HOW would you react if you found out an adult had been in your three or four-year-old's childcare centre asking the following questions:Do read the whole thing; like I said, I don't agree with the author about some major issues, but that's part of what makes a piece like this so interesting--because two people from very different philosophical backgrounds can agree that the attempts at sexual indoctrination or other sexualization of young children is simply wrong.
"Do boys give you the dreamy eye?"
"Are you a flirt?"
"Have you ever kissed a boy?"
If a carer asked these questions, I would be complaining to management in no uncertain terms.
If someone off the street tried to ask these questions, I would be calling the cops.
So why is it acceptable for Monash University academic Mindy Blaise to be asking three and four-year-olds these exact questions, as part of her ongoing study into what she calls post-structuralist and queer theory?
Sure, the questions come from an illustration in a popular Clarice Bean book by Lauren Child. But it doesn't make any difference. Regardless of the source, they are still inappropriate.
As she details in a paper in the latest Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, Blaise wants to show that young children are already sexual beings and that she is just creating a safe space for them in which they can express their "sexual knowledge".
In fact, she even wants the early childhood curriculum to be changed to give teachers a chance to "engage with children differently about their sexual knowledge".
In one experiment in an Australian childcare centre (she won't say which one), she gets the children to photograph objects or dolls they think are cool, sexy or pretty, and in another to respond to a photograph of two crocodiles kissing. One of the children notes that "one is a boy and one is a girl".
Blaise responds: "Heather (the child) has drawn upon the heterosexual matrix in her naming of the crocodiles as complementary genders. In doing so, the possibility of imagining same-sex desire has been closed off."
Is it just me, or does Blaise actually seem disappointed that some kids aren't showing signs of being gay?
Even other researchers are not happy about Dr. Mindy Blaise's research, as this article from Austrialia's Daily Telegraph shows:
Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said he was deeply concerned by the research and surprised it cleared the university's ethics committee.Why not, indeed?
"Why the hell can't we just let children be children?" he said.
Here's a clue, from the same Telegraph article:
Monash University's Dr Mindy Blaise, who spent five days at an unnamed childcare centre, wants sexuality to be an official subject at kinders and preschool centres.
It would include discussions about homosexuality.
Dr Blaise said it was important that kids felt "healthy sexuality was not dirty or wrong". [Emphasis added--E.M.]
And why do three and four-year-olds need to talk about homosexuality? Well, remember those crocodiles? Again, from the Telegraph:
During her research, Dr Blaise also asked children to photograph things they thought were cool, sexy or pretty, and to discuss a photograph of two crocodiles kissing.
She described encouraging a discussion about sexuality, desire and love in relation to the crocodile picture.
When one child noted that the crocodiles were a boy and girl, Dr Blaise noted that the children appeared to think only about heterosexuality.
Not once did children talk about the possibility of girls being attractive for other girls, or boys being cool for other boys, she concluded.
In other words, you see, three-year-old and four-year-old children are already too "heteronormative" to satisfy society's desire to reshape sexuality in a way that ignores the reproductive aspect and tears down all gender constructs as too oppressive and damaging to be left in place. Gender-specific words and concepts like "mother" or "father" have to go, as do any other references to gender roles or the idea that men usually find women attractive, or that women usually find men attractive.
Thus, it's not even remotely acceptable to certain academics like Dr. Blaise for a child to assume, that because two crocodiles are kissing, that one must be a boy and the other a girl. That tiny tot clearly has been oppressed by the heteornormative agenda, and must be liberated by frank discussions of lesbian sex in preschool! (The rank speciesism of showing two reptiles engaging in a human-specific love-expression will be addressed when further studies are funded, etc.)
Otherwise, the dreadful possibility that toddlers will think that sex, or at least some kinds of sex, is dirty and wrong looms over us all. Of course, the notion that toddlers, who have barely figured out their excretory organs, should be learning anything at all about the reproductive act (oh, sorry, how un-p.c. of me--about the various sexually pleasurable acts humans are capable of) is one that most parents will find astonishingly wrong and misguided--if not, as the author of the first piece I link to suggests, absolutely criminal.
But the natural modesty of children, and the whole idea that there is a "latency period" during which children's curiosity about adult behaviors is mostly dormant or limited to various easily-answered common sense questions (such as "How does the baby get out of Mommy's tummy?") which mainly deal with actual reproduction and not the various sex acts humans are capable of, are under attack by many different forces in society. So long as young children still think that parents come in opposite gender pairs and that love and affection between adults is mainly ordered toward creating these pairs, society will remain appallingly heteronormative. And that's simply unacceptable to the type of professional academic who has a vested interest in seeing to it that children reject "heteronormative" gender roles and embrace alternative sexuality--or, more accurately, in convincing schools and other academics that her ideas are cutting-edge and important, instead of, from the perspective of parents, repulsive and potentially damaging to the psychological states of young children.