What’s common sense to you and me, gentle readers, is earth-shattering paradigm shifting to the Gramscist Left and the childless Fems of the culture-destroying vanguard party. Fisk this classic case of nature vs nurture with me, and keep in mind that these are the same people who insist being gay is genetic, but “gender” is merely socialization. Just keep that in mind.
Even 9-Month-Olds Choose ‘Gender-Specific’ Toys
By Jenifer Goodwin (HealthDay News) — Parents may want their girls to grow up to be astronauts and their boys to one day do their fair share of child care and housework duties, but a new study suggests certain stereotypical gender preferences take root even before most kids can crawl.
When presented with seven different toys, boys as young as 9 months old went for the car, digger and soccer ball, while ignoring the teddy bears, doll and cooking set. And the girls? You guessed it. At the same age, they were most interested in the doll, teddy bear and miniature pot, spoon and plastic vegetables. “The boys always preferred the toys that go or move, and the girls preferred toys that promote nurturing and facial features,” said study author Sara Amalie O’Toole Thommessen, an undergraduate at City University in London.
So does this mean that boys and girls have an innate preference for certain types of objects? Or does socialization — that is, the influence of parents and the larger culture — impact children’s choice of toys very early in life? It’s too soon to rule either out, said Walter Gilliam, director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University. “One of the things we’ve learned about babies over the many years we’ve been studying them is that they are amazing sponges and learn an awful lot in those nine months,” Gilliam said.
The finding raises the possibility of a biological basis for toy choices. A study from 2001 found even 1-day-old boys spent longer looking at moving, mechanical options than 1-day-old girls, who spent more time looking at faces. Yet the impact of socialization should never be underestimated, Gilliam said. Studies have shown parents and others interact differently with female and male babies from almost the instant they’re born, Gilliam said.
So even as gender is found at increasingly earlier ages, Dr. Gilliam believes this is merely proof of “socialization” at earlier ages. She just keeps pushing the window further and further back. Thus to her, the results of this study prove nothing whatsoever as she attempts to rescue radical Feminism from the bind this study puts them in. If gender is innate, rather than learned, then radical Feminism fails because one of its pillars– that men and women are the same, and gender roles are a construct–begins to crumble. But there’s no evidence for Dr. Gilliam’s unfounded assertions in defiance of this study. It’s just desperately wishful thinking.
Notice also the reporter’s agenda here. She’s less interested in informing you on the results of this study than she is in trying to debunk it. That’s why an article that presumably was supposed to be about the latest results on gender turns into a radical Fem apologia with Dr. Gilliam as its star. Dr. Gilliam– not this study– is who this reporter really wants you to hear from. So the reporter begins with her own conclusion that gender differences “take root” before they learn to crawl, rather than in the womb. With that little opening she provides Dr. Gilliam the wiggle room she needs to keep repeating– despite this study, and with no evidence whatsoever– her radical Fem dogma that gender differences are a “construct”. A classic case of MSM bias, however subtle.
A final observation, and perhaps the most important one. Ideologically speaking, the Left is a herd of cats, united only by their hatred of the Mainstream and all things “the Right”. The disparate ideologies of the Leftwing coalition are often at odds with each other, and that is certainly true of the Gay Agenda and radical Feminism. While radical Feminism rests on the belief that all gender differences are learned “social constructs”, the Gay Agenda wants you to believe that homosexuality is the exact opposite– that it is genetic and therefore “innate.” Gender is nurtured, but gay is natured. Both turn reality on its head. And both are mutually exclusive positions. This simple fact is obvious on its face, yet it eludes the pro-science, intellectual powerhouses of the Left (heavy sarcasm there). They will not be deterred from their never ending quest for the “gay gene”, even as they attempt to sweep male/female genetic, hormonal and physical differences under the rug. Where science and agenda collide, a good Leftist will usually choose agenda.