Wednesday, June 12, 2013

A French awakening

The government in France is pushing what is called "gender theory" into schools. What is this gender theory? It's the liberal theory that sex distinctions between men and women are oppressive social constructs that should be made not to matter.

If you remember, liberals believe in individual autonomy. That means that the individual has to be self-determined. But the fact of being born a man or a woman is predetermined. Therefore, liberals see this "gender binary" of male and female negatively and would prefer for the individual to choose their own individual sex identity from across a whole spectrum of "gender".

Tiberge at Gallia Watch describes gender theory this way:
a hair-raising innovation being promoted by the diabolical minister of Education, Vincent Peillon. Imagine yourself back in grade school, being informed by your teachers that you were born neutral, and that you will be free to choose your sex when you grow up

Marguerite Peeters explains it as follows:
According to the social engineers who have been fabricating the gender theory since the 1950s, the feminine and masculine identity, the ontological structure of the woman as spouse, mother and educator, the anthropological complementarity of man and woman, fatherhood, heterosexuality (“heteronormativity”, dominant in all cultures), marriage and the traditional family would not exist per se, would not be good in themselves, but would be social constructs: sociological phenomena, social functions constructed over time, stereotypes to deconstruct by way of education and culture as they are deemed discriminatory and contrary to equality.

The French elite is serious in trying to push ahead with gender theory. One French agency wishes to replace the terms "boys" and "girls" in schools in order to "prevent sexual differentiation":
Grégor Puppinck reminds us that the report by IGAS (General Inspectorate of Social Affairs) recommends "replacing the terms 'boys' and 'girls' by the neutral terms 'friends' or 'children', telling stories in which the children have two dads or mums, etc." According to the report, the aim is to "prevent sexual differentiation and the interiorisation by the children of their sexual identity."

Now, none of this is new. If you're interested I've listed many examples of liberal "gender theory" in the chapter on sex distinctions in my e-book. But what is new and encouraging is the level of resistance to gender theory that is taking place in France right now.

The first victory was that 270,000 people signed a petition against an amendment to a bill that would have made the teaching of gender theory compulsory in all French schools. That amendment was then defeated in the French senate.

In Lyon an association has been established to bring together teachers and professors in opposition to gender theory:
We are creating a new organization to be called "Teachers for Children" said Jean-Baptiste to will aim to federate a maximum of professors and teachers, ranging from primary to preparatory classes, and mobilize all the people to fight against gender theory...We do not agree with these absolutely crazy ideas.

In Paris there was a demonstration against the gender theory:

Xavier Breton, who seems to be the most vocal member of the French National Assembly in opposing these kinds of measures, has criticised gender theory for suggesting "that man and woman are interchangeable". The Catholic Church has also criticised the theory for undermining "sexual differences that are intrinsic to humanity". Bishop Ginoux has also rightly pointed out that gender theory cannot fit within a Christian world view:
“This issue is serious and lays the foundations of a society which, by rejecting nature and thus creation, considers man to be his own creator, one who chooses his sexuality and organizes his lifestyle based on personal choice,” wrote Bishop Bernard Ginoux of Montauban this past June.

It's interesting too how people are criticising liberalism in much the same terms that I have done here at this site. Here, for instance, is a comment from Antoine Ginesty, aged 29, an art buyer:
But we fear that this law, if passed, will erode the difference between men and women. It will impose the theory that gender does not matter – with potentially calamitous consequences for the values of our society.

And many of those protesting are young people, both male and female. There's more to report about this, but I hope I've made the point for now. Liberalism is not set in stone. It's not the way that things have to be. Many thousands of ordinary people don't want it, even after decades of intense campaigning in its favour, with the media, the schools and the universities on its side.

We need in each Western country a real opposition. That doesn't just mean voting for an establishment right-wing party every three years - that won't do much at all, not when these parties are mostly liberal in philosophy anyway.

The fight is not between Labor and Liberal, or Democrat and Republican, or Labour and Conservative. It goes much deeper than this.

There is a France that wants to live and endure and another France that is set on deconstruction along the lines of a dubious theory. The living part of France is, for now at least, asserting itself and organising and leading the way.


  1. "Therefore, liberals see this "gender binary" of male and female negatively and would prefer for the individual to choose their own individual sex identity from across a whole spectrum of "gender"."
    Except that gays, transsexuals and the rest were born that way and are entitled to special rights based on strong identities that manly heterosexual white men and feminine heterosexual white women are not entitled to. (It would be racist to challenge virile Black identities, Muslim culture and so on, so practically speaking they get a pass too.)

    Liberal identity theory develops as many "epicycles" or unprincipled exceptions as it needs to serve the goal of deconstructing the (white, Christian, sexually and socially healthy) majority so that it can never again be the majority.

    I'm glad to see a lot of French men and women have no intention of being deconstructed.

  2. The ideological/sociological importance of the term deconstruction is this.


  3. Will schoolchildren soon be taught that they are free to decide which species they belong to? Don't snort with derision. If sex is a social construct, so is species, since neither have anything to do with physical properties. And then, I see no reason why a child should not be taught that he is free to decide that he is an inanimate object, such as a lump of coal, or an abstraction like the number 5.

    This is Gnosticism, the belief that "I" am a purely spiritual being that has been trapped in a body, and in a world made by an evil demiurge. It is also child abuse.

  4. I do think that whatever the politically correct garbage children are being taught in schools these days consists of, it can't be good.

    I remember when I was at school (in Scotland in the 1990s) and we were taught about Living and Growing (sex education) and also about World War II and the Holocaust, and we even had a Jewish man come to our school to tell us about Judaism and the Holocaust.

    The sex education videos were VHS tapes, and there was only a brief mention of homosexuality as far as I can recall - the two narrators said something like "some people choose to fall in love with a member of their own sex" and it didn't go any further than that - the vast majority of the focus was on male/female sex and reproduction. Would lefties today consider this heterosexist? You bet, but then again I'm sure that must have been during the days of Section 28.

  5. Mark, if you're not aware what Section 28 is, check this out on Wikipedia:

    It's an interesting read and there seems to be a kind of miniature British version of the American "culture war" going on there.

    The point is, the lefties are winning the "culture war" throughout the West. It's now 2013 and no one in any mainstream political party would consider introducing a piece of legislation like Section 28 today. That's what progressive politics does - renders certain traditional values as outdated and consigns them to the dustbin of history.

    Whilst a bit of homophobia or Islamophobia can still be found these days lurking in the shadows here and there, Western society has definitely become more socially progressive since the 1980s and 1990s.

    In the 1980s it may have been acceptable to have campaigned in favour of laws against teaching homosexuality to children. Even in the 1980s though, it wouldn't have been acceptable anywhere to campaign for this:

  6. France is definitely not a 'dead country', in Auster's terminology. Political Correctness there seems entirely remote from the populace. Even with a terrible government they're actually a lot healthier than we Anglosphere nations (or Sweden).

  7. You were also posting about Scotland recently, so I'll add this link that I found and Mark, I urge you to read it:

    It's by Mhairi McAlpine, a Scottish far-left anti-racist Marxist feminist.

    She's exactly the kind of person you like to critique...

  8. It's true that deconstruction is delegitimization, and this is very important. A race or nation under a ruling class that regards that people as illegitimate faces potential genocide.

    Deconstruction includes at the outset the overturning of binary oppositions such as French / not-French. Deconstruction in power does this practically as well as theoretically, by means such as open borders and forced integration. This does for the nation what eliminating the wall of a cell and forcing the contents to mix freely with the surrounding fluid does for a cell.

    In practice, even this is not enough for those committed to the deconstruction of white nations, for at least three reasons.

    First, the aggressors are anti-white and their real target is whiteness. It is not enough to deconstruct, say Anglo- America by making it more broadly European but still 90% white. There is no white country where the politically correct have contented themselves with pushing for mass immigration but only from white countries. Always they regard it as vital to push mass non-white immigration. Their agenda is racial and eliminationist.

    Second, in any white nation, for historic reasons, Christianity is going to be an important part of its culture and religious history. People who regard themselves as having historic grievances against Christianity are a very important part of the anti-white coalition. That implies de-Christianization as a goal.

    Third, the delegitimization of human groups is tied up with the whole complex of in-group out-group, the tendency to favour one's own group and have warmth toward it and to not hate it, and the opposite for out-groups. That means that the deconstruction of the white race and white nations is tied up with hostility, particularly the hostility of highly intelligent, intellectual, verbal people, who are important in shaping the project. That means they'll analyse a race, nation and culture, and set out to destroy all of its components, down to the level of family life, even when such destruction would not be strictly necessary for the main project, because they hate. And they will show self-deception about the destructiveness of what they are doing, because self-deception is an aspect of bias.

    The anti-whites see all historically white structures as illegitimate and they want them gone. They readily tell themselves that this is all for the good, and try to persuade other people to endorse that self-flattering view.

    The struggle of anti-white versus white is a struggle to end all-that-is-good, as far as the white world is concerned, and on the other hand it is also a struggle to preserve all-that-is-good. That the struggle is carried on by the anti-whites with great hypocrisy is predictable.

    Mark Richardson: "There is a France that wants to live and endure and another France that is set on deconstruction along the lines of a dubious theory. The living part of France is, for now at least, asserting itself and organising and leading the way."

    Right. This is a fight for life, and not only individual, temporary life but for the potentially endless like of an entire race and its nations, and not for mere collective existence but for all the good things that all the best expressions of our genes have accomplished and might in future accomplish – all the culture, the spirituality, the love and family life, everything. On one side there are those who want to live not only individually but collectively and in all the best ways. And the other side there are those who strive to deconstruct that, to delegitimize it bit by bit and eliminate it, all the while patting themselves on the back for being cultured and morally superior.

  9. Thanks Daybreaker.

    It's worth also reading this: