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

But none of those people compartmentalize religion from their wider philosophy or scientific positions in that way. Quite the opposite, their theological views are very much integrated into their philosophical and/or scientific views, and new ideas, like "gendered souls" have to meet that same test, which is why they can interrogate new ideas in the way they do.

Secularism isn't actually an atheistic philosophical position, it's a pragmatic political structure that exists to allow people to integrate their worldviews in that kind of way at an individual level and then reflect that integration in their political activity. As opposed to having the state wedded to any particular worldview as a whole body.

I think you could make an argument that some of the current issues with the state trying to take up these very particular causes comes, at least in part, from a mistaken view that secularism is a philophy that is meant to replce these various other worldviews, and so must have some content of its own.

The problem is that not enough people have figured out that this new religion is actually a religion and should be treated with the same toolset.

Exactly this is the problem. It’s blindsided an awful lot of people.

But none of those people compartmentalize religion from their wider philosophy or scientific positions in that way. Quite the opposite, their theological views are very much integrated into their philosophical and/or scientific views, and new ideas, like "gendered souls" have to meet that same test, which is why they can interrogate new ideas in the way they do.

How is the idea of an incorporeal soul in the christian sense any more or less rational than the idea of a "gendered soul" that can be born in the wrong body? I can't see how one of these concepts can claim to be any more or less rational than the other.

No other marginalised group in history has gained enough power to effectively oppress the majority.

Cos that's kind of oxymoronic - if they can do that they're not marginalised.

But it's far from uncommon for people with their hands on the levers of power to claim they're doing whatever they're doing for some marginalised group - whether or not it really benefits that group.

Cos that's kind of oxymoronic - if they can do that they're not marginalised.

I agree. I resisted the temptation to write supposedly marginalised. There is no denying the Trans lobby has a huge amount of influence.

There's a topless image of a female born fifteen year old in the video, however good it is that's just not right.

I wrote two posts about this, but decided they are really probably more than you want to know.

I think it boils down to two main points. The idea of a soul isn't some random thing, it's from platonic or neoplatonic philosophy, and it relates to the distinction between form and matter which plays an important role in the coherence of that system, it's metaphysics and epistemology. A soul is just the form of a living thing, its mathematical reality which makes it more than a differentiated lump of something. Platonism is still a very common philosophical position among philosophers, mathematicians and scientists, and it underlies a lot of the major religions as well.

Obviously not everyone is a platonist and you can argue against it, but to speak as if it's some kind of fly-by-night, obviously silly way of thinking, or that people just believe it because of some random supernatural reason unconnected to their more sensible ideas, is a bit dismissive.

Gender identity, on the other hand, is an idea that seems to be a bunch of mutually exclusive claims without much more than some poorly thought out languaguge based arguments attached, which even the people that push it can't explain in most cases, and with associated scientific claims that aren't evidentially supported.

There is an interesting difference though between the use of the word soul in these two instances. If we accept the soul type language for gender identity - and tbh I am not sure we should, I think that is largely loose talk - they can't mean the same thing. In the Christian view, a soul could not be in the wrongly sexed body as such because it is the soul that gives the body the shape that it has - it is that shape, really. The two are a unity. The idea that you could have a male soul in a body that was female is just incoherent from that perspective.

Argh, should be "undifferentiated lump of something" above.

So close to having an “are we the baddies?” moment. Disappointing to see the thought process fail right at the end.

Here's one review from Ovarit on the Matt Walsh documentary.

I am not going to watch it as I already know what Walsh thinks. His views align with the gender identity views when it comes to rigid gender rules and roles and sexist stereotypes. Both camps love those (Barbies and pink for girls, toy guns and blue for boys).

The difference is that the fundamentalist far right Walsh represents (there are many conservative Catholics in it, too, and many conservative Muslims used to be there until the events of 911) see those rigid gender roles applicable to only people of one sex or the other, while gender identitarians argue that anyone can (try to) jump out of one rigid box and into another (and the chosen few can jump out of boxes altogether and call themselves nonbinary).

But both views regard the roles and stereotypes themselves as set and fixed. Both regard 'feminine' as what women must be and 'masculine' as what men must be.

So no, the Walsh camp will not be in alignment with gender critical feminists, except in the need for terms which can be used to define individuals of the female sex. What those terms are going to be used for is diametrically opposed in the two camps. The far right wants to keep women subjugated, feminists of the gender critical kind want to fight against those attempts.

I find it difficult this is him asking the questions simply because the people I know who I want to discuss this with think in binary ways and therefore would dismiss the whole thing.

If we take him out of the equation, the responses to his very simple question are ludicrous, bonkers and dangerous.

As I say, unfortunately for many they'll dismiss the whole programme in it's entirety due to his beliefs.

Bullshit has he done more for feminism than any movement in the last 100 years - but this is an example of the difference between American feminism and British feminism.

