that a two-parent household produces better results than a single-parent household. She complains that TANF spends money on that premise. The easiest solution is stopping government welfare, which would correct most of her complaints.
It is also odd she never talks about the breakdown in the family structure being caused by the push for more welfare.The war on poverty destroyed the black nuclear family, and as such, we should end or heavily restrict all welfare programs. Let each family build their families as they want but without the government paying their way.