Matt Walsh Thinks He's Leading the Woman's Movement

[Delphinium20]

I've seen a lot of respected feminist posters excited about this documentary, which on its own may contain useful content. But I want to ask, why promote a misogynist just because he has the right talking points on gender ideology? Women are about to lose abortion rights in my country. Matt Walsh has said women who are pro-choice are "repulsive."

twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1521549440406155264?s=21&t=ItXp9--3s8_3_0S8LFNc9w

I urge you to check out this thread on Ovarit where women have documented all the work feminists have been doing already, and how Walsh ignores us. Walsh sees this GC issue not through feminist eyes, but as a way to push his own brand and claim himself leader of this issue. Please stop falling for it.

ovarit.com/o/Radfemmery/91809/matt-walsh-is-literal-proof-of-male-privilege-you-re-not-a-savior-and-many-women

Mumsnet FWR favourite Tucker Carlson

Really??? Tucker Carlson is a MN FWR favourite?

Shall we take a poll on who as ever watched anything that Carlson has published, vs those who have watched a few things about gender identity theory, vs those who watch him regularly.

Or maybe you are just trying to make a goady post to try tediously again to link feminists to media pundits who are not feminists, but agree that sex cannot change and gender should not be prioritised where sex matters.

Or maybe you are just trying to make a goady post to try tediously again to link feminists to media pundits who are not feminists

This one's a double stretch, as the link between Carslon and the mass shooter mentioned is just as imaginary.

"Let's find something bad happening, make up a defamatory connection to non-compliant media personality for doesn't play our censorship game, and use that as a weapon to further enforce our censorship, as well as a way of demonstrating how bad the people we're trying to censor are."

Glenn Greenwald doing what he does best on the subject:

The Demented - and Selective - Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings

(He's also someone who relies on Carlson for getting TV airtime, and is fully aware of how desperate other outlets are to stop anti-war, anti-censorship voices like his getting heard, which means shutting down non-compliant people like Carlson).

I brought up this new thread to show an Ovarit link to opinions from another feminist site that's populated with more Americans and Canadians who also care about the erasure of women and feminist issues, but feel frustrated when GC posters find the latest Tucker Carlson or Matt Walsh GC content and repost, replay, give links, clicks, etc.

Unlike the UK, N Americans have a far right white supremacy issue (adjacent to our conservatives who are not like the Tories), and it's considered the highest threat by the FBI.

So it stings when any US mens rights activist isn't accurately seen for the danger he is. These men are not only working to divide and conquer using women's issues, but to divide and conquer on issues of other grave problems.

Our country had a hate crime shooting this weekend - 10 Black Americans targeted and killed for their race. The gunman's manifesto referenced Replacement Theory, a theory which is espoused by Tucker Carlson, another man many on this site some of you have no problem "agreeing with."

I'm getting fed up with some not seeing the bigger picture. Dangerous men are using this GC issue for their own purposes. It's not a purity spiral when you live somewhere as dangerous as the US and "agreeing with" means your "allies" are more dangerous than the Democratic opposition on a single issue.

Women will die because abortion rights are going away. Black people have died because of white supremacy. Both American men referenced on this board have no concerns with those issues, and in the case of Tucker Carlson, actively impact it.

Delphinium20 I know you post here regularly and I've always found you knowledgeable and helpful about US law and politics. However I am also fed up: of posters trying to tell me what I should read, watch, listen to, and talk about.

As you know, this is a UK site so of course we have a different perspective from US and Canadian feminists. It's always good to exchange insights but I don't think anyone has the right to cherry pick what or whom we talk about.

You even seem to be claiming that, by not viewing the world through a US leftish lens, we're 'missing the bigger picture'. Maybe I've read that wrong - I hope so as I find that pretty arrogant actually, although I realise it probably wasn't intended that way.

I still don't understand why you didn't post on the existing thread about Matt Walsh, who I'm sure must be delighted at all this attention.

When I want a chaperone to supervise my reading and my thinking, I shall ask for one. Thank you.

Is anyone else getting TRA vibes from @Delphinium20 underneath all the word salad?

Not really. Just a different perspective based on a more American perspective.

No absolutely not.

I've seen a lot of respected feminist posters excited about this documentary, which on its own may contain useful content. But I want to ask, why promote a misogynist just because he has the right talking points on gender ideology?

Is it because they are happy for anyone, on the right or not, to be brave enough to make a film about gender ideology?

It's not rocket science is it?

If you see respected feminists getting excited, why not tell them this?

My intention in starting a new thread was to have a negative headline about Walsh, not a neutral one. My fear is someone will see the other thread w/ a neutral headline and take Walsh's link, think it's a great resource, and send it on, cascading him into a higher profile. I don't think everyone who looks at every post reads all the nuanced conversations below it. Lots of communication data proves that most readers skim; fewer post balanced, well-thought out commentary.

I don't claim to be an expert in European or UK law/public figures, etc., but I do feel confident in calling out American rightwing men and I have a professional background in much of what I do share. By no means am I asking anyone to change their particular politics (very undemocratic and as most politics are local, a useless request, IMO). I do appreciate trusted posters sharing what they know...and that is why I linked to the Ovarit thread...I wanted to link to what I know.

