Information on Gender Mainstreaming
Originally posted 3-30-11
The following comes straight from the transatlantic part of the counter-feminist global pipeline -- virtually as I received it. The purpose of sharing this is to inform. That is how we do things now: we think globally and we share information. Ours is a global movement; we need to repeat that to ourselves until it becomes second nature. You will see that this material covers the topic of gender mainstreaming, which is a very important subject indeed, even if the term itself is not so well known outside of the European Union and areas overshadowed by the United Nations:
The following comes straight from the transatlantic part of the counter-feminist global pipeline -- virtually as I received it. The purpose of sharing this is to inform. That is how we do things now: we think globally and we share information. Ours is a global movement; we need to repeat that to ourselves until it becomes second nature. You will see that this material covers the topic of gender mainstreaming, which is a very important subject indeed, even if the term itself is not so well known outside of the European Union and areas overshadowed by the United Nations:
"World Women´s Conference
"Gender-mainstreaming. Have you ever heard that before? It is not at all a marginal phenomenon. The concept of gender-mainstreaming is implemented in the recommendations of the UN, the guidelines of the EU and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany.
"The German Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth maintains its own website with the domain "gender-mainstreaming.net". But what does gender-mainstreaming mean? Hedwig von Beverfoerde wanted to explain that in her speech "Gender-mainstreaming – gender-political government ideology on velvet paws" at the Center for Education in Wilmershain, Berlin on February 25th.
"The Federal Ministry of Family Affairs states: "Gender mainstreaming means to consider the different situations of living and interests of women and men from the first and regularly, because there is no gender-neutral reality".
"Abolition of genders
"That sounds empty, rhetorical. In reality, the consequences of this concept are far reaching indeed. Why will become clear, when we examine the goal of gender-mainstreaming as defined by the UN: "gender equality" and accordingly "gender egalitarianism", not "equal rights under the law", but analogousness of genders. This analogousness would have to be an abolition of gender, for gender is a characteristic that defines a distinction. Or, as Mrs. von Beverfoerde puts it, “gender-mainstreaming wants to create a new form of human being, one who should choose his gender and sexual orientation by himself, i.e. haphazardly deciding, whether he or she wants to be a man or a woman, hetero-, homo-, bi-, or transsexual.
"Since, biologically speaking, an abolition of genders/sexes is impossible, an ideology that seeks to abolish genders must presume that all differences between genders/sexes aside from anatomical characteristics are purely social constructs that, under certain conditions, can be arbitrarily changed. This assumption goes back to Simone de Beauvoir inter alia, who in 1949 stated in her book “The Second Sex” that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman“. This opinion became increasingly popular in the 1960´s and 1970´s, and little by little, the term “gender” as in “social sex role” was established in opposition to “sex” as “biological sex role”. At this time, the supporters of the hypothesis of the purely social sex role tried to back up their claims scientifically. One of the first to try this was the New Zealand – born American psychologist and sexologist John Money. Money became famous due to a case, called in scientific literature the John/Joan case.
"The case of David Reimer
"In 1966, the identical twins Bruce and Brian Reimer (born 1965) were circumcised because of phimosis. The circumcision of Bruce went badly – his penis was irreparably damaged. Bruce Reimer´s parents then called on John Money. John Money had already had a certain reputation in the theory of purely socially learned gender. On his recommendation, 22 months old Bruce had “still remaining testicle removed and rudimentary labia formed out of his scrotum. Furthermore, the child was treated with female hormones. From that point on, Bruce was called Brenda.” The Reimers raised Bruce/Brenda as a girl. Money was especially enthusiastic about this case, because Bruce´s identical twin brother could be used as a comparison. Thus he hoped to prove his thesis that solely education in early childhood years is important for the development of sexual and gender-specific identity. John Money described Brenda as a “normal, happy girl” and called the experiment, for which he was internationally congratulated on, a huge success.
"The German publicist Alice Schwarzer used it in 1975 as evidence in her book “Der Kleine Unterschied” [“The Little Difference”] for her theses of equality feminism and called it a “paradigm of the duty of enlightenment of science”. She wrote that “the ability to bear children is the only remaining difference between man and woman. Everything else is artificially imposed” and she honored Money´s experiment as “one of the few exceptions that doesn´t manipulate, but does justice to the paradigm of the duty of enlightenment of science”.
