One of the theses of gender ideology is to deny the biological influence on sexual differences. What consequences does this approach have for all, and what are the risks?
A goal that the USSR wanted to achieve: suppress sexual differences
Simone de Beauvoir, one of the pioneers of gender ideology, wrote a very famous thesis in her book "Le Deuxième Sexe" (The Second Sex), written in 1949: "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman". The French communist and feminist explained this statement: "No biological, psychic or economic destiny defines the figure that the human female has in the bosom of society; it is the whole of civilization that produces this intermediate product between the male and the castrated one that is described as feminine." Thus, according to this theory, the differences in behavior between men and women are due to an exclusively cultural question, without any influence of biology.
In line with that more than arguable thesis - although some affirm it as if it were an unquestionable dogma -, the idea of equality defended by Simone de Beauvoir was not the equality of opportunities defended by the pioneers of feminism, but the suppression of all sexual differences. This was explained referring to the Soviet Union, then ruled by the dictator and genocidal Stalin and of which Beauvoir was a fervent admirer: "It is the resistances of the old capitalist paternalism that prevent in most countries that equality is concretely fulfilled : the day will be fulfilled in which those resistances are destroyed. It has already been fulfilled in the USSR, affirms the Soviet propaganda. And when the socialist society is a reality in the whole world, there will no longer be men and women, but only workers equal to each other."
The communist Alexandra Kollontai and her project to destroy the family
To check if Simone de Beauvoir was right to make this statement, it is enough to review the history books: no communist regime managed to eliminate the differences in behavior between men and women, and that there were attempts to suppress them. A well-known case is that of the Soviet communist leader Alexandra Kollontai, who was the driving force behind the legalization of prenatal murder in the Soviet Union. In his work "Communism and Family" (1920), Kollontai defended the suppression of the family: "the workers state will come to replace the family, society will gradually assume all the tasks that before the revolution fell on the individual parents." In addition, Kollontai wanted to liquidate the mother-child bonds: "The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; must remember that there are only our children, the children of the communist workers Russia." The result of this thesis was that the children became property of the State, and they were even urged to denounce their parents, giving as an example the figure of Pavlik Morózov, who at age 13 denounced his father to the Soviet political police, complaint for which he was sent to a Gulag and then executed.
A project that involves liquidating our fundamental freedoms
Decades after those events, in 1970, another communist, the Canadian Shulamith Firestone, wrote a book entitled "The dialectic of sex", in which she affirmed: "the definitive goal of the feminist revolution must be, unlike the first feminist movement , not simply to end male privilege, but with the distinction of sexes itself: genital differences between human beings no longer matter culturally." Inspired by the work of Karl Marx, Firestone wrote: "Unless the revolution takes root of the basic social organization - the biological family, the link through which the psychology of power can always subsist clandestinely - the parasitic germ of the exploitation will never be annihilated."
One may ask in which head it is possible for a political system to end sexual differences by law and indoctrination, based on the absurd idea that the differences in behavior between men and women are due exclusively to learning. But to understand the purpose of marxism in proposing this nonsense, we must turn it around: the only way to justify such atrocious indoctrination is to deny any influence of biology on sexual differences. If that influence is recognized, even minimally, the entire false concept of equality of these marxist ideologues collapses like a house of cards. To this we must add that this uniformist project -because they did not seek equality, but uniformity- necessarily implies liquidating fundamental freedoms, since our own decisions, the risks we assume in life, accentuate our differences with others. To avoid disagreement, police-words like "machismo" and "hate speech" arise. The dissenter is presented not as a person who exercises his right to dissent from a questionable opinion, but as a perverse being who hates women. It is a typical manipulation of communist dictatorships: turning any dissident into an enemy of society.
A battle of ideas in which our democracy is at stake
Thus, whenever gender ideologues manage to impose their ideas on the laws and the school system, every time that the demonization of the male and the demolition of the family are subsidized, each time a politician or a communication media points out as "macho" who disagrees with that ideology, before silence or even with the applause of the public, democracy gives way to totalitarianism. It is a process that we should not oppose in a partial way, rejecting their attacks on freedom of speech but not their school indoctrination, or criticizing the imposition of "gender laws" but avoiding entering to discuss their theoretical absurdities. In the face of a totalitarian offensive such as that promoted by the gender ideology, the opposition has to be on all fronts: the legal, the educational, the political, the media and the theoretical. Not doing so is giving the totalitarians the opportunity to continue developing a social engineering project whose purpose is increasingly evident: they want to achieve with the gender ideology what they did not achieve with classical Marxism in the West: a society totally controlled by the State, without freedom to disagree and without freedom to educate. We can not sit idly by in front of this frontal attack on freedom: it is a battle of ideas in which our democracy is at stake.
Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email:Click here to subscribe