Gender Identity and the Feminization of America

Brian4Liberty

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
63,556
Gender Identity and the Feminization of America
By Brian4Liberty - April 13, 2022

The battle lines have been drawn. Everyone must take a side. Either you support the teaching of gender identity to kindergarteners and elementary school children, or you oppose it. Ideally, your support or opposition will be vehement and all consuming.

How did we come to this? How did these concepts of transgender, bigender and gender fluidity become the outrage of the day? How did they make their way into the schools and the instruction of children? How did they become household words? Who would benefit from sowing gender confusion among children? Cui bono?

It is a complex issue, with many agendas at work. An elementary school teacher might say that the purpose is to create acceptance of people who are different, or to stop bullying. Inclusion is the goal. These well intentioned results are only one potential outcome of such instruction and discussion with children. What about other outcomes?

Many would say that the primary goal is to normalize transgenderism and the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, or more nefariously, to change children or groom children for abuse by child predators. Concerns about predators are not without precedent, as many organizations that provide an opportunity for adults to have unfettered access to children have been fraught with abuse. Religions, sports, scouting, cults, and schools have all been utilized by child predators to access children. When the actual subject of the teaching is sexual in nature, the potential for abuse by predators is even greater.

The History

Who else would benefit from radically changing our concepts of gender? For that, we could go back into the distant past, and explore a mythology that has many adherents in today's leftist intelligentsia.

In 1861, Johann Jakob Bachofen published his most famous work, Das Mutterrecht (Mother's Right). In this book, Bachofen essentially proposes a hypothesis that humans existed as a matriarchy before becoming civilized and industrialized.

This hypothesis caught the attention of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and predictably, was transformed into communist mythology. In this supposed matriarchal utopia, everything was shared, no one owned anything, and men had little power. It was the prototype for an ideal communist society.

Thus, this mythology has shaped Marxist thought for a very long time. In more modern times, it is evidenced by Marxist feminism. The cries about the evil "patriarchy" often float about at leftist rallies, intermingled with Marxist slogans. In this worldview, the entire concept of private property and "capital" was invented by a greedy patriarchy of capitalists.

As can be expected, this perspective has also found its way into entertainment. It is evident everywhere today. Back in 1941, we had the groundbreaking debut of Wonder Woman by William Moulton Marston, which could be traced all the way back to the earlier work of Bachofen, with the mythology of the utopian matriarchal Amazonian society. And even more relevant to the subject of modern gender confusion, the originator of Wonder Woman had a famous quote about girls and power.


So here we find ourselves in post-modern America. Girls do not want to be girls, and they are ironically being encouraged to be more masculine, in the belief that this will result in more power. Boys are being encouraged to find themselves on a sliding scale of gender. Will stronger girls and feminized boys lead to matriarchy? Is this a hidden agenda behind the push for "teaching" children about gender identity?

Related Agendas

None of this happens in a vacuum, and there are other agendas that dovetail. The woke agenda is also part of the divisive agenda to break down society. And the post-modern teaching of sensitivity and political correctness is another example.

At its most basic, political correctness is a focus on feelings. We must be sensitive at all times to the emotional state of others. There must be trigger warnings to avoid hurting people's feelings. Feelings are the most important consideration, above all else.

Those familiar with the Myers-Briggs categorizations of personality types will recognize that this is a manifestation of the Thinking vs. Feeling concept. Those on the feeling side of the scale place more importance on feelings and the feelings of others when making decisions. As a gross generalization (that does not apply to every individual), such a focus on feelings tends to be a female trait, and that focus is being forced upon all children. It could be considered feminization.

While a Marxist agenda is not at the surface of the gender identity controversy, and is not the primary motivation in the eyes of most of the people engaging in the public battle of words, it is apparent that behind the scenes, those who wish to shape society see a more feminized society as a pre-requisite for a communist society. Thus, sowing gender confusion among children can be seen as a tactic to work towards that goal. It is part of a Marxist plan to implement a matriarchal communist society based upon a hypothetical and mythological belief, even though the majority of people are not aware of this hidden motivation.

Is All Hope Lost?

For the rank and file Marxists, there is no long term hope, for the entire concept of a Marxist society is nothing more than a ruse in itself. It is a charade that will never work in the real world. Once society is sufficiently broken down and remade in a supposed Marxist model, and Marxism has converted the masses, the peons will own nothing, but they will not be happy, to paraphrase globalist mastermind Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum.

The goal of Schwab and his crony billionaire oligarchs is an authoritarian world where the likes of George Soros, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and a wide variety of global oligarchs own everything and have absolute power. And they will achieve this via Marxism and cultural destruction, which they are funding. When complete, the masses will be living in that supposed utopian pre-civilization society. The proletariat will eat bugs and lentils, and be unhappy. Marxism is a trap. It's a vehicle they are using on this long journey into a global brave new world order that would look very familiar to George Orwell.
 
Last edited:
Marx was not for this stuff at all.

Not to endorse his prescriptions, but this problem has nothing to do with Marx.
 
Marx was not for this stuff at all.

Not to endorse his prescriptions, but this problem has nothing to do with Marx.

No doubt Marx would be appalled by many of the things done today in his name, as would most people from that time period. There has been a lot evolution since then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism

Primitive communism is a way of describing the gift economies of hunter-gatherers throughout history, where resources and property hunted or gathered are shared with all members of a group in accordance with individual needs. In political sociology and anthropology, it is also a concept (often credited to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels) that describes hunter-gatherer societies as traditionally being based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership.[1][2][3] A primary inspiration for both Marx and Engels were Lewis H. Morgan's descriptions of "communism in living" as practised by the Haudenosaunee of North America.[4] In Marx's model of socioeconomic structures, societies with primitive communism had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation.[5]
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
Marx was not for this stuff at all.