"But the success of the experiment postulated by Money and enthusiastically picked up by Schwarzer never existed, and seldom has a scientist been more manipulative, fraudulent and motivated by ideology than John Money. Bruce/Brenda was not a normal, happy girl. From the very beginning, the altered boy rebelled against wearing girls´clothes and playing with girls´toys, and was described by family and friends and later by himself as a deeply unhappy child with grave social problems.
"At the age of 13, Brenda threatened to commit suicide, if she was taken to another therapeutic appointment with John Money, which he perceived as traumatic. Thereupon, the parents told their child about the failed circumcision and the consequences. Brenda immediately chose to live as a man, called himself David and underwent surgery and hormone treatment to make him physically a man as well. As an adult he married and became the stepfather of three children his wife brought into the marriage. Although John Money knew about the failure of his human experiment, he still made propaganda for it as a huge success. Only when David Reimer decided to go public with his story in 1997 did Money stop.
"David Reimer suffered from his dramatic childhood experiences his entire life. In 2004 he shot himself with a sawed-off shotgun at the age of 38. Even after David Reimer´s suicide, John Money and many of his supporters, among them Alice Schwarzer, declined to correct their earlier evaluations.
"John Money died 2006. In line with his concept of “sex reassignment” he has “reassigned” an unknown number of children with deformed genitalia. To this end he had installed a special clinic in his function as director of the psychological department at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, which was closed by his successor in 1979. Some of his former patients tried to overcome their experiences in self-help groups.
"Gender-mainstreaming is unscientific
"This is not the only case in which gender-mainstreaming and it´s precursor theories respectively have proven scientifically untenable. A study done in 2000 according to modern scientific standards – done at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, where John Money once was a member of the staff, of all places – could prove that male children with the chromosome combination XY develop a male gender identity even if they are born without a penis due to birth defects, and are later reassigned as “female”. Doctors treated them with hormones and surgically gave them vaginae. Knowledge gained in genetics in the past years have also shown: Many aspects of our behavior are inherent, not acquired. Theories postulating 100% social acquirement are disqualified.
"Gender-mainstreaming at universities
"But in defiance of all science, gender-mainstreaming has not vanished. The subject of “gender studies” can be studied at many German universities, colleges and academies. According to study regulations, the subject is specifically required for an ever growing number of courses. You can even get a degree in it at the University of Bielefeld. There is even a “Center for Gender Research” at some universities (although the “Center for Medical Gender Research”, founded in 2004 at the Charité in Berlin also counts as one. It concerns itself with meaningful research like why some illnesses affect men and women differently with different symptoms, etc).
"Judith Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler)
"Those students, who can no longer avoid “gender studies” can no longer avoid Judith Butler. Butler, who is a professor for rhetoric and comparative literature studies at the University of California and the European Graduate School, is counted among the most influential feminist theoreticians. Butler´s goal is the abolition of genders/sexes on an even more radical level than her predecessors: According to her, not only social gender is a construct, but also biological sex. When concerning oneself with Butler´s statements, one truly understands what “gender” implies; what Volker Zastrow realized and published in the FAZ [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]: “[...] that there is no biological sex. Dividing newborns into boys and girls is totally random, and one could just as well define them by other characteristics, like large ones and small ones. Hence even assuming there are sexes/genders is a forced determination of identity: the `heterosexual matrix´”.].
(http://tinyurl.com/ov8oe)
"The imperative consequence of Butler´s theories is therefore that the concept of two genders/sexes is something to be surpassed and abolished.
"The World Women´s Conference of 1995
"But how could such an absurd theory, belonging more to pseudo-science, as shown above, have become such an aspect of policy not only in Germany, but in all countries in the sphere of influence of the United Nations? The greatest corner stone was laid at the World Women´s Conference in Beijing in 1995. The UN-resolution “mainstreaming a gender perspective” was passed during this conference. One of the consequences of the conference was that the word “gender” replace “sex” in all official documents, since it implies the concept of two sexes/genders.
"The American journalist Dale O´Leary who attended the conference wrote in her book “The Gender Agenda” that she witnessed the following demands being proclaimed, not all of them making it into the final document however:
"1. The world has need of less people and more sexual pleasures. we demand the abolition of all differences between men and women and the abolition of full-time mothers.
