Becina Ganther is an atheist lesbian Harvard University sophomore who hates God, men and heterosexuality, not necessarily in that order. A few months after her arrival on campus, Ms. Ganther joined the Harvard Crimson, not as a lowly reporter, but as a board member and columnist. Her first column made clear that Ms. Ganther has no interest in males, and her second column was an attack on “heteronormativity.”
Ms. Ganther hates heterosexuality so much she fears she doesn’t look “queer enough” and other people might assume she’s straight. In celebrating same-sex marriage, she denounced heterosexual marriage:
Unpacking the institution of marriage reveals its roots in heteronormativity and sexism. The history of marriage includes traditions of women being passed around like property from their fathers to husbands. Even seemingly sweet gestures, like the groom asking the bride’s father for her hand in marriage or the father walking the bride down the aisle while the groom stands alone and independent, all reinforce women’s dependence on men while men remain independent and authoritative. . . .
[T]he marriage traditions that we grew up with and still see today covertly and overtly reinforce strict binary gender norms in heterosexual relationships.
Heterosexuality is wrong, according to Ms. Ganther, and Harvard’s elevation of her to a prominent role at the Crimson amounts to an official endorsement of that worldview. Just try to imagine the furious controversy that would erupt if the Crimson ever published any writer who directly contradicted Ms. Ganther’s anti-heterosexual rants. Under the regime of political correctness in contemporary academia, homosexuals are exempt from criticism, and advocates of homosexuality are granted carte blanche to heap opprobrium on “straights,” who are effectively prohibited from saying anything in their own defense.
However, let us not pretend that this agenda is targeted equally at allheterosexuals, nor more so than feminism equally demonizes all men. It is the heterosexual white male who is the chosen scapegoat of “intersectional” feminism. No one can be allowed to criticize the promiscuity of heterosexual women, for example, because that would be “slut shaming” and “misogyny,” and criticism of minority males is “racist.” Therefore, it is always and only white heterosexual men who are the direct targets of feminist attack; whatever harm might be suffered by anyone else (e.g., black male students “railroaded by campus sexual assault claims”) is merely collateral damage.
It should surprise no one, given the trajectory of “queer feminism” in recent years, that Ms. Ganther’s two most recent columns (“Cis Queers, We Have a Problem,” Oct. 17, and “When Trans Lives Are Under Attack,”Oct. 31) were devoted to advocating transgender ideology. Many feminists have criticized the transgender cult, but they are fighting a losing battle against the logic of their own radical ideology. Having declared war on “binary gender norms,” to employ Ms. Ganther’s phrase, and having stigmatized heterosexuality as inherently oppressive to women, feminists have incentivized the insanity of transgenderism.
Feminism has followed the path of all radical movements since the French Revolution. Attacks on what Russell Kirk called “ordered liberty”are never undertaken by those devoted to mercy and justice. Radicalism appeals to vengeful spirits of selfishness and malicious envy. Just as Jacobin leaders like Robespierre eventually went to the guillotine, and just as Bolsheviks like Leon Trotsky were annihilated by Stalin, so also will many feminists become victims of their own radicalism.
The great irony is that Becina Ganther is majoring in history at Harvard, where apparently these lessons have been forgotten.