The Motion Picture Association of America is an organization that has, for many, many years, helped people decide whether or not to view a film based on what kind of content it features, and if said content is appropriate viewing for children.

The traditional rating system, as of now, consists of G, PG, PG-13, and R, taking into account the kind and overall amount of violence, sexual content, and language contained in the movie.

Well, the crazies that make up the Hollywood left are trying to add a new criteria for restricting films: traditional gender roles.

As reported by to NTK, According to The Economist, Common Sense Media is attempting to evaluate films based on how well they portray progressive social goals:

In theory, the system is quite simple: a film will be awarded the organization’s seal of approval if it presents characters that defy gender stereotypes. Films designed for early childhood (between the ages of two and six) should depict boys and girls as friends and equals. By the time of early adolescence (between 11 and 13), films must demonstrate that worth is based on more than just physical beauty. In foregrounding the lazy depictions of men and women on television and in films, the move is being hailed by some as a breakthrough. Geena Davis, an actor and the founder of an organization dedicated to addressing gender imbalances in the media, told the New York Times that the CSM system increases accountability: “people making these products are sure they’re gender-balanced when they’re profoundly not.”

The system is still in its infancy, but CSM has chosen dozens of films and television shows that offer progressive depictions of gender roles. “Moonlight” gets the thumbs-up for its portrayal of being young, black and gay in America. “Mulan” (1998) makes the list thanks to its “strong female character” that fights the Huns. “Bend it Like Beckham” (2003), a romantic comedy, is also praised for its determined, ambitious, football-loving protagonist, Jess.

But some might argue that these are not unequivocally progressive characters. Mulan can only join the Chinese army by posing as a man-men are, it is repeated, superior to women -and when she is offered a high-ranking job, she turns it down in order to return to the homestead. Jess, too, is an unusual female lead, but one could argue that she relies heavily on the film’s male football coach for guidance and encouragement. These examples rather illustrate the problem: “gender-positive” is hardly a neutral concept.

How does such a measure as this, culturally speaking, not push an extreme leftist ideology that undermines the roles of men and women that have been the backbone of civilization for thousands and thousands of years?

The very core of what makes a society function properly is a nuclear family unit, like it or not, and whenever the roles associated with men and women have been changed or neglected, the nuclear family falls apart, with society not far behind.

More so than that, this is a form of shaming that’s designed to punish films that dare to appeal to the masses — who still, for the most part, engage in traditional gender roles — who purchase the majority of movie tickets for films in the theater.

Why alienate the masses and thus punish filmmakers for entertaining the folks who pay the bills?

It’s all about subversion, pushing the Overton Window a little further to the left to normalize behavior and attitudes that are inherently not normal.

[NOTE: This article was written by Michael Cantrell. Follow him on Twitter @MCantrell0928 and on Facebook]