"2. As more sexual pleasures might lead to more children, we demand free access to contraceptives and abortions, and the promotion of homosexual activity, because children cannot be conceived this way.
"3. The world has need of sex education for children and young adults that encourages sexual experimentation. It has need of the abolition of the rights of parents over their children.
"4. The world has need of a 50/50 man/woman quota regulation for all areas of work and society. Preferably all women at all times should work.
"5. Religions opposed to this agenda should be publicly scorned and ridiculed.
"The most important goal by far was to anchor the “gender perspective” into the thinking of mainstream politics.
"Gender-mainstreaming is undemocratic
[Note: "undemocratic" means the "little people" were not consulted.-- Fidelbogen]
"Not only does gender-mainstreaming lack scientific legitimation, it also lacks democratic legitimation. Gender-mainstreaming was first fixated at the European level in 1999 via the Treaty of Amsterdam. This treaty made gender-mainstreaming: “[...] a high-ranking political goal of the European Union integral part of European politics [...]”.
"The German Federal Government acknowledged the equality i.e. analogousness) of men and women (in opposition to the equality of men and women before the law, equality of opportunities, etc, which has been a part of German Basic Law since the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany) with the ruling of 06.23.1999 as a universal guiding principle of the government, and will implement it via gender-mainstreaming.
"These policies have been continued by changing governments since 1999, but neither parliament nor the people have had a chance to vote on gender-mainstreaming.
"Gender-mainstreaming is expensive
"At the same time many tax payers would probably like to a say in deciding, whether their money should be used to pay for all the countless gender institutions, gender appointees, and gender research. The attempt to firmly establish gender-mainstreaming at all levels of administration, work and education from kindergarden to univestity is expensive. A study on “gender equality in the Eifel National Park” cost € 27,000 alone. .
(http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,457053,00.html),
". . which ended with the recommendation to cut out pictures of deer during the mating season, because it would propagate stereotype gender roles. The cost for work on “gender equality in the forest”, commissioned by the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia´s Minister for the Environment Bärbel Höhn in 2004, was hundreds of thousands of Euros. The “Parents´ Guidebook for Children´s Sex Education”, designed for children ages 1 to 6 was payed for by taxes and commisioned by the Federal Center for Health Affairs. This brochure contained tips and pointers for handling children´s genitalia, which would have constituted sexual abuse in a court of law. They were revoked in 2007 after massive protests.
"The most promising way to stop the gender-ideology would be to prevent funding of their projects. Furthermore, Hedwig von Beverfoerde suggests a massive awareness campaign, since many citizens are not even aware of this concept; in this framework one should strongly appeal to elected politicians and perhaps take one´s own children out of sex education, if gender-mainstreaming is taught there, rather than common biological knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichberechtigung
English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality
German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichstellung_der_Geschlechter
English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality
German:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feministische_Linguistik
English:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English
posted by Fidelbogen at 4:20 PM
9 Comments:
Hi from Austria.
In Austria there are some universities, you have to do gender courses if you want to study.
That is a fact.
Best,
Michael
*sort of a response to Snark from a different thread and relevant to this thread*
Any psychologist worth their salt will tell you that people are influenced by their biology too, but *culture/society* does influence how you act(bear with me). My husband despite being gender queer(two-spirited), still flows with testosterone and is still competitive, but he still doesn't identitify as a man. He's still male and he recognizes that but...he is androgynous and generally tends to act much more feminine than masculine some days and other days he tends to be more masculine than feminine.
If you look at various cultures and societies, you often see a theme, males were generally the providers/protecters and women were the nurturers, but some cultures had/have more complicated understandings of gender and actually had more than two genders. No, it's not some conspiracy but all things change. Why do you think androgynous looks are becoming more common? Because they're becoming more acceptable by society's standards and the disintergration of cultural expectations and the emergence of subcultures where gender bending is common(goth subculture and BDSM subculture[eg sissy males-guys who are very feminine] come to mind)
"Why do you think androgynous looks are becoming more common?"
Honestly?
I think this is happening because society is mentally ill.
"I think this is happening because society is mentally ill."
Well. . that is certainly a point worth pondering. Depending, of course, on what is meant by "androgynous".
But I can readily assent that society is mentally ill, although diagnoses are open to dispute.
