Sunday, June 26, 2011

Brace yourselves, New York...this is proof

...the agenda continues.

Sweden, I remind readers, has had gay "marriage" for all of three years:

STOCKHOLM (AP) — At the "Egalia" preschool, staff avoid using words like "him" or "her" and address the 33 kids as "friends" rather than girls and boys.

From the color and placement of toys to the choice of books, every detail has been carefully planned to make sure the children don't fall into gender stereotypes. [...]

Breaking down gender roles is a core mission in the national curriculum for preschools, underpinned by the theory that even in highly egalitarian-minded Sweden, society gives boys an unfair edge.

To even things out, many preschools have hired "gender pedagogues" to help staff identify language and behavior that risk reinforcing stereotypes. [...]

Director Lotta Rajalin notes that Egalia places a special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. From a bookcase, she pulls out a story about two male giraffes who are sad to be childless — until they come across an abandoned crocodile egg.

Nearly all the children's books deal with homosexual couples, single parents or adopted children. There are no "Snow White," ''Cinderella" or other classic fairy tales seen as cementing stereotypes.

Egalia doesn't deny the biological differences between boys and girls — the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct.

What matters is that children understand that their biological differences "don't mean boys and girls have different interests and abilities," Rajalin says. "This is about democracy. About human equality." [All emphases added--E.M.]

I've been saying for years that the real "gay rights" agenda was to force society to abandon heteronormativity by attacking and destroying any notion of the traditional family and traditional gender roles. This is proof that I am right; this is what gay rights activists really want. They see both traditional gender roles and the mother-father-biological children norm of the family as the biggest threats to them, and seek to destroy them both--and destroy anyone who claims that there is anything inherently better for individuals and for society about the traditional family and traditional understandings of gender.

Think New York kindergartens and "Head Start" programs and the like won't closely mirror this Swedish school within a decade or so? I wouldn't take that bet--and the tension between religious believers who reject this sort of pernicious nonsense and the liberal agenda cheerleaders who think that a post-heteronormative world in which gender is a meaningless social construct will be a new Eden is going to grow to the point where peaceful coexistence is simply impossible.


Turmarion said...

I don't think such an agenda as this is good, but I'd point out two things: one, a kibbutz did pretty much the same thing decades ago and it was a complete failure. Boys tended to gravitate to boy toys, boy jobs, etc., and vice versa with the girls. Eventually, they wound up as pretty normal adults who acted pretty much like everyone else. I'll have to look up the reference on that, but I remember reading about it. Naturam expelles furca, tamen usque recurret--you can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she'll come back anyway. Thus, the long-term effects may be much, much less than both friends and foes of such approaches think.

Second, the linked article says that the school has been controversial and is "unusual even for Sweden". Thus it's unclear whether such radical methods are actually what the referenced national curriculum requires in terms of "breaking down gender roles". I mean, that phrase could just mean that it's OK if girls are engineers and boys cook. It doesn't necessarily imply gay giraffes!

If this type of thing is indeed pervasive in Sweden--which is by no means clear from the article--then I am against it, and it would seem to be at least some prima facie evidence of your assertions vis-à-vis the "gay agenda". However, as I alluded on a previous thread, this sounds like the kind of hysterical anecdotal "did-you-hear-what-they-did-in-that-school" type of thing that uses lurid tales that may or may not be representative as a way of implying huge, menacing trends threatening to swamp us.

This kind of thing is both silly and troubling; but once more, I'd really want to see a whole lot more documentation and solid, non-anecdotal evidence.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

What is really ludicrous about all of this is that the very identity "gay" or, more clinically, "homosexual" depend on the biological fact that every human being IS either MALE or FEMALE, not both, meaning every child is either a BOY or a GIRL and every adult a MAN or a WOMAN.

If it were not so, the very concept of "same-sex couple" would have no meaning.

Are we next going to hear about a man and a woman who want to enter into a same-sex marriage, because they feel that better describes their postmodern nonstereotypical union? Will lesbian pairs seek recognition as heterosexuals?

Gender distinctions are the very root of both heterosexual and homosexual relations.

Eventually, these silly faddists will find most of us, even at our most sympathetic to the human desires of gay men or women to simply acceptance of their relations, recognize that there is a norm to human existence, that heterosexuality is the norm, and that in every generation, there are indeed deviations from the norm. Individuals don't have to feel somehow ashamed for being statistical outliers, and are perfectly welcome to live their life in peace. But its not like we are all men, all women, or all gay, and more than we are all heterosexual.

