For those who don’t have either the stomach or patience to wade through jargon-laden, cliché claptrap from another university professor, I will offer just a smidge from an academic paper in order to provide a glimpse into the murky mind of a leftist who is “educating” young Americans.
George Mason University’s Bethany Letiecq is an “associate professor in the College of Education and Human Development, specializing in the utilization of community-based participatory action research approaches, anti-racist research methods, and mixed method designs in partnership with minoritized and marginalized families.”
As one might expect from a leftist professor of education and human development, Letiecq holds anti-child, anti-marriage, anti-heteronormativity views which she expresses in her nearly unreadable polemic titled, “Theorizing White Heteropatriarchal Supremacy, Marriage Fundamentalism, and the Mechanisms That Maintain Family Inequality.”
Since the “self” is the organizing principle of contemporary leftists, Letiecq spends some time jawboning about her dysfunctional family and marital history, which she—another leftist victim—suggests have been negatively affected by a society that “problematized and denigrated” non-marital family structures.
She characterizes her narcissistic self-revelations as “LOCATING AND UNSETTLING MYSELF.” Here goes nothing:
As a critical feminist scholar, it is important at the outset to locate myself and my motivations for engaging in this theoretical work. I come to this work with my own complex family narrative of marriages, divorces, and remarriages across generations of my family, and my own experiences of interracial marriage, divorce, cohabitation, motherhood, single-parenting, and step-mothering. As a White, cisgender woman, I am currently living with my partner and co-raising our children in a committed heterosexual union outside the institution of marriage. In writing this article, I am intimately familiar with the ways in which my union is problematized and denigrated in a society that sees marriage as best for children and for society. I am also aware of the ways my family as structured has been denied access to resources, benefits, rights, financial and legal protections, and cultural validation. … I question a society that espouses the virtues of liberty and justice for all, while coercing some of its citizens to enter into an institution built upon White heteropatriarchal supremacy to gain access to those benefits, rights, and protections (or face the possibility of financial ruin.)
Our Founding Fathers did not advocate for “liberty” as an absolute, limitless freedom accorded to each individual that excludes consideration of the public good. Our Founding Fathers were concerned with political liberty—not sexual or relational license. And they did not deem government subsidies necessary for the protection or exercise of personal liberty.
I question the knowledge, expertise, and wisdom of a purported scholar who believes liberty and justice require society to treat all family structures as identical in value.
Here is a bit more Bethany-blather:
- “[U]nder White heteropatriarchal supremacy, the continued subjugation of heterosexual cisgender women requires the enforcement of traditional gender roles. Any de-gendering of roles vis-à-vis women’s liberation or the legitimization of LGBTQ+ gender expansion is a threat to cisgender male domination and White supremacy.”
- “[T]he social and legal recognition and legitimization of gender diversity and expansive gender roles and expressions beyond the binary is so threatening to White heteropatriarchal supremacy and marriage fundamentalism that states are mobilizing across the country to roll back LGBTQ+ rights.”
- “While heteropatriarchy and marriage fundamentalism affect sexual minorities by constraining their access to power and resources, it ‘uniquely targets people with the capacity for pregnancy’ by also constraining their access to family planning services, which can result in negative health effects.”
- “Placing marriage fundamentalism alongside structural racism, sexism, and heterosexism as key features of White supremacy is useful to explain the positioning of a majority White, Christian, pro-life movement in advancing laws, policies, and practices that hold disproportionate negative health outcomes for Black, Indigenous, and transgender people.”
Letiecq’s radical goal for the social reconstruction of society is to “problematize and stigmatize” theologically orthodox Christianity, the pro-life movement, heteronormativity, traditional marriage, and the historical political understanding of “liberty” and “justice.” If her dogma—shared by leftists everywhere—wins the day, America is doomed.