Abolishing “family privilege” is one more assault on standards blacks can’t meet.
You have heard of “white privilege.” It’s the idea that white people have all sorts of unearned, undeserved advantages just because we’re white. It’s part of the 400 years of “systemic racism” that Joe Biden is busy rooting out. How’s he doing with that, by the way? Maybe someone at a press conference would ask him.
Well, the people who love to sniff out the awful things white people do have found another one. We built a vast system of oppression known as “family privilege.” I bet you had no idea that if you grew up with your mother and father, you benefitted from unearned, undeserved “family privilege,” which is white supremacist.
Family privilege was discovered in 2001 by a Michigan State University professor named John Seita. In an article called “Growing Up Without Family Privilege,” he called it, “the benefits, mostly invisible, that come from membership in a stable family.”
Twitter trending & the legacy media once again trying to persuade people that sleeping around and never forming long term relationship bonds is natural and to be encouraged.
In practice, it leads to a life of resentment, pain and loneliness. pic.twitter.com/oXAFXu6KzL
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 20, 2021
The benefits of a stable family are hardly invisible, but never mind. Instead of encouraging all people to try to give their children a stable family, Prof. Seita based the idea of family privilege directly on “white privilege,” which had been discovered just four years earlier, in 1997. It’s racist, so it’s got to go.
Any idea that could embarrass white people is going to be popular these days, so “family privilege” is now at the center of something called Family Science, which is supposed to study ways to strengthen families. Here is a typical article, from the Journal of Family Theory and Review: The title is “White Supremacy and the Web of Family Science: Implications of the Missing Spider.”
As the abstract explains, “Family science is at the forefront of understanding the multiple and interconnected risk and protective factors (e.g., poverty vs. wealth, racism and discrimination, privilege) that affect families.”
Remember the title, and the missing spider, which is the evil predator at the center of this web of factors? Guess what that is. White supremacy – you and me.
There is a group called the National Council on Family Relations that has been around since 1938. It is supposed to be “understanding and strengthening families,” but it has now gone full-tilt “racial justice.” In May, it was promoting a seminar called “Toward Dismantling Family Privilege and White Supremacy in Family Science.” As you can see, “Like White privilege, family privilege is an unacknowledged and unearned benefit.”
Family privilege is bad because “it serves to advantage certain family forms over others and is typically bestowed upon White, traditional nuclear families.”
The smiling white lady here is Bethany Letiecq, who teaches at George mason University. She was interviewed as part of a “Family Reboot” – yes, we are going to start all over – to explain family privilege.
She said that the institution of marriage was “designed by White, heterosexual men to maintain their power and social-economic dominance and control over “the other.” ’ If you think that’s crazy, you’re right. Almost every known society has marriage.
Japanese were sure getting married, long before we even knew they existed.
We apparently tricked New Guineans into marrying, too.
The evil of the white man knows no bounds of distance or time.
What makes family privilege “white supremacist,” though”? There is a non-profit in Washington DC called Family Story that has it all figured out. It’s goal is on the home page: “Family Story works to address and dismantle family privilege in America.”
The group claims that any child-rearing arrangement is as good as any other. Single-parent, same sex, unmarried couple, strangers or grandparents doing the job. The bigoted idea that the best arrangement for rearing children is a husband, a wife, and their children is “the nuclear option.”
Sounds scary. As the organization explains on its “What We Do” page, the idea of the traditional nuclear family “is rife with sexist, homophobic and racist assumptions.”
Okay. Let’s start with homophobic. It’s true that for a long time, homosexuals couldn’t adopt children. Are same-sex couples good parents? The first book to cheer on that kind of family that I know of was Heather has Two Mommies.
Do you know when it was published? 1989. Heather is the happiest little girl in the world with her two lesbian mommies. Nowadays there are scores of books like this, and the Heather family is way out of date. Everybody’s white. Here is an illustration from a children’s book called Love Makes a Family.
Even with the beard, I’m not sure what sex either of these people is, but it doesn’t matter. They can be anything, and it’s still sure to be a wonderful, loving family. Maybe it is.
I once tried to see if there is serious research on what happens when a child grows up with two mommies or two daddies. I couldn’t find any. My guess is that it would be hard to get funding for a rigorous study because no one wants to know if having two daddies makes you grow up a little weird.
How about the sexist assumption that single mothers would benefit from having fathers around? Today, it would be hard to find any serious scholar who says being reared by a single mother is just as good as having a mother and father. For a long time, people claimed that black single mothers, especially, had the help of “the community.” Over and over, we heard what is supposed to be an African proverb: “It takes a village to raise a child.” Black people have their village, you see, so who cares if Dad buggers off? Well, the data are in. If Dad is not around, everything is worse.
So, finally, what’s racist about the traditional nuclear family? Just one thing. Black and Hispanic children don’t grow up in that kind of family as often as white children do. And there are advantages to being married. There are tax breaks, inheritance breaks, and spouses can’t be made to testify against each other.
So, if white people get more of those goodies, that proves marriage is evil.
Here are the figures. Please look at the column on the very left.
That’s white children. As the blue part shows, 74 percent of them live with a married couple. The 7 percent in the yellow part are living with a cohabiting couple, the 12 percent in the pink are living with Mom, and the 3.5 percent in the orange are living with Dad. The 3.3 percent in the green are in foster care. The second column from the right is black children. As you can see – the part in the blue – only 36 percent of black children live with married parents. And look at the pink; 43.9 percent of live with Mom. Next is the Hispanic column, but look on the very right column, the Asians. 84.9 percent of Asian children – more than 10 percent more than white children – live with a married mom and dad.
Bethany Letiecq says white men invented marriage to dominate everyone else.
Asians get married more than we do. Does that mean they love being dominated? Or does it mean they going to dominate everyone else?
This stuff is loony. There is nothing stopping black people from getting married, and they benefit from stable households just like everyone else. But instead of encouraging them to marry, the idea is to destroy family privilege by getting rid of every incentive to marry and build a stable household.
Black Lives Matter used to be part of this. On its “What We Believe” page, it said, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” Maybe that bothered some of the corporations giving them billions, because now that page is gone.
BLM is going soft.
But this attack on the Western-prescribed nuclear family is just one more destructive example of a horrible trend: If black people are less likely than white people to do something we always thought was good, then it never was good. If blacks can’t meet standards, get rid of them.
That’s why we decriminalize crimes such as transit fare-beating, loitering, public urination, and shoplifting. If non-whites are arrested for these crimes more often than whites, that’s white supremacy and the laws have to go.
Do you remember the list of awful white traits that the Smithsonian’s Black History Museum posted? It included the scientific method, hard work, self-reliance, and being on time. This is just part of it.
These things are bad because white people cruelly forced them on non-whites.
And now, expecting students to get the right answer in math or to use good grammar is white supremacist. We have to get rid of the SAT because whites outscore blacks and Hispanics. Abolish gifted classes because they are too white and Asian. End school suspensions because not enough white children break the rules. Stable, traditional families are only the latest injustice. The family has got to go because a lot of non-whites don’t live that way. We solve the problem by eliminating standards for everyone. None of this would be likely to happen in an all-white society.
During the so-called “Civil Rights Era” 60 years ago, the idea was that black people were going to become just like white people. But it turned out they couldn’t or wouldn’t. Asking them to change became white supremacy. So we get rid of standards for everyone. There will be justice and equity only when white people are as poor and irresponsible and degenerate as blacks. Any advantage, natural or cultivated, will have to go, in what is ultimately a war on excellence and achievement of any kind. We have a wonderful future in store, don’t we?