I've seen a few posters here talk about how much they actually like Tucker and Walsh...and that sends chills down my spine. I may be overly emotional this week because we had TWO mass shootings in TWO days...one which was racially motivated by a young white man (18) who espouses a belief that is shared by these same types of American male figureheads...so I wanted to start a discussion about how the patriarchy is using our work, ignoring women and women orgs who have done so much more (Posie Parker, Kara Dansky, WOLF, MN, Sal Grover, JKRowling, etc.). That's what the Ovarit link focuses on...I've read your smart commentary for a long time @Floisme and believe you'd appreciate that link.

On a personal level, I'm similar to a lot of Americans who probably have some form of PTSD from adjacent gun violence...so it's difficult for me to see men like them (who are very pro-gun) in any feminist space because I see them as enemies to peace in my community.

I come to FWR, like many of us, because it's a balm to the crazy world, so I think part of this is personal..it truly hurts my heart to see anyone here giving that man any respect.

This one's a double stretch, as the link between Carslon and the mass shooter mentioned is just as imaginary.

If we're allowed to make giant leaps to connect entire groups of people we disagree with to mass murderers, I'm not sure that the TRAs will like where it takes us. I'm going to whip out the list of cross-dressing serial killers the next time someone pulls that stunt (unless Wikipedia's ever vigilant editors got it censored.)

My intention in starting a new thread was to have a negative headline about Walsh, not a neutral one. My fear is someone will see the other thread w/ a neutral headline and take Walsh's link, think it's a great resource, and send it on, cascading him into a higher profile. I don't think everyone who looks at every post reads all the nuanced conversations below it. Lots of communication data proves that most readers skim; fewer post balanced, well-thought out commentary

So basically exactly what @Floisme wrote? You do want to be a chaperone and supervise peoples reading and thinking?

Posie Parker thinks that Tucker Carlson is a lovely man, just a really, really delightful man.

He probably is. Many people with all sorts of views are nice people.

He’s an absolute weirdo who believes in racist conspiracy theories such as the supposed great replacement theory, believes there’s no evidence George Flloyd was murdered by a cop, and that the storming of the capitol was orchestrated by the FBI. He’s extremely misogynistic and homophobic and deliberately lied about Covid and vaccines.
But yes, I suppose if you’re willing to overlook all that, he might be a nice man

How do you expect anyone to discuss anything if their bad points, beliefs and history is brought up before anyone is allowed to speak to them?

Have you ever considered that meeting Posie and discussing like aduls rather than petulant children, could be the thing that changes people's minds?

How some of you function in the real world is beyond me. 'well he did this and this and this so I'm not speaking to him' needs to be left in the playground where it belongs.

It’s not a one off slightly bad thing he did 10 years ago, it’s his current very damaging, deluded beliefs.

Plenty of people aren’t nice people because of their beliefs and past actions.

Of course he might be a nice person, or some people might be willing to overlook all of that to believe he’s a nice person. But that goes for plenty of not nice people, if you overlook the bad bits they’re all nice. Some peoples bad qualities can’t be overlooked. To me Tucker Carlson is one of them. You might be able to overlook all this and believe he’s a nice person and you are absolutely free to do so.

It’s not a one off slightly bad thing he did 10 years ago, it’s his current very damaging, deluded beliefs.

It’s really weird that you don’t see that Posie and a pp were discussing Carlson’s manners, not his moral character. Plenty of people with some terrible beliefs are some form of “lovely” when you meet them.

Genuinely, it’s bad for your mental health to think this way. It’s not wrong to acknowledge positive qualities in someone you don’t like.

The US more accurately can be said to have a gun violence problem, and the data absolutely does not support the assertion that it’s far-right white supremacists leading the way there.

Yes, they are a significant fraction of politically / ideologically motivated shooters, but a small fraction of the overall numbers.

I don’t doubt he has positive qualities. I don’t think there’s ever been a person alive without at least one positive quality.

Plenty of terrible men and perfectly nice to talk to and completely charismatic. My abusive ex is a lovely, nice man to chat to. Not a nice man though.

Like I said, if anyone wants to believe Tucker Carlson, or anyone else, is nice they are absolutely welcome to do so. Doesn’t mean everyone has to agree. He probably wouldn’t have gotten to where he has if he wasn’t nice to talk to and had a good manner in person. There’s plenty of racist and misogynistic men spouting the hatred he does without gaining his status and popularity so that speaks for itself in terms of how he comes across.

The NYTimes and Chuck Schumer (Senate majority leader) are both making the connection to the mass shooting, Tucker Carlson and Replacement Theory.

web.archive.org/web/20220517183535/www.nytimes.com/2022/05/15/us/replacement-theory-shooting-tucker-carlson.html?searchResultPosition=3

web.archive.org/web/20220517183756/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/17/nyregion/senator-chuck-schumer-s-letter-to-fox-news-executives.html?searchResultPosition=1

I don’t doubt he has positive qualities

😬😮YIKES.

Not a good look.

This ain’t it, bro. Delete this.

etc

You're right that gun violence is multi-faceted in the US, but our access to and limited regulation allows nutjobs access...and the right thwarts gun regulation.

The data asserts that far-right white supremacy is the number one domestic terrorist threat facing our country. www.reuters.com/world/us/white-supremacist-groups-pose-rising-us-threat-garland-says-2021-05-12/

Sorry I’m not quite following anymore

Next up, I plan to tell you to go to your room and think about your actions.

I'm sharing an American feminist perspective on the American men I see talked about in UK spaces...take it or leave it. Sheesh...

I guess I don't see it as brave of him, rather as opportunistic. The brave women are those at the Emmeline Pankhurst monument and speaking at Lia Thomas's swim meet and giving testimony to state legislatures.