Not to endorse his prescriptions, but this problem has nothing to do with Marx.

Of course it has something to do with Marx, and a lot more than just a little - that's why they call it "Marxism" (regardless of whether Marx himself would personally approve of this, that, or the other particular aspect of it as it has evolved over time).

Material Marxism (which was closest to what Marx and his contemporaries envisioned) failed in the West - and failed hard - because revolutionary sentiment driven by class-based resentments was never able to take root and gain purchase in the West the way it did elsewhere. The much greater social, political, and economic mobility enjoyed by the West tended to strongly counteract or dissolve such resentments.

Enter so-called cultural Marxism, which recognized the nature of the failings of material Marxism in the West, and switched gears from class-based "consciousness" to concerns driven by race, gender, and other "intersectional" resentments - thereby finding much more fertile ground in which to grow (especially given the poisonous legacies of things like human chattel slavery and violently colonial imperialism).

The form has changed (in some ways quite dramatically), but the underlying substance and ultimate objective are the same - illiberal authoritarian collectivism erected on a base of Marxist communism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
Enter so-called cultural Marxism, which recognized the nature of the failings of material Marxism in the West, and switched gears from class-based "consciousness" to concerns driven by race, gender, and other "intersectional" resentments - thereby finding much more fertile ground in which to grow (especially given the poisonous legacies of things like human chattel slavery and violently colonial imperialism).

The form has changed (in some ways quite dramatically), but the underlying substance and ultimate objective is the same - illiberal authoritarian collectivism erected on a base of Marxist communism.

Regarding which, see Exhibit A: Mass Shooting on Brooklyn Subway Train

From which comes this sampling (see the "hide" box in post #36 of that thread):

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1514057189752807429
LPsbsiV.png
 
Isn't there something biblical about men ruling over women? Do many people claim to have biblical religious beliefs? What happened to that? Do gays, and trans, believe in the biblical God? Do they pray to God yet tell God that he has made millions of mistakes?
 
Isn't there something biblical about men ruling over women? Do many people claim to have biblical religious beliefs? What happened to that? Do gays, and trans, believe in the biblical God? Do they pray to God yet tell God that he has made millions of mistakes?

Pretty sure that the Matriarchal Communist Utopia occurred before the Hebrew Bible was written. It was pre-civilization. So almost by definition, the Bible is an instrument of patriarchal oppression of women. God was a woman before the Bible debuted.
 
Pretty sure that the Matriarchal Communist Utopia occurred before the Hebrew Bible was written. It was pre-civilization. So almost by definition, the Bible is an instrument of patriarchal oppression of women. God was a woman before the Bible debuted.
Was he truly a woman or did he just identify as one?
 
An article linked in the OP:

The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory
Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future
By CYNTHIA ELLER

Once while I was browsing through On the Issues, a feminist magazine, I happened upon an advertisement for a T-shirt: "I Survived Five-Thousand Years of Patriarchal Hierarchies," it proclaimed. This same birthday for patriarchy, five thousand years in the past, was mentioned several times in a lecture I attended in 1992 in New York City. I heard this number very frequently in the late 1980s and early 1990s; I was researching the feminist spirituality movement, and five thousand is the most common age spiritual feminists assign to "the patriarchy." Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised to hear it yet again. But I was: the speaker was Gloria Steinem, and I hadn't figured her for a partisan of this theory.

As I later learned, Steinem had been speculating about the origins of the patriarchy as early as 1972, when she told the readers of Wonder Woman this story:

Once upon a time, the many cultures of this world were all part of the gynocratic age. Paternity had not yet been discovered, and it was thought ... that women bore fruit like trees—when they were ripe. Childbirth was mysterious. It was vital. And it was envied. Women were worshipped because of it, were considered superior because of it.... Men were on the periphery—an interchangeable body of workers for, and worshippers of, the female center, the principle of life.

The discovery of paternity, of sexual cause and childbirth effect, was as cataclysmic for society as, say, the discovery of fire or the shattering of the atom. Gradually, the idea of male ownership of children took hold....
Gynocracy also suffered from the periodic invasions of nomadic tribes.... The conflict between the hunters and the growers was really the conflict between male-dominated and female-dominated cultures.

... women gradually lost their freedom, mystery, and superior position. For five thousand years or more, the gynocratic age had flowered in peace and productivity. Slowly, in varying stages and in different parts of the world, the social order was painfully reversed. Women became the underclass, marked by their visible differences.​

In 1972, Steinem was a voice in the wilderness with her talk of a past gynocratic age; only a handful of feminists had even broached the topic. The second wave of feminism was young then, but for most feminists the patriarchy was old, unimaginably old.

Too old, some would say. The patriarchy is younger now, thanks to growing feminist acceptance of the idea that human society was matriarchal—or at least "woman-centered" and goddess-worshipping—from the Paleolithic era, 1.5 to 2 million years ago, until sometime around 3000 BCE. There are almost as many versions of this story as there are storytellers, but these are its basic contours:

* In a time before written records, society was centered around women. Women were revered for their mysterious life-giving powers, honored as incarnations and priestesses of the great goddess. They reared their children to carry on their line, created both art and technology, and made important decisions for their communities.
...
However, a myth does not need to be true—or even necessarily be believed to be true—to be powerful, to make a difference in how people think and live, and in what people value.
...
More: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/e/eller-myth.html
 
An elementary school teacher might say that the purpose is to create acceptance of people who are different, or to stop bullying. Inclusion is the goal.

Psaki plays her role well. Very emotional.



In reality...

The goal of Schwab and his crony billionaire oligarchs is an authoritarian world where the likes of George Soros, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and a wide variety of global oligarchs own everything and have absolute power. And they will achieve this via Marxism and cultural destruction, which they are funding.
 
Back
Top