What happens when society’s leftist intellectuals begin to reinforce ideological philosophies intended to undermine civilization as we know it? More specifically, what will become of our children when the basic norms of childhood development are removed and replaced with radical polices pushed forth by academic storm troopers? Radical thinkers are determined that children must no longer be allowed to live according to the gender in which children are born, but rather be made to become genderless beings.
Gender equality is cunningly wielded against boys and girls who are too young to make decisions or understand life. Young children have not attained an understanding of their own bodies or evolved the self-esteem that comes with later development and are easily victimized by teachers who believing the child-rearing process should move away from the traditional mother-father home to a life-style invented by radical political proposals suggesting children must be raised genderless.
Some educators have gone so far as to suggest men and women should never gather separately in their own gendered groups, and men should never have higher positions of power in the workforce or other social roles. This reasoning alleges that male power differentiation causes boys to see themselves as superior to girls, therefore treating girls as weak, a situation deemed so unfair to experts; they believe it needs radical correction.
Adopting these psychological doctrines is the left-leaning Egalia Preschool in the Sodermalm district of Stockholm. A new curriculum demolishes gender roles by promoting a political agenda preventing children from growing up with conventional male/female gender stereotypes—men are strong and powerful, women feminine and pretty. The remedy entails replacing the pronouns “han” (him) and “hon” (her) when referring to men and women with the genderless term, “hen,” used by Swedish feminists and gays. “Hen” refers to someone as “it.” Although promoted by child rearing experts, from a distant vantage point it can only be described as predatory psychology, applied by prestigious authorities, confusing parents who are told what is best for their children.
Egalia’s director, Lotta Rajalin asserts a genderless mode frees children from society’s preconceived gender notions; allowing children to be individuals without the separation of sexes, claiming that fostering a genderless society will prevent boys from having a detestable “unfair edge” over girls.
Apparently genderless equality is so vital it is worth the radicalism used to reform it.
These methods bizarrely include banning fairytales the Cinderella and Snow White, which depict women as “girlie, nice and pretty” and boys as “manly, rough, and outgoing.” Rajalin purposely chooses books featuring homosexual couples, transgender, and single mothers. One book such book is about two male giraffes that are “sad” they are unable to conceive children together. The two male giraffes adopt an orphaned crocodile egg and parent it together. Such a philosophy by the left is a fabled world that can never be, but is pushed for the fancied leftist reality that challenges nature.
This psychological theory is not new. It was pushed 30 years-ago in Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory promoting the elimination of heterosexual “sex-typing” in society by removing nature’s gender differentiations, theoretically making children become a “self” without the dimension of gender. Of course, this process of education must be undertaken early since girls and boys learn their sexual differences very young. Thus, girls instinctively will act “girlie,” liking things pretty and nurturing baby dolls; boys instinctively will “roughhouse” and will like cars and trucks. This is of course all normal. Yet, radical thinkers want sex-typing eliminated, or, if not, at least rearranged to define sex roles, using gender equality theories to subliminally create a social vacuum in which realization of sexual differences between girls and boys never emerges.
This is a political agenda with a radical approach that goes beyond mere cultivation of equality: it forces children to learn, from an early age, what radicals consider appropriate, not form nature determined for humans at birth.
Egalia’s curriculum thrusts children into a gender neutral world, placing “special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.” How strange. Rajalin goes out of her way to introduce the homosexual life-style to children despite a gross contradiction—homosexuals are gendered, both are male and female divisions.
Further, Rajalin wants boys to play mothers when the children are playing house: “We suggest two moms or three moms and so on” so that boys feel they too can be mothers, and though some of the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct (so children understand boys and girls have different genitals), children are taught that on the “inside” all are gender identical, underneath there is no dimension of male or female.
What about the inevitable repercussions in preventing children from believing there are differences between men and women? Those applying theGender Schema Theory know children learn quickly from an early age and can be taught to believe anything. What happens if an entire generation grows up believing men and women lack gender despite physical and emotional differences? What adverse consequences will schools like Egalia have on children when they become adults and are confronted with the realities of gender differences after having been shielded from them?
According to Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah, child-rearing in an environment that removes gender and traditional parenting roles causes “severe difficulties in the personal lives of children” as well as inflicting disturbing “societal costs,” such as making adjustments difficult when both sexes are involved jointly in carrying out societal functions. Byrd affirms male and female roles are necessary to childhood development and those lessons are taught through imitating and interacting with persons of both sexes.
For example, “[F]athers’ play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors,” enabling children to perceive violence and aggression, because “roughhousing [with fathers teaches children] that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable.” Similarly for the mother’s role, Byrd’s data reports:
“[N]o reputable psychological theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers in the normal development of children could be found.”
Both mothers and fathers are vital for the rearing and well-being of children, because:
“[G]ender complementarity affords children the opportunity to thrive in the best possible environment. Other family forms are not equally as helpful or healthful for children. Substantial research demonstrates the negative effects of father hunger. One can only surmise the consequences of mother hunger.”
It is astounding such direct observations concerning rearing healthy children have been reinvented, but, this is all symptomatic of the wayward effect of a half-baked Utopian ideology. It appears to do good by creating a society of equality and justice, but ends up doing great harm, having been misapplied by flawed educational experts, who themselves, appear to be pathologically warped in confronting some of the most evident realities of human life.
If such aspects of social tinkering are left to the imaginations of so-called sociology and psychology experts, one must shudder at the possible outcomes for these children as adults.