I find it difficult this is him asking the questions simply because the people I know who I want to discuss this with think in binary ways and therefore would dismiss the whole thing.

The irony of people thinking bodies can be non-binary rather than male or female yet putting people's opinions into binary 'good' or 'bad' boxes is delicious.

I know. In the words of my mum, "I want to bang their heads together."

Maybe we can produce an edit for the Woke market?

Like editing all the women out for Saudi Arabia, or editing out all the swear words for the US Christians?

Perhaps we can digitally edit Matt Walsh out, and replace him with someone this lot doesn't think is the anti-Christ asking the same questions?

Although that person would then instantly become alt-right by doing that, so it wouldn't work.

Perhaps we could get a digital character to replace him, with synthesised voice?

Anyway, another clip where Matt Walsh is not relevant:

twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1532392581568638978

Scott Newgent is the hero of the film. Such a remarkable contrast between the raw openness and honesty in this interview and the evasiveness and defensiveness from the “experts” I spoke to.

But this works in reverse - your stuff is injected into the algorithm, so if enough GC/radfems look at the trailer, all the convervatives will start getting Posie Parker/Magdalen Berns/Glinner videos.

I've just watched the Matt Walsh film so thought I'd report back some thoughts:

I think it will be shocking for many people who've been oblivious to this issue up until now, or who have heard a bit but haven't thought about it too much. But for me and most women on here it doesn't deliver anything new, and there is quite a lot it doesn't cover.

It is very emotive about the impact on kids and Scott Newgent is given a lot of time and they are very emotional.

A father from Candada who has been jailed for misgendering his own child, was something I didn't know about, and despite years of this following this stufff that still shocked me. Canada is in a deeply warped place.

GC feminists will find a lot to object to, as Matt Walsh obvioulsy believes gender is linked to biology, but Jordan Peterson is good when he defines geneder as basically personality difference which varies and overlaps across men and women. At least I liked this part as it fits with the way I view geneder but GC feminists who beleive it's totally a social construct will still have issue with this I imagine.

The use of 'what is a women?' and the inability of any of the gender theorists to answer it, and the fear and confusion on their faces when asked was utterly revealing.

I think Matt Walsh genuinely does care about women's safety and fairness for women, I think he does geneuinely believe children are being harmed and he's angry about it, and I think this film is a great way to get the message out there to a new audience beyond the feminists.

And I liked the ending with his wife 😀

I think Matt Walsh genuinely does care about women's safety and fairness for women

🤣🤣🤣

twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1466499088040480775?t=mgxrqziiU7Gq7t8hSi8Iiw&s=19

twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1128735398157594626?t=e9oPc6Byr7VESIGX4Exj2Q&s=19

He's just a grifter making a documentary on the latest hyped topic, why do you think he put this video behind a paywall?

For the same reason every streaming network requires subscribers?

You're right they haven't just donated the million it would have taken to make it by giving it away for free.
You really got them there.

And yes he's very anti abortion.
Another huge secret you've revealed.

I've just watched the film. It's a report of a lot of the issues that are discussed here ( unfortunately no MN input though). But, I found it deeply uncomfortable to watch with some shocking moments. I don't know of Matt Walsh so didn't have an opinion on him. Surely anyone who shows this total scary nonsense for what it is is doing a good thing? I definitely think he might be gaining a few subscribers and followers if he isn't cancelled!

To be fair to Arriving they were replying to the pp who said

I think Matt Walsh genuinely does care about women's safety and fairness for women

when he obviously doesn't.

And for all the people that paid $9 to watch this, did you realise that it was the Daily Wire that was behind the paid social media posts to smear Amber Heard's name?

The Daily Wire spent tens of thousands of dollars promoting misleading news about the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial on social media, the Citizens and VICE World News can reveal.

The conservative outlet, founded by Ben Shapiro, is currently the second most popular news publisher on Facebook. It has so far spent between $35,000 and $47,000 on Facebook and Instagram ads promoting articles about the trial, eliciting some four million impressions. The majority of these ads promote one-sided articles and videos with a clear bias against Heard. They are largely promoted via the Facebook pages of high profile conservative figures including right-wing commentator Candace Owens.

www.vice.com/en/article/3ab3yk/daily-wire-amber-heard-johnny-depp

Money well spent if you hate women.

What's your point? Everyone who is not pro-choice, or pro-choice enough, is anti-woman? Women are more likely to be pro-life than men are in almost every country where there is a debate at all.

There have been plenty of people in the women's movement historically and even more recently who are not pro-choice too, and some who have argued that readily accesible abortion on demand in society is actually rather bad for women as a group.

Of course everyone doesn't agree, but this idea that this issue is some kind of gotcha to prove a hatred of women is just so reductive. It's the same kind of reductive gotcha approach gender TRA tends to engage in.

You read those tweets and didn't think that this man is anti-woman?

😬