By L.I.

Recent events would suggest that not even the Royal Family is entirely safe from the cult of ‘wokeism’. In their podcast, Archetypes (itself being exclusively feminist with a mission to ‘explore and subvert the labels that try to hold women back’), the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their partnership with the Global Boyhood Initiative, a charity firmly rooted in the doctrine of ‘gender fluidity’ and the rest of the anti-traditionalist gobbledygook of the left.

While the name may evoke scenes of boy scouts embarking on Baden-Powellian escapades in the woods of rural England, the Global Boyhood Initiative in fact has very little to do with the cultivation of the natural and healthy qualities of boyhood or what it truly means to be a man. Their mission statement instead emphasises such psychobabble as a commitment to ‘guiding boys to break free from stereotypes’ and ‘promoting gender equity by fostering positive masculinity in boys and men.’

The ears of the astute listener may prick at the mention of ‘positive masculinity’, and for no small reason. The recent report issued by the GBI on ‘The State of UK Boys’ contends that traditional family units and schools operate as ‘gender and heterosexuality factories’ through ‘enacting gender roles and identities’, and further that parents are ‘gendering’ children before they are even born. The report attacks the adage that ‘boys will be boys’, instead making the claim that ‘while the family is a place of nurturing and support for many children, it can also be where gender and sexuality are regulated and policed, as many of our interviewees and much research suggest.’

The solution offered by the GBI to the problem of boys developing along the lines that nature intended consists of teaching them to ‘explore equitable, inclusive and nonviolent attitudes and behaviours in a safe and comfortable space’ and ‘internalise these new gender attitudes and norms by applying them in their relationships and lives.’ By doing so, the GBI claims, ‘harmful stereotypes’ of ‘toxic masculinity’ will be discarded and a progressive, egalitarian partnership between the sexes will be established in its place.

It is no secret that masculinity is in crisis and has been so for as long as anyone can remember. Sexual politics is the crown upon the head of the liberal agenda and the final objective is clear: the complete rejection of the very idea of masculinity. Natural male behaviours are now conceived of as merely ‘constructed’ and whoever disagrees with such is a ‘misogynist’. The implication being thrust in face of traditional society is that boys have something wrong with them unless they essentially cease to be boys. The mission statement of the Global Boyhood Initiative, therefore, merely echoes one of the predominant socialist war cries of our time: men are inherently aggressive and must be reprogrammed in accordance with feminist ideals.

In a country where rampant liberalism continues to spread like the plague, the fact that its influence has reached even the Royal Family (albeit the ‘outcasts’) must come as no surprise. Whether the Duke and Duchess will, as early reports indicated was possible, raise their children to be ‘gender-fluid’, we will have to wait and see. Yet the fact that the possibility even exists demonstrates how far leftward our society has slipped and presents a confusing and chilling prospect for future generations of British children.