Download Joe What If A Woman

What Is a Woman? is a 2022 American online film about gender and transgender issues presented by conservative political commentator Matt Walsh. The film was released by conservative website The Daily Wire, with direction by Justin Folk.[1][2] In the film, Walsh asks various people "What is a woman?".[3] Walsh said he made the film in opposition to "gender ideology".[2][3] It is described in some sources as anti-transgender[4][5][3][6][7] or transphobic.[8][9] The film was released to subscribers of The Daily Wire on June 1, 2022, coinciding with the start of Pride Month.[2]

The film features Walsh asking "What is a woman?" and related questions to a variety of people. It discusses topics such as sex reassignment surgery, puberty blockers, transgender youth, and transgender athletes in women's sports.[15][16]

Download Zip 🔥 https://urllie.com/2y3hzd 🔥

Tamma Moksha of The Hindu called the film a "twisted exercise in narcissism", adding that "The quality of research and editorial choices of the filmmakers are jarring and ... Walsh's journey in finding out the true definition of a woman seems to come from his decades-long affair with misogyny and not genuine curiosity".[41] AJ Eckert of Science-Based Medicine called the film "every bit as much of a science-denying propaganda film disguised as a documentary as antivax films like Vaxxed or the anti-evolution film Expelled!, and such films tend to be potent messaging tools", concluding that "Walsh clearly did not set out to honestly seek answers to a perplexing question, even if they are complex. Instead, he started with a conclusion and then sought out sources to support that conclusion, no matter how dubious the source, making this film an exercise, not in honest truth-seeking but rather motivated reasoning."[3] Some of those open to Walsh's perspective, such as Zoran Jankovi of the Serbian magazine Vreme, nevertheless said it had propagandistic aspects.[42] Adam Zivo of the Canadian newspaper The National Post, who agreed there was "absurdity" in the rhetoric of some LGBTQ activists, said it used "bad-faith storytelling to rile up audiences while oversimplifying complex issues", most present in the focus on "'gotcha' moments with his interviewees".[21] John Kendall Hawkins of CounterPunch, who called the film "more conservative silliness", concluded that it "just adds to the relentless white noise we can't seem to escape and adds nothing to our humanity. The film is not worth watching, but its posture is worth noting."[43]

The film's only frequent major criticism from those in favor of Walsh's point of view was not doing enough with its goals, such as its exploration of the topic and not drilling down his more "potent" questions.[59][46][50][20][56] Jason Whitlock of Blaze Media criticized it for not mentioning God or Christianity, saying that "it fights a spiritual war on secular terms" and that "before we answer 'what is a woman,' we need to relearn the meaning of being Christian."[60] Both Hayton and Bartosch wrote that the film would have benefited from interviewing gender-critical feminist critics who have also looked askew at similar gender concepts over the years, such as American feminist Janice Raymond, English writer Julie Bindel, Irish journalist Helen Joyce, British philosopher Kathleen Stock, American journalist Abigail Shrier and WDI USA president Kara Dansky.[61][62] A couple of pro-Walsh reviews also questioned the film's balance. Mathew De Sousa of The Catholic Weekly said it "provides a fair scope of both leftist and conservative beliefs on core gender issues", but that it "could be a more robust resource for Christians if a little more time was given to those arguments against gender ideology and the transgender agenda."[63] Brett McCracken of The Gospel Coalition added that "a bit more empathy could have strengthened Walsh's case", criticizing his "name-calling" of transgender people as "not a great tactic in persuasion, nor in evangelism."[64]

Every woman has a well-stocked arsenal of anger potentially useful against those oppressions, personal and institutional, which brought that anger into being. Focused with precision it can become a powerful source of energy serving progress and change. And when I speak of change, I do not mean a simple switch of positions or a temporary lessening of tensions, nor the ability to smile or feel good. I am speaking of a basic and radical alteration in those assumptions underlining our lives.

I have seen situations where white women hear a racist remark, resent what has been said, become filled with fury, and remain silent because they are afraid. That unexpressed anger lies within them like an undetonated device, usually to be hurled at the first woman of Color who talks about racism.

