Interview: Gender Ideology is ‘Perverse, Totalitarian and Lie-Based Social Re-Engineering’
Q&A with Alice V. Rubio, author of the new book, When We Were Forbidden to Be Women … and Persecuted You as Men
MADRID, Spain (Carmelo Lopez-Arias) – Feuding with reality and science, gender ideology uses coercion to prevail, as have all totalitarian ideologies, with tactics such as school intimidation, the intrusion into private relations and the persecution of dissidents.
Wrapped in positive verbiage (fight against violence, discrimination, intolerance), one of the strengths that allows this movement its progress is society’s failure to identify it as a fanatical and invasive ideology. The other strength is its negotiation with business, engaging the public budget for the benefit of its promoters and beneficiaries.
A book has just been published to clarify both points: When We Were Forbidden to Be Women … and Persecuted You as Men, written by Alice V. Rubio, philologist and phys. ed. teacher in a public school for twenty years. She has written a well-documented and very solid volume that delivers what its subtitle promises: To understand how gender ideology affects us. As she explains, the book is the result both of reflection and of her personal teaching experience.
When did you first hear about this ideology?
RUBIO: Actually, the first thing that I encountered was an irrational and insubstantial interpretation of facts that denoted absolute ignorance of basic notions of anthropology and biology. It happened in the meetings of physical education teachers, during the implementation of the School Championships of the Community of Madrid. It was generally stated that girls’ enthusiasm and behavior towards sports were not the same as for boys.
And that surprised them?
I was not surprised at all because I knew the ultimate causes, but it caused them surprise and outrage and attributed it to the inculcated stereotypes, the social roles and the opposition of the parents, who didn’t want their daughters to do ‘boys” sports in allegiance to such roles.
The postulates of gender…
There was no talk of gender ideology but the outrage was provoked by the evidence that men and women were still very different, that is, that the desired gender equality had not occurred.
And is sports the most logical place to start imposing it?
The fact that this came from physical education teachers, who daily note the differences between the sexes in behaviors, tastes, interests and abilities especially alarmed me. And although I knew the various causes of these differences, I began to study the social roles in the homes, the imposition of toys, the cause of the choice of forms of exercise and sports, the progressive abandonment of physical activity, as the development of these girls advanced, and their reasons …
They forbid us to be women, they persecute you for being men.
With what conclusions?
Nothing that I concluded had to do with the causes advanced by gender ideologues and their followers.
Why did you decide to put that study into a book?
Because I realized that many people did not know the deep reasons for the differences in behaviors, tastes, desires, interests, abilities and perceptions between men and women, and because, as I was collecting data, I began to draw the outline of a perverse social re-engineering, totalitarian and based on lies. And it had to be told.
What is natural in the field of games or sports?
One of the objectives of gender totalitarianism is that they play compulsorily together, same in the same things, as they develop the laws of equality. But it is clear that boys and girls play differently, even though in childhood the enormous differences in all the areas that will become evident during sexual development have not yet been clearly determined.
… As I was collecting data, I began to draw the outline of a perverse social re-engineering, totalitarian and based on lies.
What happens when such children grow up?
In institutions the natural tendency is to establish groups with same-sex peers, who have the same perceptions, tastes and interests, and it is difficult to get mixed groups for certain activities in physical education. As sexual maturation progresses, differences in behavior and in the appearance of leisure and sport become greater, simply because nature determines the behavior of both sexes of the species with respect to their prototypal behavior, suitable to their biological function of species survival: defense of offspring in men with more daring, aggressive and competitive behaviors, and successful embryo development and preservation of their own life in the female, with more cautious and sedentary behaviors.
And these are not just social and cultural roles in which they are educated?
These behaviors are not imposed, but arise from each of the cells of a biologically successful species in the dichotomy of sexes and functions for the survival of that species. And naturally, as this is innate behavior, the struggle for the equalization of men and women is endless and continually demands funds and efforts to eradicate nature.
You argue that feminism ruins femininity…
Feminism was based on the idea of the relationship between the sexes as a struggle between oppressor, male, and oppressed, female, as Engels put it. And oppression is actually the dichotomy of reproductive functions: motherhood is the reason that the female biological role ends up affecting her social role. The woman must get rid of the biological-social role to be the hegemonic sex, must replace it, imitating the man. She must behave like a man, and therefore all the feminine conditioning and characteristics are undesirable. Also on the sexual and reproductive plane: her behavior in sex should not be selective but masculinized and motherhood should not be a barrier to her new position outside her biology. And in the end, all this supposes that she must renounce herself, that she must stop being a woman with all her conditioning and characteristics to stop being oppressed.
Is there a relationship between feminism and increased marital ruptures?
Of course there is a relationship; feminism subverts all biological organization and its ideological corpus of victimhood against an oppressive man by nature makes heterosexual relationships difficult and causes resentment. It is not possible to have a stable relationship with someone whom you consider an oppressor, who only wants to enslave you and deceive you.
And the so-called gender violence?
The subject of gender violence is the legal and punitive materialization of this concept of relations between the sexes. It implies the denial that there are violent women, that there are other victims, that not all men are aggressors … and that the man attacks, mistreats or kills his female partner simply for being a woman, while reality shows us that there are many other reasons: abuse, alcohol, madness, mental illness, economic interests …
Do you deny that there is an essentially ‘macho’ factor in that kind of violence?