Anyway, I too must be honest here. I know the feminists say it is terrible that we men are not free to wear a dress, and wear makeup, and so on. . . but frankly, I don't give a shit about that.
Androgynous, as in has characteristics of both genders-man and woman. Androgynous looks are like a mix.
@Fidelbogen
Anyway, I too must be honest here. I know the feminists say it is terrible that we men are not free to wear a dress, and wear makeup, and so on. . . but frankly, I don't give a shit about that.
Most people don't anyway, though I will note, that I think it's disgusting that some people* are hateful towards people who wish to express themselves differently which can be discouraging to people who do wish to express themselves differently.
*And no, I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.
I always find blog entries like this entertaining. The intent is very often clearly stated with the overuse of relative rhetoric, rhetoric which is most supporting of the intent, as deemed by the author of the entry. If valid information is incorporated in the writing, I've yet to see it done so without major leaps to, consequently, erroneous conclusions.
Well, this obviously means that. But, in actuality, this only mean this, and that is what you, in your position of limited knowledge, came to misunderstand with aforementioned leaps, and are now attempting to convey as truth to, commonly, a lesser informed audience.
If in, fact, the data is valid, it's almost always used erroneously. Strung together loosely in a quasi-convincing manner.
But, let's just be honest with ourselves here. If you, as an author, knew anything about what you were saying, you wouldn't have included this statement in your entry;
“gender-mainstreaming wants to create a new form of human being, one who should choose his gender and sexual orientation by himself, i.e. haphazardly deciding, whether he or she wants to be a man or a woman, hetero-, homo-, bi-, or transsexual."
While, in truth, taken right from the UN website, the language reads as;
"Equality does not mean that women and men will become the same but that women’s and men’s rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender equality implies that the interests, needs and priorities of both women and men are taken into consideration, recognizing the diversity of different groups of women and men."
Now you've provided a quote, (which I will assume is a quote as it is that you've provided the quotations), that is both contradictory in nature as well as in truth.
This quote is contradictory in nature because the existence of the transsexual is intrinsically dependent on the differences, both biological and social, physical and in practice, between men and women.
This quote is contradictory in truth because gender-mainstreaming, the policy which you’re referring to and in use by the UN, in its mission to establish equality “recogniz[es] the diversity of different groups of women and men”.
I’ve now, quite simply, undercut the basis for your entire argument.
…Why does everyone with the internet think they’re a scholar?
@Jonah:
Thank you for explaining what the U.N. says about gender mainstreaming. We'll keep a close eye on the U.N. . . eh?
"Because they're becoming more acceptable by society's standards and the disintergration of cultural expectations and the emergence of subcultures where gender bending is common(goth subculture and BDSM subculture[eg sissy males-guys who are very feminine] come to mind)"
It isn't cultural expectations that are being disintegrated, but cultural integrity itself.That is to say, it isn't cool to be "an American" or "a Christian" or "a baseball player",i.e, to be part of a group,to be a "chauvinist", you HAVE to be "an individual", which means that it's just you versus the state and the state controls the media and all the other "individuals" (read:gullible pawns). Read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. You'll see what I mean, things will look extremely familiar to you.
"While, in truth, taken right from the UN website, the language reads as;
"Equality does not mean that women and men will become the same but that women’s and men’s rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender equality implies that the interests, needs and priorities of both women and men are taken into consideration, recognizing the diversity of different groups of women and men."
Oh man, you mean the U.N. doesn't put its whackier ideas right there on its website for everyone with a brain to debunk? Yeah, that totally blows Fidelbogen's article right out of the water. I mean, there's NO WAY, NO FRIGGIN' WAY that they could be telling the public one thing and doing another behind closed doors. No governmental body or public servant has EVER done anything like that before.You know like Nixon totally came out and told everybody he was spying on the Democrats, and Clinton never denied getting blown by Monica Lewinsky. You must be a liberal,Jonah, I can tell because you think government officials are sanctified,immaculate clergy members. Hell, clergy members aren't even sanctified, immaculate clergy members.
You're real smart,too. You know how I can tell you're smart? Because you use 3 sentences or a paragraph to say something you could easily have said in one sentence.
@Anon:
Jonah doesn't mind getting swallowed up by the whale, apparently.
Post a Comment
<< Home