Anger is an appropriate reaction to racist attitudes, as is fury when the actions arising from those attitudes do not change. To those women here who fear the anger of women of Color more than their own unscrutinized racist attitudes, I ask: Is the anger of women of Color more threatening than the woman-hatred that tinges all aspects of our lives?

I am a lesbian woman of Color whose children eat regularly because I work in a university. If their full bellies make me fail to recognize my commonality with a woman of Color whose children do not eat because she cannot find work, or who has no children because her insides are rotted from home abortions and sterilization; if I fail to recognize the lesbian who chooses not to have children, the woman who remains closeted because her homophobic community is her only life support, the woman who chooses silence instead of another death, the woman who is terrified lest my anger trigger the explosion of hers; if I fail to recognize them as other faces of myself, then I am contributing not only to each of their oppressions but also to my own, and the anger which stands between us then must be used for clarity and mutual empowerment, not for evasion by guilt or for further separation. I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own. And I am not free as long as one person of Color remains chained. Nor is anyone of you.

In order to solve successfully the problem of making a business profitable, the woman who either must or will earn her own living needs to discover a field of work for which there is a good demand, in which there is not too great competition, and which her individual tastes render in some way congenial.

The range of paying work in photography is wide, and most of it quite within the reach of a bright, resourceful woman. Regular professional portraiture is lucrative if it is made artistic and distinctive, but it involves training, considerable capital, an establishment with several employees, and a good deal of clever advertising. Under these circumstances the most successful way would be to gravitate into studio portraiture after a few years of careful apprenticeship and experience in other lines.

The training necessary to produce good work is, after all, probably the most difficult part of the problem of making photography pay. While there are few schools of photography in the large cities, most of them are designed to help the amateur out of her difficulties rather than to give a thorough and practical training for the business. Experience, therefore, is about the only reliable teacher, and the quickest way to obtain it is to serve an apprenticeship in the establishment of some professional photographer, who has a good knowledge of his profession. Unfortunately for the tyro, most of these neither have neither time nor inclination to teach photographic processes, but there is frequently a chance of obtaining employment in photographic studios in consideration of the experience to be acquired. Even if a woman finds such an opportunity it is most important that she learn to think for herself, and to keep her own ideas and individuality in her work.

Photographic portraiture should prove as charming and congenial as a field for artistic effort as a woman could desire; and that it is lucrative is well demonstrated by many women who are successfully established in the business. To properly conduct a photographic studio experience, training and capital are required. Nothing more, however, than is necessary to enter other professions, with the added advantage that, for the start, photography is usually made to pay something.

The ideal studio is, of course, the one built or remodeled to suit the exact needs of the photographer. But, in most instances, the woman entering professional photography will be obliged to content herself with what she can find ready to her use.

Above everything else be resourceful, doing your best with what you have until you are able to obtain what you would like. Resource, a good sense, a cultivated taste and hard work for a combination that seldom fails to success in a country like ours, where a woman needs only the courage to enter and profession suitable to her talents and within her powers of accomplishment.

"What Is A Woman" features Walsh exploring "the changing concepts of sex and gender in the digital age, particularly the transgender rights movement, anti-transgender bigotry, and what it means to be a woman," according to a movie summary.

In 1890, the NWSA and AWSA merged into the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). It became the largest woman suffrage organization in the country and led much of the struggle for the vote through 1920, when the 19th Amendment was ratified. Stanton became its president; Anthony became its vice president; and Stone became chairman of the executive committee. In 1919, one year before women gained the right to vote with the adoption of the 19th amendment, the NAWSA reorganized into the League of Women Voters.

Wealthy white women were not the only supporters of women's suffrage. Frederick Douglass, formerly enslaved and leader of the abolition movement, was also an advocate. He attended the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. In an editorial published that year in The North Star, the anti-slavery newspaper he published, he wrote, "...in respect to political rights,...there can be no reason in the world for denying to woman the elective franchise,..." By 1877, when he was U.S. marshal for the District of Columbia, Douglass's family was also involved in the movement. His son, Frederick Douglass, Jr.; daughter, Mrs. Nathan Sprague; and son-in-law, Nathan Sprague, all signed a petition to Congress for woman suffrage "...to prohibit the several States from Disfranchising United States Citizens on account of Sex." ff782bc1db