Violence against women solely because they are women and the man feels superior is exceptional in egalitarian countries, but it is applied as the only cause of such violence. And this does increase the ratio of such violent acts … and criminalizes the man, guilty genes.
Is there a link between feminism and homosexuality and gender ideology?
Yes, there is a clear link between gender ideology and the feminist and homosexual lobbies: denial of biology.
You mean the de-feminization you mentioned earlier?
The woman has to be like the man and live her sexuality in the same way. Obviously when selling this, you are deceived, so you have to find solutions to that maternity that will come to you by the biology of sexual relations: contraceptives, abortion, and abortifacients or anti-implantatory medicines are the baggage that come with that deception, that we are the same. And all the deterioration of our health that we pay to believe the lie that we can ignore biology, and create ourselves a sexuality and some roles just by wanting it.
Feminism subverts all biological organization and its ideological corpus of victimhood against an oppressive man by nature makes heterosexual relationships difficult and causes resentment.
And in the case of homosexuality?
The other way to avoid biology (and here are the homosexual lobbies) is homosexual love: lesbian love does not present these conditions, and homosexuals, feminized and without men’s sexual desire, are no longer the dangerous animal that oppresses the woman with motherhood, and whose male behavior feminists both hate and imitate. In fact the vast majority of feminist ideologues are lesbians and they are characterized by unnatural hatred of the male.
Who benefits by the implementation of this ‘anti-biological’ ideology?
The gender ideology is the doctrinal support of feminism and homosexuality and what makes their respective lobbies rich and powerful. Now, we will see if this is benefiting the individual woman and homosexual. Of course, as a woman, I claim that gender ideology and feminism are currently harmful to the real woman.
Another related point: the ‘de-masculinization’ of men. Are children being educated today with female patterns or are they required as adults to have female behavior patterns?
The demonization of the masculine and the criminalization of the male are two of the results of this ideological delusion that, surprisingly, some men buy into against their own interests; there have always been collaborators with the enemy.
Why do you use the term ‘criminalization’?
They are taught to associate violence and masculinity, and to despise behaviors inherent to masculinity. Special emphasis is placed on the fact that the male is emotional, sensitive, non-competitive … although his testosterone and even his brain shape make this difficult. He is criminalized as ‘genetically violent,’ obviating the fact that his role as protector of his offspring has shaped him for millions of years to be perfect in such a role and that he instinctively respects the weak. If the man had been the ‘violent female slaughterer’ we now say he is, and did not give his life for the survival of his offspring, we would not be here.
And how to re-masculinize men without appearing to claim the violence attributed to them?
It is necessary to reclaim the qualities of men, to make them feel proud to be one, to know themselves and to understand themselves, and to stop pursuing young people with a false vision of man as a genetic malcontent without a solution, which is what is done in the courses against gender violence: create misunderstanding between the sexes, and accuse and discriminate against men.
‘Nature always’ avenges ‘the violations of natural law.’ Is ‘gender revenge’ also beginning to be avenged?
For the moment, it is with a high degree of unhappiness at the individual level, of all the people who have been deceived, who want to be what they are and not put special effort into fighting against their nature.
Women who have been led to believe that they are like men and try unsuccessfully to be men; men who find themselves criminalized for being what they are … they forbid us to be women, they persecute you for being men.
As in the title of the book …
And without forgetting the children without examples, alone, insecure, sad and unprotected… They are used as children, because, and this is well reflected in the last chapters, the child, who has never had so many rights, has never been so used, deceived and marketed as now.
And why does the educational world so passively accept gender indoctrination, gender perspective, and other verbiage?
Because people do not know what’s behind them. This ideology is sold by positive messages, appeal to irrational emotionalism, mass manipulation techniques in the media … Many people have unknowingly accepted this ideology and the manipulation and deception of the media.
What is it behind them that people do not know?
What must be understood is that there is a lot, a lot of money at stake here and the media are given their share of the cake, as are politicians, lobbies and other groups and individuals who then, regardless of the common good while appealing precisely to that ultimate reason, impose laws and indoctrination.
People … want to be what they are and not put special effort into fighting against their nature.
We do not want to be branded as sexists, discriminators, homophobes, LGBTphobes, retrograde, carcasses … and the best way to prove that we are not is to allow (presumably) our minors to be taught not to be.
What happens is that they do not teach that, but other things. The explicit aim of gender laws has nothing to do with the tacit objective. I hope that those who read my book will be vaccinated definitively when they see, in the three chapters on manipulation techniques, the ‘cardboard of the set.’
‘And they’ve all painted that set!’ Why so much unanimity among the parties to impose gender ideology? Is there a world design?
The ideology radiates from the UN and now also from the EU (Reports Lunacek, Noichl, Rodrigues). These agencies propose guidelines for action which are only recommendations but which countries sign.
Who fronts the money and who pays it?
Implementing these policies involves large movements of public funds that, with the excuse of fighting against gender violence, gender inequality, women’s lack of protection, discrimination against LGBTI people … are used in pressure groups, clientelistic networks, public campaigns that buy the will of the media … there is unanimity because everyone wants their share of the business.
And whoever resists?
As it is sold in messages of good faith, manipulating emotions with false or biased figures and data, they present themselves to society as egalitarian, non-discriminatory, non-sexist, non-homophobic parties … just the adjectives that apply to those who expose the truth of all this business.
Alice Rubio’s book is available here (in Spanish).
Translated from the Spanish with the aid of Google Translate.