Matt Walsh Tweet Critical of Feminism

[PorcelinaV]

https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1683820604883869697

Feminism set the stage for trans activists by insisting for years that there are no significant or inherent differences between men and women apart from anatomy. They are the ones who came up with the idea that most differences between the sexes were “social constructs.”

I think it's demonstrably true that there has been in the English speaking west a popular idea, lets say over the last 30 years but maybe becoming a thing even before that, which claims that the only difference between men and woman are the shape of the genitals and who carries the baby. And explicitly denies many of the elements of sex difference many of us would say come out of that. So, for example, people who think this way give short shrift to the idea that gestating a baby, all of the hormonal stuff associated with that, and being the partner capable of breastfeeding, might mean women will be more likely to need/want to take some kind of career break than men.

The most noticible form we find are people who believe that that sport is an equal playing field for males and female, that the only reason there aren't equal numbers of female infanteers, firefighters, or furniture movers, is because of sexism. Or that demand movie fight scenes show tiny women beating the crap out of large men.

People who take this approach tend to think the goal is to see equal numbers of men and women in all employment sectors, social groups, and so on.

I don't think it's unfair to see the development of this way of thinking as part of feminism. Clearly it's not the whole thing, but I really don't know what you'd call it if not a product in the effect of feminist thinking and lobbying on society.

And I think it has in part contributed to setting the stage for gender ideology.

I don't think he's talking about individuals, he's talking about what made this plausible to so many people in the general population.

In fact you hear people say this all the time when you challenge it - they say we are reducing women to their genitals or reproduction. People see those things as being irrelevant in large part because they've been taught that is the right way to think, and they apply it as a kind of universal.

I'm not sure that this would be the case. I don't think this kind of thing is always going to manifest equally in any society, or in the same way when it does.

You aren't going to get many rubber fetishists in a place where there is no rubber - for example. Some of these things seem to involve some kind of triggered sexual response, but what is culturally available and contextual will vary a lot.

I also wonder if certain things need to be in place in terms of mental scaffolding and general sexual practices. In many places, and our society within the last 200 years, privacy wasn't nearly as available, nor were the material means, or the time, to indulge weird sexual proclivities for most. People from a young age knew about and were around what was often pretty utilitarian sex. And it's consequences (babies.)

We. on the other hand, have a lot of privacy and time, and what's more are constantly exposed to pretty unrealistic images and instantiations of sex - even inclding 10 foot high pictures of underwear models at the mall.

Our society seems designed to create the maximum number of paraphilias and fetishes.

He's a man.
Why would he be a feminist??

Antibiotics?!

I question the values and morals of the people who question Matt's stance.
He stands for real woman and girls rights in this world.
REAL WOMEN,not the mentally ill and disillusioned.
So y'all just keep on posting who hate yourselves,your own mothers and daughters.
Just bc you may be more loud and obnoxious, you will NEVER be the majority.

Are you ashamed of being a woman?
Dig deep on why that is.
Bc that's not normal or ok ladies!

That is a remarkable post SomeOfThesePostsAreRidiculous that I can only assume is intended as a parody….

Bless your heart dear....
Have you ever heard of Matt Walsh?
He pushes for women to be 💯 respected as women. He actually advocates for women who respect themselves.
Not the ones who pretend to be ok w men masquerading as women.
Unless you are fine with being pushed out as a 3rd or 4th rate citizen.

@Helleofabore
No,not a chance sweet dear.
The parodies are and their supporters are blasting themselves as "look at me".

Have you been rather selective in your knowledge of Matt Walsh?

He is absolutely a person who holds calm under pressure and gets his message across. He is standing up for some women and girls issues. Not necessarily all.

It would be some very blinkered thinking that ever put him in the same profile as feminists on even issues prioritising sex over gender. He is not ‘fighting 100% for women’. He is fighting from a position that clashes with women’s rights on issues.

Sure, he has a voice and uses it. But he is doing this from a different motivation to feminism.

So because Matt has traditional values,you shame and disregard anything he speaks on.....That shows your hatred towards woman, how heartbreaking.

If you are not for traditional values, state it and move on.
Most men want women with these values, although I have noticed certain places do not agree.The woman's career is literally more important than her husband's (partner in this instance),even if they have children.

When women choose careers overs their families you people applaud it.
Will your kids appreciate being thrown into day care w strangers?

Well, this thread has taken a wild turn....

I guess the truly passionate ones do.

Oh hi right wing American person.

Bat signal went out to some Beverly LaHaye conference...

Matt Walsh believes 10'yr old girls should be required to carry their rapists babies to term. He doesn't give a damn about any women unless they fit narrowly prescribed conservative lifestyles.

Matt Walsh knows about GC women VERY well because I very strongly suspect he knows KJK's campaigning and YT channel very well, as well as this forum. Or maybe it's just his researchers...I think it's more than just his researchers though. His movie scrupulously avoids any mention of any GC woman yet uses almost all the same arguments we've been making. Far too many coincidences there.

His view of feminism is extremely outdated and lazy. He needs feminists to be what he thinks they are because it supports his view of society. If he accepted that feminists are not a monolith, are far more nuanced than he is comfortable with, and don't hate men, then it entirely undermines his world view, to which he is very, very firmly attached.

I guess without antibiotics the number of people opting for “lifesaving” elective surgeries on their genitals would reduce to zero.

I like absolute fud

Yes, I thought they probably exist but stay in the closet.

If we are talking long term none of this way of thinking would be possible if the Americans hadn't thrown some tea in a harbour (and I am more than happy to show my workings on that) but that doesn't mean Samuel Adams, George Washington etc are "to blame".

I question the values and morals of the people who question the people who question Matt's stance

😔

Men/misogynists have blamed feminists for society's ills for forever.

It distracts them from looking at themselves...

What a bizarre post filled with hyperbole, polarised thinking and a lack of understanding of feminism. I can only think it is supposed to be parody at this stage because it follows a script of parody. Hilarious.

Please post the sections of my post that show hatred for anyone. Or even ‘shamed’ or ‘disregarded him.

I hate to in any way nourish the under-bridge dweller but I am fascinated by the role Mumsnet plays on the rest of the internet. How did he find out about this thread?? (And what tempts him to post? Slow day at Pornhub??!!)

@DarkDayforMN "You don't get many AGPs in societies where women's roles are heavily restricted."
I think the display of AGP-looking behaviour among a small number of Roman emperors and European monarchs and aristocrats suggests nascent AGP is always around but men will only indulge the fetish if they're secure in not losing priviledges by doing so.

@FlirtsWithRhinos "I didn't realise the degree of difference until I saw the elite sportswomen vs high school boys stats on here."
I might be a similar age to you, because I was very influenced by similar media. I remember telling a (male) friend in high school (mid 90s) how cool I thought a scene from a movie was in which a woman nocks out a bloke with one punch. He tried to explain to me how long and hard blokes train to deliver blows like that, and, even then, a punch strong enough to knock another person out will break the striker's hand. So the scene we watched was in no way realistic. I thought it was nothing but sexism talking. What broke the spell for me was when I was studying nursing, I saw a table of average grip strength divided by ages and sex. The highest for females was in our 30s, it wasn't matched by males until their 70's. For some reason, that fact cut through so much bs and I felt the relief of, I don't have to pretend men aren't stronger than women any more. Actually, writing this now, I wonder if the Hollywood-fuelled fantasy wasn't a defence mechanism, an attempt to make the world feel safer?

@PorcelinaV "But the average conservative would just think that such a thing is unnatural and isn't going to work. If you're gender noncomforming that's just how it is, and you aren't going to be able to successfully fulfil the role of the opposite sex."
When you say conservatives will think, "That's just how it is," do you mean that they will (reluctantly?) accept the gender nonconformer as she or he is? And not exert pressure to change, or social rejection?
"It is the social and psychological dimension for why single sex spaces here are a good thing I think."
I think you're onto something, but I haven't come to any conclusion about what those social and psychological goods are yet.

@Rudderneck "People who take this approach tend to think the goal is to see equal numbers of men and women in all employment sectors, social groups, and so on."
The way I would describe the feminist position would be to say, for example, it's not sexism that results in there being many more female teachers and nurses than male, but it would be sexism for a careers advisor to only highlight teaching and nursing degrees for a female high schooler. Because at an individual level the population-wide patterns don't necessarily apply. What you've described above I'm beginning to think maybe that comes from the DEI grift.

Feminism set the stage for trans activists by insisting for years that there are no significant or inherent differences between men and women apart from anatomy. They are the ones who came up with the idea that most differences between the sexes were “social constructs.”

So, just briefly, in case Walsh is reading (I doubt it). For most of history, supposed innate differences between the sexes were used to justify treating women as second-class citizens. Hence girls couldn't go to school or attend university, women couldn't do professional jobs or vote or have money in their own name, etc etc etc. because women's inferior brains/maternal disposition/whatever made them only suitable for motherhood.

So all feminists, starting with Mary Wollstonecraft, did was to point out that of course women were as intelligent as men. Of course they could benefit from education, of course they could think rationally, of course they could do professional jobs. That all the supposedly "innate" differences between the sexes were not innate at all, but socially conditioned.

Does Walsh want us to return to a time when women couldn't go to university and had to stay at home because their brains are too fluffy? (Probably yes.)

But to say this has laid the groundwork for trans activists is nonsensical. Trans activists don't pretend there are no differences between the sexes. On the contrary, they take the typical social differences between men and women (clothing, hair and make-up) and claim that these demonstrate innate femaleness or maleness. Their views reinforce sexist stereotypes about men and women, they don't challenge them.