Yeah, and the response “marry one and find out” is both misogynistic and queerphobic, so what’s your point?
the obvious answer here is that matt walsh is the misogynistic and queerphobic one, as he’s the one that’s asking the question. Peterson was just proposing a way to determine what a women in the modern context would be. There’s nothing misogynistic or queerphobic about that. They literally aren’t talking about gay marriage or women’s rights.
In fact i don’t see any way of claiming that the statement “marry one and find out” is either of those things. You’re reaching so incredibly hard that if i were to state that i wouldn’t marry a women that i must be sexist and misogynistic. Even though you literally have no conceptualization of my sexual/romantic orientation. Let alone how i feel about legally binding agreements. Or even who i am.
you could argue that petersons view of marriage is old and antiquated and that’s probably fair game, but at the end of the day, the question was literally in reference to a woman. For all we know, he could could very well be including trans women in that statement, which would make sense considering the construction of that statement.
philosophically and sociologically, it’s quite literally the definition of what a woman is. It’s the reason why it’s changed over time.
yeah, and we aren’t talking about men, we’re talking about women, which is probably why we’re talking about marrying them.
In fact the concept of marriage is entirely unrelated to the two individuals in this specific example, the entire point of including marriage, is to give an example of a specific type of relationship you can have with someone, where this concept would be clearly and unmistakably defined. The whole purpose of including it is so that you don’t just overrule the entire hypothetical by saying “yeah but someone from china” or something similarly irrelevant. Which is basically the exact thing you’re doing here.
Just a quick breakdown here. The marriage symbolizes interpersonal relationships. The find out part symbolizes how most social definitions are entirely liquid and depend very heavily upon external culture. It’s why certain slurs like queer are significantly less, slur-ry now.
The entire statement essentially just says “the definition of any given social aspect of humanity is dependent primarily on the individuals involved, and how well acquainted they are.” which while a little broad, gets the point across that the question “what is a woman” is a pretty fucking stupid question.
It’s not dissimilar to a chair. What is a chair? Something you can sit on? You can sit on the ground. An object built specifically for seating humans? Dogs can sit on chairs. A seat designed by a human to be used for seating? Well what about a stool or a bench? What about if we take that chair, and then put it somewhere it shouldn’t be, like on the ceiling? Is a ceiling chair still a chair? It can’t be sat in anymore.
and if we were to hyper analyze the scene that statement was made in, the ultimate definition given by (presumably) matt walsh’s wife, is “adult human female” which is weird, because adult is not specifically defined, and human should be fairly obvious that seems entirely redundant. And then we get to female, which runs into the exact same problem as before, what is a female? Presumably they intend for it to be used in a biological sex manner, but as we established, there is no clear definition anywhere in here, aside from the term female being used, which is not very descriptive either.
so perhaps i should ask you. What is a chair?
