Day: March 10, 2017

 

 

 

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

There certainly have to be some intermediate steps between your son’s
birth and his ingestion of puberty-blocking drugs and subsequent
“gender-reassignment surgery,” and the United Nations is on the case. It
has joined forces with a new company to push dolls for boys so your child can get in touch with his “feminine side.”

Writes PR Newswire,
“HeForShe, UN Women’s global solidarity movement for gender equality
has teamed up with start-up company … Boy Story to launch two special
edition action dolls named Billy and Mason. The action dolls challenges
[sic] current prejudice surrounding boys playing with dolls, and
promotes the notion that both boys and girls should have the same
opportunity to bond with a special playmate, and that all children,
regardless of their gender, need to learn nurturing, emotional
intelligence, and empathy.”

Created by Boy Story founders Kristen Johnson and Katie Jarvis, Mason is a “Caucasian/Hispanic doll,” informs
Circa, while Billy is “African American” (meaning black, not a North
African Arab or white Afrikaner). It was not reported if they live in
San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district or NYC’s Greenwich Village, or
if they actually identify as boy dolls.

The company espouses the principles “How we play can change the
world” and “Harmful stereotypes start young,” which, presumably, would
include stereotyping humans as singular among creatures in (supposedly)
not having innately determined sex roles.

Boy Story writes,
“Girls should know that dolls are for everyone” and “Boys should know
they can have dolls that look like them. They can learn to nurture,
relate, and develop emotional intelligence.”

Interestingly, though, Mason and Billy represent children who can
walk and talk. Wouldn’t nurturing be better encouraged if they were
infants, requiring bottle feeding and diaper changes?

But that girly stuff just won’t do for this sex-stereotype-busting
company, which bills their creations as “Action Dolls.” Funny, when I
was a lad we had “action figures,” things such as G.I. Joe and Star Trek
characters. Yet at 18” tall, I imagine Billy or Mason could just kick
the G.I. out of Joe, an activity boys just might prefer to bottle
feeding.

Maybe that’s better than Mason taking a thumping, though, because the special-edition version will cost
you $102 — on sale. Note, it doesn’t appear the dolls are offered
low-cost or no-cost in hardship cases so that poor boys won’t be denied
feminization.

Each Boy Story doll comes with an associated storybook, which, I’m
guessing, doesn’t involve Mason hunting with his dad or Billy going out
for the football team. Then again, you never know. Explaining why the
dolls are made in China, the company states that it needed to make them “both unique and very durable to hold up to all the rumbling and tumbling that boys tend to do.”

My, that boys “tend” to do? That’s awfully stereotypical. Yet
if lads are innately more rumbly and tumbly, as is implied, isn’t it
possible other significant inborn differences between the sexes exist?

Of course, this is not only long-understood truth, but settled science. For example, the fine Norwegian documentary The Gender Equality Paradox (video below) presents studies showing that boys and girls exhibit different behaviors immediately after birth (e.g., boys are more likely to gaze at objects, as opposed to faces). Is that infernal intrauterine socialization to blame?

But all the usual modern misconceptions are in play here. Boy Story
writes, “Kids know and love diversity. When it comes to differences,
kids really don’t care much.” So children love “diversity,” which is
defined by differences, but also don’t care about differences? Whatever
happened to indifference being the opposite of love?

Also note that this 2014 study indicated that even babies “show racial bias,” preferring playmates from their own group.

Boy Story also embraces the supposition, “We all start out equal,” a
nonsensical idea as equality is not a thing of this world. Do we see it
in nature? Within and among species, there is variation in survivability
and in strength, speed, endurance, intelligence, and aggressiveness.
Animals also have hierarchies; one lion rules the pride, one silverback
gorilla leads his troop, and chickens really do have a pecking order.

So given that most of the equality dogmatists are also evolutionists
and believe man is just another animal, they should ask themselves: Are
humans really the one exception to the world’s rule of inequality? As
G.K. Chesterton put it, if people “were not created equal, they were
certainly evolved unequal.”

Yet the faithful have reason to reject equality dogma, too. Note that
the Bible only mentions “equality” in reference to weights and
measures, not man, and makes clear that we’re all gifted differently.
Why, it’s even said people have unequal glory in Heaven. (Thérèse of
Lisieux came to understand this
after being shown a tumbler and a thimble both filled with water and
then being asked: Which one is fuller?) Equality is our hang-up — not
God’s.

Like so many today, Boy Story essentially warns against putting
children in a “gender straitjacket” and not letting them find their own
way. Yet this is misguided because child-rearing is all about
structuring and limiting — and imposing values.

Consider: Would we likewise warn against placing kids in a species
straitjacket? Before answering, know that just as the psychobabblers
define “gender dysphoria” — the strong sense you were born in the body
of the wrong sex — they also speak of “species dysphoria,” the strong
sense you’re an animal stuck in a human body. For example, Texan Wolfie
Blackheart claimed she was a canine and a Norwegian woman calling herself Nano swore she was a cat.

Does this mean we shouldn’t put children in clothes, have them eat
with utensils, and teach them language, manners, and everything else
befitting a human because they may later identify as a ferret?

Of course, the sex-equality thesis holds that so-called sex
stereotyping hurts children by limiting and perhaps even stigmatizing
them. But what if this is a false assumption? What if, just as we raise a
boy in a species-specific way because he’s not an animal, we should
also raise him in a sex-specific way because he’s not a girl?

And why? Well, if we discern that a child has a gift for music, do we
treat him exactly the same as a kid gifted in golf? Are we constrained
by “equality” dogma? Or do we offer one music-specific training and the
other golf-specific training?

Likewise, is “sex stereotyping” really a negative force? In reality,
it’s just a matter of recognizing boys’ and girls’ characteristic gifts
and giving them sex-specific training allowing them to develop those
qualities fully.

Thus, the truth is the opposite of what the equality dogmatists say:
It’s sex-specific training that allows a child to be all he can be.
Withholding it is the same as denying musical training to the musically
gifted: You prevent the child from realizing his potential.

The kicker here is that virtually no one who has pondered the issue
deeply really believes in equality, anyway. For example, activists may
caterwaul about equal pay for women in sports, but when do they ever
propose eliminating separate athletic categories for the sexes? Or are
they separate because they’re not equal?

Perhaps we should remember that “how we play can change the world” —
and stop playing fast and loose with children’s lives based on the
latest psychobabble fad.  
________________________________________________________
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:

QUEERING INDOCTRINATION BY BLURRING GENDER LINES FOR BOYS AND GIRLS: FIRST TRANSGENDER & BOY DOLLS COME TO MARKET 

https://ratherexposethem.org/2017/02/queering-indoctrination-by-blurring.html