, , ,

This is a follow-up post to “When woman did not have that choice” about the dreadful time in East Germany when women did not have the choice to stay at home and raise a family. That post includes the true story of a woman who walked to West Berlin and freedom twenty-five years ago.

Behind the innocuous veil of “equality”…

a grimmer reality lies. Once again forces nearly as powerful as those which shaped East German policy of driving women from the home shape German policy. East is conquering West as the goals of East Germany become the determined goals of the united nation. In East Germany depositing your children in state-run daycare was mandatory. Full employment of men and women left the children in the hands of “Father state.”

DDR_Nursery01 DDR_Nursery02

Worst of all, there is an ideology behind current policy, too.

Worse because an ideology bows to nothing: reason, evidence, history, or even the people’s desires. A ruling ideology easily creates a “non-representative government”.1 This doesn’t matter, as long as those who do not represent the people control the machinery of power. All that matters is power.

No one can say it better than Simone de Beauvoir. She ardently longed for the day when no woman would be a housewife. She did not believe that “any women should have this choice“—of working at home.  She is the seminal figure in “second wave feminism” and her portentous words have had immense effect:


Jean-Louis Servan-Schrieber interviewing Simone de Beauvoir in 1975 on his program, “Questionnaire.”

Portentous means foreshadowing what is to come, especially foreshadowing ill and ominous things. de Beauvoir denied women should even have the choice to work at home in a dialogue with Betty Friedan, recorded in her 1976 book, “It Changed My Life: Writings on the Women’s Movement.” In it she uttered remarkable words that to some may have been hoped-for prophecy, but to others were living reality.

The “others” actually living in de Beauvoir’s reality were in East German and Communist China and other such workers’ paradises.

Woman should not have this choice:

Friedan thought that wives and mothers should be reimbursed for their housework if they choose to stay at home and take care of her children. de Beauvoir responded as follows. Read her words carefully, they live on in full force in the minds of ideologues the world over, especially in the United Nations, the European Union, and Germany.

DialogueWithSimoneDeBeauvoir_p.397To make clear, Simone de Beauvoir said woman should be forced:

No, we don’t believe that any women should have this choice.

“No women should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.

“Society should be totally different.

Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

“It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.


Betty Friedan (1921-2006)


I follow the argument (that women should not have that choice), but politically at the moment I don’t agree with it…there is such a tradition of individual freedom in America, that I would never say that every woman must put her child in a child-care center.2

To which simone de beauvoir replied:

But that’s not the way we see it. We see it as part of a global reform of society…change the system so that the choices that are available are different.

Can you see the horror in what she said? She is a true communist, to whom the “stuff” of humanity is as clay in their godlike hands. Change the choices, like changing the specifications in a manufacturing process, and out comes a new product, a new humanity.

As the rest of the post will show, de Beauvoir’s ideal is becoming a government-imposed reality, a top-down revolution in German society.3

So the vision is revealed: a worldwide society without choice, without freedom, with only the path available prescribed by one’s betters. de Beauvoir reveals the true goal of communists, a world where there is no iron curtain an outraged citizenry can tear down. There is only acquiescence to the way things are. What better place to begin than Germany? A nation with a proven record of obedience to law, any law.

Descends almost irresistibly

Yet de Beauvoir’s nightmare vision has only made progress even in Germany  against strong natural desires. The story is told in full in a 2006 article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) by Volker Zastrow, of which several paragraphs are excerpted here. Human nature itself is why a comprehensive control of the punitive (judicial), persuasive (media), and indoctrination (schooling) systems is necessary to bring about such profound change. Necessary because what’s being done is contrary to human nature.

FAZ: “Many also know from personal experience what polls show again and again: that the overwhelming majority of mothers in Germany would like half a day but are reluctant to work full time. And yet the two severely shrunk popular parties pass a bill that aims at the very opposite.”

Aiming “at the very opposite” means simply women working full time — all women. And what of the children? They will be in greatly expanded daycare centers.

What of the woman who wishes to be a homemaker? She shall not be…not even part-time.

How could such policy arise is not just a question observers ask. No, those involved in it ask, too—even those in the government!

FAZ: “MPs with a conventional family picture (father, mother and children make up the family) ask almost desperately, where it all comes from and why, even though no one seems to be sure, it [gender mainstreaming, gender equality] descends almost irresistibly upon policy.”

This descent is described in the article as an “unexplained and ultimately anonymous flow of the zeitgeist.” So its progress enters the metaphysical realm as the flow of the spirit of the age (zeitgeist).4 There is truth to this, but what spirit? What spirit wishes to drive women out of the home and into the workplace?

FAZ: “For the actual, yet rarely openly explained purpose of this policy is to raise the quota of women’s labor force participation rate. Equal rights for men and women are to be achieved by the full employment of both.”

There it is, Simone de Beauvoir’s ideal as the stated public policy of a major European nation. She would be proud!

