Gender ideology, which emerged from the far-left and is now very widespread in society, is an incessant source of nonsense. But what is its end goal?
The difference between equity feminism and gender feminism
In 2008 I already indicated here the difference between equality feminism and gender feminism. The first sought, from a liberal perspective, equal rights and opportunities for women, a highly praiseworthy purpose that has already been achieved in Western countries. However, gender feminism does not have a liberal perspective, but a marxist one. The first to describe the true nature of gender feminism was the feminist Christina Hoff Sommers in her book "Who Stole Feminism?" (1994), in which she coined the term "gender ideology" to refer to that marxist feminism. In 2016, in an interview published by the Spanish newspaper El Mundo, she defined it like this:
"It is a hard-line school of feminism that sees women, even in the West, as captives of a system of injustice and oppression. According to this theory, every human achievement actually bears the stamp of patriarchy: literature, philosophy, science, music, or language. It is not enough to change laws or traditions. The entire system has to be dismantled. Gender feminism emerged from the radical politics of the 1960s and was marked by marxist philosophy and that of Marcuse, Frantz Fanon and Michel Foucault."
What one of the founders of gender feminism wrote
In my article on the totalitarian origin of gender feminism, I exposed some of the writings published in 1970 by one of its most influential creators and authors: the Canadian communist Shulamith Firestone. We then saw how this radical fanatic openly proposed to destroy "the biological family", inspired by the thought of Karl Marx.
She believed that communism failed because it did not destroy the family
However, in her book "The Dialectic of Sex" (1970) Firestone does not stop there. For her, the destruction of the family is part of something even greater. In the first edition published by Bantam Book, the following can be read on page 212:
"The failure of the Russian Revolution is directly traceable to the failure of its attempts to eliminate the family and sexual repression. This failure, in turn, as we have seen, was caused by the limitations of a male-biased revolutionary analysis based on economic class alone, one that failed to take the family fully into account even in its function as an economic unit. By the same token, all socialist revolutions to date have been or will be failures for precisely these reasons. Any initial liberation under current socialism must always revert back to repression, because the family structure is the source of psychological, economic, and political oppression."
That is to say, that the reasons why Firestone wanted to destroy the family not only had a supposed relationship with a purpose to liberate women: what she really wanted was the triumph of communism destroying the family, which is the most solid social dam versus totalitarian experiments. For her, communism had failed in Russia not because it had been too totalitarian, but because it had reversed its more totalitarian plans.
She proposed to abolish childhood and normalize incest and pedophilia
On page 239 of the book, Firestone proposes the abolition of the "concept of childhood", detaching it from any relationship with their biological parents, and pointed out that "though children would be fewer, they would not be monopolized, but would mingle freely throughout the society to the benefit of all."
What we come across on page 240 is the consequence that Firestone draws from that totalitarian society: the normalization of pedophilia and incest. Speaking of children, she states: "if he should choose to relate sexually to adults, even if he should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances, because the incest taboo would have lost its function."
On the same page she bluntly repeats her intention to normalize pedophilia (something that another of the ideologues of gender feminism, Simone de Beauvoir, also defended): "Relations with children would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of —probably considerably more than we now believe— but because genital sex would no longer be the central focus of the relationship, lack of orgasm would not present a serious problem. Adult/child and homosexual sex taboos would disappear."
An ideology that has ended up assuming even the self-conscious right wing
After reading these aberrations, written by a woman who suffered from schizophrenia for decades, it is chilling to realize the enormous influence that the gender ideology formulated by Firestone has reached in our society, to the point that it is no longer just a collection of nonsense defended from the far-left, but also by the rest of the political map. Even the most self-conscious right wing has ended up taking on these nonsense without question, lashing out hard at those of us who still oppose them.
They can no longer say that a group of exaggerated "far-righters" are trying to link gender ideology with the promotion of pedophilia and a totalitarian society, since one of the founders of that ideology herself exposed it openly. The question we must ask ourselves now is: knowing this, are they willing to continue being accomplices of that ideology created to push us towards a totalitarian, communist and pedophile society?
Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email:
The mail subscription service to Counting Stars will allow you to receive in your mailbox a daily email with the new posts published in this blog. It is a free service. Once you have entered your email in this box and press the "Click to subscribe" black button, you will receive a confirmation email in your mailbox to activate your subscription. If at any time you want to unsubscribe, you only just have to click the link that you will find at the bottom of each newsletter.
Comment on this post: