Gender Ideology


Gender ideology, the second wave of feminism, is based on a fundamental biological error which turned into a lie, followed by radicalization and hatred.

Initially gender ideology was a desperate act of liberation of young women against ‎what they felt was limiting their existence: female biology/motherhood, and as alleged consequence a sex caste system in society (domination by men, abuses, unjust treatment, humiliating stereotypes). In order to eliminate these limitations, sexuality was postulated to be a social construction (gender identity), moldable in any direction and therefore optional. And the liberation from “obligated motherhood” was seen in free abortion (renamed "reproductive health of women").

The former, however, is a biological lie, and the second violates the most basic human right of a (unborn) human being: life.

Neither men nor women can exist totally free. Both are subdued to biological limitations (sex, intellect, death etc.),  social limitations (liberty of the other), and locational limitations (impossibility to live outside the earth or its vicinity). Nobody can escape from this without destroying himself.

Men and women are genetically, physically and psychologically different, and this in a complementary way.


Today gender ideology is a totalitarian ideology that is used as a tool for homosexist indoctrination and homosexist social and language engineering. It ruins lives, couples, families,children, equality, social cohesion, societies, and ultimately mankind.


Please find hereinafter some brief information on the history, scientific literature and reality of gender ideology.

                                                                                                                            E.W. 2012


I. History

Gender Ideology
Excerpt from an interview with Dale O'Leary, American specialist in gender studies.

By B.Wlodzimierz Redzioch

Dale O'Leary: History of Gender Ideology  Dale O’Leary 


Dale O'Leary: The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality

Dale O'Leary is author of the book “The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality”.

The last century was a period of the righteous fight of women against abuses, unjust treatment and humiliating stereotypes. The result of this fight was the rights that guaranteed women equal status. In the 1970s the feminist movement was much influenced by radical ideologies. These ideologies caused that the fight for equal rights for women became a pretext for destroying the traditional family and motherhood as well as for promoting sexual dissolution. By now various offices, which are established by governments and which are to guarantee equal status for women and men, serve to promote radical feminist ideas more than to protect true  interests of women and society.

Wlodzimierz Redzioch: - What were the first objectives of the feminist movements in the West?

Dale O'Leary: - Generally speaking, one can say that in the second half of the 20th century the Western societies fought to combine equality between woman and man with their obvious biological differences. In the 1960s women protested against the laws and customs, which made them being treated differently than men. Reacting to those protests the governments introduced laws, which guaranteed equality for women. Women were able to use them very quickly - the number of female students at universities, employed women and those having top governmental posts increased.

- Why did the fight for equal rights for women change into the fight against men and family at some moment?

- In the 1970s the radicals, who regarded women as the prototype of the 'afflicted class' and marriage as well as 'obligatory heterosexualism' as tools of oppression, joined the feminist movement. This philosophical movement comes from Friedrich Engels and his analysis of the origin of the family. In 1884 Engels wrote, 'the monogamous family remains true to its historical origin and clearly reveals the antagonism between the man and the woman expressed in the man's exclusive supremacy'. Shulamith Firestone in her book 'The Dialectic of Sex', published in 1970, modifying the idea of the class struggles, calls to sex-class revolution: 'In order to eliminate sex-classes the inferior class (women) must rebel and take control over reproduction... That means that the aim of the feminist revolution is not only to remove men's privileges, which was the aim of the feminist movement, but also to eliminate the difference between sexes: these differences will never have any meaning'.

- This explains why this new feminism did not only act against men but also against motherhood...

- According to Firestone the essence of oppression of women is motherhood and upbringing of children. Those who support this stand think that abortion on demand, contraception, total sexual freedom, women's employment and keeping children in nurseries, which the state subsidizes, are the essential conditions of women's liberation. Nancy Chodorow in 'The Reproduction of Mothering' claims that until women perform educational-upbringing functions children will grow seeing mankind as divided into two different and, according to her, unequal classes. This is the reason why class oppression is being tolerated.

- Does that mean that radical feminists want children to live without family?

- Yes. The new feminism wants to abolish biological family. Alison Jagger in the manual for women shows what is the desired result of the sex-class revolution. 'Abolishing biological family will also eliminate the need of sexual oppression. Male and female homosexualism and extramarital sexual relationships will not be seen as alternative options in the liberal optics... The very 'institution' of sexual relationships, where woman and man play definite roles, will disappear. At last mankind will return to its natural, multiform and pervasive sexuality'.

- How did the term 'gender' originate?

- The problem, which those who promoted revolution against family, had to face was to eliminate sex classes, which are conditioned by biological differences between women and men. The solution of this dilemma was the theses of Dr. John Money, Hopkins University in Baltimore . Till the 1950s the term 'gender' was a grammatical term ad indicated the masculine, feminine or neuter forms. Dr. Money began using it in a new context, introducing 'gender identity' to define whether a given person feels a man or a woman. Money thought that gender identity depended on the way a child was brought up, and sometimes it differed from child's biological sex.

- How did feminists use Dr. Money's theories?

- In her book 'Sexual Politics', 1969, Kate Millet wrote, 'there is no difference between sexes at the moment of birth. Psychosexual personality is something that is learnt after birth'. Thus the idea of gender as a social phenomenon was introduced into the feminist theories. The gender ideology caused that the priority of the feminist movement ceased to be the fight against politics that discriminated women but the priority was to the fight against the ideas that showed the differences between women and men and emphasized the fundamental role of woman in the sphere of education and upbringing.

- Feminists very often used the forum of the United Nations to impose their radical ideas on the world. Was it the case of gender, too?

- Till the 1990s the UN documents emphasized the need to eliminate all forms of women's discrimination, but in the 1990s the problem of gender became the major one. In the UN brochure, which was made by the INSTRAW agency and entitled 'Gender Concepts', the term 'gender' is defined as 'system of roles and relationships between woman and man, which is not biologically determined but depends on the social, political and economic context. As biological sex is given, gender is a product'. A big problem is that sometimes people who use the term 'gender' are not aware of its ideological roots.

- Perhaps we can see that best at some EU world conferences, during which the delegates of many countries signed the documents, in which the term 'gender' was used, not knowing what it exactly meant and not knowing the difference between 'gender' and 'sex'.

- That's right. It is worth mentioning the World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995. In its final document 'Platform for Action' we read 'In many countries, the differences between women's and men's achievements and activities are still not recognized as the consequences of socially constructed gender roles rather than immutable biological differences'.

- It is obvious that the difference between the roles of men and women is the consequence of natural biological differences! A man cannot be pregnant, cannot breast-feed...

- It is obvious, but from the perspective of the gender ideology it cannot be accepted that a woman can choose motherhood as her most important calling. The words of Simone de Beauvoir confirm that. When Betty Friedan asked her whether women should have the right to choose staying at home and raising children the writer answered, 'Women should not have such a choice because if such a possibility really existed too many women would use it'.

- These are very meaningful words. Let us come back to Dr. Money's theory. Has it been scientifically confirmed?

- Gender ideology became more and more popular whereas its theoretical motivation disintegrated. Dr. Money's theories have been discredited by researches concerning brain development. The prenatal researches have shown that before birth the brains of a boy and girl differ, which influences among other things their different perception of movements, colours and shapes. For example, it causes that there is boy's ‘biological preparation' to use male toys and with girls to use female toys. Women, commencing with mother's womb, are being equipped with special sensitivity to other people, which is needed to perform the mother's role.

- And what of it? Some feminists do not want to acknowledge the unique role of woman in society and they ignore the researches, which confirm that!

- This is a big problem. The scientists who examine the earliest stages of child's development and the development of human brain, express their concerns that the researches concerning the meaning of the relationship between mother and child are ignored by those who would like to see woman as only a labour force and see children only in the nursery school.

- The gender ideology is in favour of a new definition of marriage, which would also embrace couples of the same sex. In recent years there have been many publications that suggest that there is no essential difference between children raised by couples of the same sex and those raised by natural parents. Are such theses reliable?

- Those who have analyzed such researches claim that they are no valid. According to Prof. Lynn Wardle, 'Most researches concerning homosexuals' parenthood are based on inadequate

documentation from the point of quantity as well as on false methodology and analysis (some of little more than anecdotal quality), and consequently, the empirical base is too poor to be decisive as far as social politics is concerned'. On the other hand, numerous researches confirm that the presence of father and mother increases the physical and mental state of a child. Patrick Fagan, Heritage Foundation, collected much evidence that having mother and father who live together is very important to children. Whereas children who 'are brought up by women or whose parents are divorced incur a greater risk to experience poverty, abuse as well as educational and emotional problems'. The future of the society depends on children and therefore, our duty is to regard the good of children as our priority.



II. Literature


Ángela Aparisi Miralles: UNAV Conferences on Gender Ideology
Ángela Aparisi Miralles

PERSONA Y GÉNERO (Person and Gender)

Aparisi Miralles, Ángela (Coord.)
Instituto de Ciencias para la Familia,
Universidad de Navarra
Editorial Aranzadi, Pamplona 2011, 470 págs.
ISBN: 9788499030531

Persona y Género: UNAV Conferences on Gender Ideology


Persona y género: ideología y realidad. Cap. I: Origen y desarrollo de las teorías de género.( Riflessioni sul contesto storico culturale in cui nasce la teoría del gender. Tres diversos modelos filosóficos sobre la relación entre sexo y género. Simone de Beauvoir. Teorizzaczione del "gender". Tra filosofia e diritto. The gender ideology and the global language). Cap.II. Consecuencias sociales, políticas y jurídicas de la "ideología de género" (The meaning of "gender" within the United Nations system. La irrelevancia jurídica de la diferenciación sexual en el Consejo de Europa. La ideología de género en el derecho español. Sexual orientation and the legal regulation of marriage. Nuevas tecnologías reproductivas y postfeminismo de género. Género y cambio social en la edad moderna). Cap. III: Género y realidad (Una aproximacion científica a la ideología de género: cerebro de mujer, cerebro de varón. Aproximación psicológica: el sexo, el género y sus derivados. Ideologia di genere e persona. Reciprocidad hombre-mujer: igualdad y diferencia. Dos formas de afrontar la identidad sexual: personalismo e ideología de género. Cultura, naturaleza y persona: género y estructura personal).


Obra publicada en colaboración con el Instituto de Ciencias para la Familia de la Universidad de Navarra. En el debate actual sobre los derechos humanos ocupa un lugar destacado la cuestión del género. Ciertamente, ninguna sociedad democrática puede obviar la necesaria promoción social y jurídica de la igualdad varón-mujer. No obstante, tras las diferentes "teorías de género" subyacen planteamientos diversos, distintos modos de entender a la persona y de articular la relación sexo-género. Este libro, con una marcada visión interdisciplinar, recoge las aportaciones de reconocidos especialistas internacionales en el tema, en un intento de clarificar la cuestión abordada. Desde diversas perspectivas, el hilo conductor del volumen es la apuesta por el modelo antropológico, y filosófico-jurídico, de la complementariedad o corresponsabilidad varón-mujer. Se entiende que éste permite hacer compatibles, de manera adecuada, las categorías de la igualdad y la diferencia. Asimismo, aporta valiosos elementos a la discusión que actualmente plantea la articulación del género en la estructura personal del ser humano, con las implicaciones jurídicas que ello conlleva.

Instituto de Ciencias para la Familia | Universidad de Navarra | 31009 Pamplona | Tel.: 948 425 639 |Mail:



 III. Reality

The end of the Gender Experiment

Nordic Countries defund Gender Ideology

  Harald Eia: Videos on the Reality of Gender Ideology    Harald Eia

A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the
Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway , Sweden , Finland , Denmark , and Iceland ) has decided to close down the NKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.

The decision was made after the Norwegian State Television had broadcasted a television documentary in which the hopelessly unscientific character of the NIKK and its research was exposed.

The producer of the series is Harald Eia, a Norwegian comedian, who had gained some popularity in Norway with his satirical TV shows. Besides being a comedian, Mr. Eia also holds a degree in social sciences. He was puzzled by the fact that, despite all efforts by politicians and social engineers to remove “gender stereotypes”, girls continued to opt for typically “female” professions (such as nurses, hairdressers, etc.) whereas boys continued being attracted by “male” careers (such as that of technicians, construction workers, etc.). Indeed, rather than being reversed by “gender equality” policies, the trend became more accentuated.

In his documentary, Mr. Eia just went, in the company of a camera team, and asked some innocent questions to the leading researchers and scientists of the NIKK. Then he took the replies and brought them to leading scientists in other parts of the world, notably in the UK and the US , asking them to comment on the findings of their Norwegian peers. As was to be expected, the results of the Norwegian bogus science provoked amusement and incredulity among the international scientific community – especially because it was based on mere theory, never supported by any empirical research. Mr. Eia filmed those reactions, went back to Oslo , and showed them to the NIKK researchers. It turned out that, when confronted with empiric science, the “Gender Researchers” were speechless, and completely unable to defend their theories against the reality check.

What is more, the bogus was exposed to ridicule in front of the entire TV audience, and people began to ask why it was necessary to fund with 56 million Euro of taxpayers’ money some ideology-driven “research” that had no scientific credentials at all.

As it turned out, a few innocent questions, asked by a comedian, were sufficient to bring down the pompous edifice of “Gender Theory”. It is hoped that the lesson will be heard in other countries, or in the EU and the UN, where this ideology still holds sway in the corridors of power…

To watch Mr. Eia’s documentary in full length, visit this site and, when asked to enter a password, type “hjernevask” (the Norwegian word for “brainwash”, which was aptly chosen as title for the documentary). Non-Norwegians don’t need to worry – there are English subtitles.

Part 1 – ”The Gender Equality Paradox
Part 2 – ”
The Parental Effect
Part 3 – ”
Part 4 – ”
Part 5 – ”
Part 6 – ”
Part 7 – ”
Nature or Nurture

Source:  Posted on 5 Sept. 2012 by J.C. von Krempach, J.D., in