The Creation of the New Man

If the ways and means of the manufacture of the new man in communism seemed vague and intangible to most, it is very clear in the radical feminism of today. That is, if anyone is listening. As the FAZ article goes on to say:

FAZ: “Single-mindedness on the one hand, ignorance on the other hand constitute a “hidden agenda.” But what are the goals and methods?

The goal is very lofty — it is nothing less than the creation of the new man and that by the destruction of the “traditional gender roles.

Even just for this reason, “sex” as a compulsory concept must be replaced with “gender.” And if possible the mental gender transformation is supposed to start in the daycare center.”

The beginning of creation then is destruction. This is elementary logic to a revolutionary movement.

Sex itself as a fundamental identifying characteristic of men and women is discarded. Everyone now has a gender of their choosing!

One is not born a woman, one becomes one,” was the potent seed. It took root and blossomed in the thought of theorists like Judith Butler.5 They are saying that what is merely constructed – your sexual identity – can be deconstructed because it is not inherent, not innate. It is not God-given but man-made, with emphasis on man. Women can do better than God and man.

This belief was spread worldwide at the Beijing Conference for Women in 1995. And it is being enforced in Germany, which saw the potential very early on of that conference.

Remember, this newspaper article was published in 2006. Today in Germany parents are being imprisoned who refuse to let their children go to the pornography classes called sex-education. “If possible” is no longer an operative term for the state-mandated “mental gender transformation.” Without exception would be more fitting.

One such Organization


Dr. Barbara Stiegler, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung     Photo: H.-D. Hey, arbeiterfotografie

FAZ: “Gender mainstreaming is enforced as a so-called “top-down” principle starting from the top of any organization. It is supposed to be realized on all levels with all decisions. For instance, gender mainstreaming agencies train officials in the application of the gender perspective. “Thus there is no person in any organization who does not have to feel obligated to this principle,” explains Dr. Barbara Stiegler of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. One such organization is the [German] federal government.”

The Decisive Goal: “abolition of the housewife”


Alice Schwarzer

FAZ: “By now “gender budgeting” is the movement’s gauge of success. But the decisive societal goal still is the abolition of the housewife as sought by Alice Schwarzer or, more precisely, of the housewife and mother whose dual function can hardly be reconciled with an additional full-time occupation. This role model, which is inseparably connected with the traditional family, is an elemental topos6 in art, literature, and religion that echoes in the innermost part of most people when they think of their own mother.”

East Germany Everyone?

The creation of the new man can only be done by force, whether veiled or open. Karl Marx recognized this, so did Simone de Beauvoir, and so do today’s advocates of gender equality. But they sell themselves quite well as advocates working for the betterment of society.

The threat of force is better than the actual use of force because yielding to the threat compromises the citizen in his conscience. This is necessary for stability in all societies not governed with the consent of the governed. Society-wide application of force has another negative aspect: it unveils the totalitarian state.

Doing so would stimulate discontent, be bad for tourism, lower the birth rate, and have nightmarish implications for immigration!

Who wanted to visit East Germany, after all?

Who wanted to move there?

Who even wanted to live there?

Trampling Down Many an Innocent Flower

But neither history, reason, decency, or humanity matter to the ideologues of today. They are out to change human nature. Woe to those in their way! Hegel put the consequences well for those unfortunate to live in the time of “world-historical individuals”:


Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)


“A World-Historical individual… is devoted to the One Aim, regardless of all else. It is even possible that such men may treat other great, even sacred interests inconsiderately; conduct which is indeed obnoxious to moral reprehension. But so mighty a form must trample down many an innocent flower or crush to pieces many an object in its path.”7


Make no mistake about it, both those pushing this global sexual revolution called gender mainstreaming, and their sponsors, view themselves as world-historical individuals who are filled with the zeitgeist — the spirit of this age.


  1. An excellent example of non-representative government is New Zealand, whose legislators ignored the will of 90% of the people in a 2009 referendum calling for an end to the ban on corporal punishment. This betrayal of the basic contract between people and their government (that governments rule by the consent of the governed) is itself consistent with the 2007 law. Both actions are profound violations of natural law. See the article “Emasculation of a Generation” for more on this.
  2. Note the “depth” of Betty Friedan’s, “disagreement” with her.
  3. “Back in the USSR, you don’t know how lucky you are” satirically sang the Beatles. Germany misses the irony altogether of reconstructing a totalitarian state on the ruins of a free one.
  4. According to Merriam-Webster Collegiate Thesaurus synonyms for metaphysical are immaterial, spiritual, supernatural, numinous, preternatural and so forth.
  5. As Barbara Stiegler writes: “Deconstructive approaches go even one step further in gender research. They view the totality of the sexual body (biological sex) as a historical, social and cultural construction {Butler, “Gender Trouble” (1991)}. See GENDER IN RELATION, Ideas for Gender Mainstreaming Processes, November 2004.
  6. topos is a traditional theme or literary convention.
  7. Hegel, G.W.F., The Philosophy of History (Batoche Books, Kitchener, 2001), p. 47