VRWC said...

people can say this is doomsaying and just an isolated example of PC run amok. and i don't think anyone, even most people sympathetic to SSM, thinks we're gonna suddenly transform into some androgynous society because of this.

but when you think about it, this doesn't seem so much like PC as it does a logical conclusion. people constantly invoke old miscegenation laws when talking about SSM, after all, and you wouldn't refer to someone's "black mother" or "white father" as if their race has some bearing on how they raise their children. so why would gender be any different by SSM supporters' logic? already you can find a decent amount of Enlightened (tm) people who consider it hate speech to suggest that moms and dads bring distinctive traits to parenting. mention gender roles and your position gets simplified to wanting to keep women in the kitchen or whatever. etc.

although, maybe this'll end up something the T in LGBT push for more and that ridiculous recent Oakland elementary school presentation about fluid gender (i live in CA and was not surprised at all) will become mandatory "tolerance" curriculum

Geoff G. said...

Trust me, Red, no-one is more supportive of traditional gender roles than gay men. Here's a news flash: WE LIKE MEN. Why the heck do you think we turn all those bikers, cops, soldiers, blue collar types, etc. into sexual objects?

Most of us are on your side on this gender role thing.

Frankly, I'm not sure if it's the notorious Texas heat and humidity or what, but you're obsessing here. Of the nine posts on your front page right now, six deal with same-sex marriage either solely or as part of a larger post.

Wasn't there something the Lord had to say about the person who spent all of his time worrying about other peoples' sins?

We've all made our points. Repeatedly. It's time to move on for now. We can return to this topic the next time a skirmish in this culture war pops up if you like, but until then the floor is yours.

Red Cardigan said...

Geoff: sorry, but the New York decision is news. It's not just a "blip" on the "destruction of society" radar.

And the NYT article showing the buying and selling of GOP legislators (among other things), which is here:

just shows how little of this was about principle, and how much was merely an illustration of the typical whorish nature of the political animal.

And that goes double for the Catholic wretches who voted for this filth.

James C. said...

Geoff, don't forget the "T" in LGBT. Of course the gay lobby has every interest in blurring gender roles. I was reading the coverage in Syracuse of the reaction to the decision, and the reporter quoted a woman who said she couldn't wait to have a really "formal and traditional" wedding, like the ones she grew up with, with her lady-partner. She then added that she would dress in a tuxedo and her "wife" in a flowing white veiled gown!

Yep, real traditional. And totally respecting the distinctions between the sexes. About as respecting as the drag queens who flop about at every Gay Pride parade and many gay social venues.

Turmarion said...

And that goes double for the Catholic wretches who voted for this filth. (emphasis added)

Charity, sister, charity! I had a couple of long posts on this a thread or so back, as well as some thoughts on the hellfire and damnation language ("eternal death" and such), to which you seemed to have no response. Thoughts?

Siarlys Jenkins said...

James, the data you provide, contrasted with the heartfelt personal statement Geoff provided, just goes to show that there are no neat categories that EVERYONE neatly fits into, politically speaking. Even the "gay movement" includes those who prefer to emphasize the "fluid" nature of sexuality and those, like Geoff, who affirm "WE LIKE MEN." In both cases of course, this is a PREFERENCE, not an objective reality. I definitely prefer Geoff's viewpoint to the "fluid" viewpoint, that is, as long as he doesn't take an interest in me. He has been quite explicit that he is only interested in men who are interested in him.

Objectively, it remains true that men are men, women are women, and the whole "sexual orientation" discussion is about three distinct human relationships: men to women, men to men, women to women. In every case, a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.

Turmarion said...

Just for what it's worth.

Anonymous said...

When will you stop putting gay marriage in scare quotes? Do you refer to black "people" as well?

Red Cardigan said...

Anonymous: never. No "marriage" can take place between two men or two women, no matter what sort of stupid legal fiction is created so they can play pretend.

I would use scare-quotes to write the following, too: incestuous "marriage," polygamous "marriage," open "marriage," or trial "marriage." None of those are really "marriages" either, as far as I'm concerned, even if--as I fully expect--the law eventually defines all of them as "marriage."

Red Cardigan said...

Oh, and it's nice of you to play the bigotry card. I'm no racist. There's a big difference between discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on rejection of the normalization of sexual depravity.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Anonymous, as a matter of fact, I routinely put the words "black" and "white" in quotation marks, not to "scare" readers, but because these are artificial constructs having no objective reality, except what perversions in human culture have given them over the last few centuries. That gave some copy editors a headache at first, but more often than not, my work gets into print with the quotation marks intact.

Erin is expressing a similar opinion, for somewhat different reasons. To her, marriage is a specific relationship between a man and a woman. I agree that two men are not "similarly situated," but am less concerned whether two men or two women can also enter into the legal fiction and call it a marriage.

We each speak for ourselves. Don't put words (or delete quotation marks) into or from someone else's mouth.

John E. said...

Anonymous: never. No "marriage" can take place between two men or two women, no matter what sort of stupid legal fiction is created so they can play pretend.

Red, is it the use of the word 'marriage' that bothers you?

If the gay activists had been fighting for 'same sex civil union' and won, would you be as bothered as you are now?

Anonymous said...

Once upon time, black people weren't people under our laws. Once upon a time a gay marriages weren't marriages under our laws.

So, I didn't play the bigot card. You did. If the shoe fits . . .

Red Cardigan said...

Once upon a time, incestuous marriages weren't marriages under our laws. Once upon a time polygamous marriages weren't marriages under our laws. Once upon a time pedophile marriages weren't marriages under our laws.

So, Anonymous, do you approve of incestuous marriage, polygamous marriage, and pedophile marriage? Or are you a bigot?

VRWC said...

if you really think the reason that marriage was universally recognized as man-woman in the past was out of spite for homosexuals, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously

Kerri said...

FWIW, I'm behind you 100%, Red. There was someone on a Catholic radio show that said the entertainment industry is so complicit in pushing this agenda. They put homosexuals in shows, making them sympathetic characters- they become our "friends" who visit once a week- how could we deny Callie or Kurt or Dr. Huang the same privileges we have? It's not fair! This is subconscious- of course we don't *really* think these characters are our friends- but if we don't personally know any gays (living here in flyover country), seeing them on our favorite shows makes their behaivior "normal," so eventually we think, "what's the big deal?" Now, the same thing is happening with polygamy! Look at Sister Wives and Big Love. Big Love was created to present a "fair" portrayal of the polygamy lifestyle. Polygamy is currently against the law, but when polygamists start clamoring for their "equal rights," the law will have absolutely NOTHING to stand on.
Sometimes I literally weep when I think of my kids' and grandkids' futures.

John E. said...

Sometimes I literally weep when I think of my kids' and grandkids' futures.

Soooo...why does the idea of other people living in polygamous relationships move you to tears?

Kerri said...

The crumbling of an institution that has been the foundation of civilized society for millenia is what I weep for, sir.

The slippery slope that began with contraception and has rapidly steepened to include no-fault divorce, gay "marriage," and will no doubt come to encompass polygamy, incest, and whatever other disordered conduct folks can come up with. Why the hell not?

Anonymous said...

Red: There are very good reasons that our laws should not promote (A) a marriage realtionship between persons of close consanguinity or (B) a marriage relationship with a child or (C) a marriage realtionship between one man and several women. Surely you know that.

Again, our laws are about reason, not religion.

Red Cardigan said...

Anonymous: what good reasons? You're just bigoted against the incestuous, the polygamous, and the May-December Romance Group (or NAMBLA, take your pick). You can't give me one single good reason why our laws shouldn't promote any of these things, and you know it.

Anonymous said...

Red, you're not being serious. There are dozens are very good reasons. Here's one, just to show you that I can play your game, but only one to show that I won't play your game: it is terribly bad public policy to expect a child to understand and consent to the responsibilities attendant to being a party to a marriage. Good night.

Red Cardigan said...

Anonymous, right *now* we think it's bad public policy to expect a child to consent to marriage. But at the same time we educate 5th graders as to how to have sex, and make condoms available to them. If marriage is all about sexual pleasure, isn't it just *mean* of us to tell kids they can have sex but not get married?

Who are we to stand in the way of their love? And so long as *one* of the married partners is an adult, no problem, right? And if things don't work out--well, divorce is easy.

No reason to oppose except bigotry. None at all.

Good night to you, too!

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Anonymous isn't listening. Anonymous is just indulging in a rant. If Anonymous cared to REASON with anyone, s/he would carefully read everything said since his/her last post, think about it, and then respond in a rational fashion to it. There is an old saying about arguing with a fool...