Today on the show, we'll talk about how the Left is already in the process of normalizing pedophilia. Also, a feminist wrote a viral column complaining that she was oppressed in her marriage because she had to cook for an ungrateful husband. We hear a lot about the plight of the unappreciated wife, but what about unappreciated husbands? Finally, a mother gives her child the craziest name of all time. Why do parents curse their children with weird names? Date: 11-29-2018
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the show, are children really old enough to consent to changing their gender?
Obviously not, but the consequences of treating them like they are old enough could be dire.
We'll talk about that.
Also, a feminist has penned a column declaring that she will never cook for a man ever again, and I have some thoughts about that.
And finally, a mother has given her daughter the craziest name you've ever heard.
All of that coming up on the Matt Wall Show.
Okay, so this actually happened.
I kept seeing this thing online about how somebody complained that the Lord of the Rings is racist against orcs, and I saw that and I really honestly thought that it must have originated with the Babylon Bee or something like that, but no, it's real.
A guy named Andrew Duncan on the Geek's Guide to the Galaxy podcast really said, he really argued in all sincerity, that Tolkien was racist Because he depicted some creatures as being worse than others, and this has had, these are his words, quote, dire consequences for society, because of the racism that was generated in that story against orcs.
Which, you know, he's not wrong.
I read Lord of the Rings myself when I was in middle school, And from then on, I harbored this deep bigotry towards undead goblins that have been mined out of the earth by evil wizards.
And I never really thought of it until now, but I really did hate them.
I wanted nothing to do with them.
I didn't want to sit next to them.
And I've been like this my whole life.
But now I finally have a chance to confront that prejudice and repent of it.
So I appreciate that.
All right, we talked yesterday about the case of James.
James is the six-year-old child in Texas at the center of a custody dispute.
His mother wants him to be a girl named Luna and insists that he's transgender, puts him in dresses, all that stuff.
But then when he's with his dad, James just wants to be James and he wants to be a boy and do boy things and go by the name James.
He doesn't want to wear dresses.
Now, his dad is trying to rescue him from all this madness and let him just be a boy like he is and like he wants to be, but the mom is accusing the dad of child abuse.
The mom, who is trying to turn her son into a girl, is accusing the dad, who wants his son to just be his son, of child abuse for refusing to affirm James' alleged transgender identity.
I already made my points about this case, and I'm sure it wouldn't shock you.
You won't be shocked to learn that I side with the dad very strongly.
I think this child is being exploited and abused by the people who are trying to force transgenderism on him.
Not just his mother, but apparently his therapist.
But there's one other point about all this that I didn't make yesterday, and I think that needs to be made.
So I want you to think about this.
A lot of people on the left, especially the militants and the LGBT camps, especially the LGBT activists, they insist that children as young as James, as young as six years old, he's six, children even as young as five or even three, kids really at any age, they say, possess the knowledge and the foresight and the wisdom And the power to choose their own gender.
So the left has no problem with the idea of an elementary school boy transitioning into a girl.
They say, well, if that's what he chooses, then it's okay.
They have no problem even with kids, young kids taking drugs, puberty blockers, hormones, to essentially chemically castrate themselves, even if temporarily, in order to facilitate this transition.
They think that kids can consent to that.
Now, this raises a very important question, I think.
If a child is too young to consent to having sex, how is he at the same time old enough to consent to changing his sex?
I mean, the consent laws are based on the correct idea That children do not have the mental or physical capacity to really fully consent to sexual activity.
They are not able to consent to it because they don't have a full concept of what it even is.
And because they're young kids, they also don't have the power in any situation to consent, to say no.
So that's why we have the consent age where it is.
That's why we say that kids can't consent.
But if they don't have that capacity, how are they possibly able to choose to transition?
If they can't choose to have sex, how can they choose to transition?
If they don't have the wisdom and the knowledge and all of that, and the maturity for one of those things, how do they have it for the other?
So obviously there's a contradiction here.
The people that are pushing transgenderism on kids are also at the same time, by necessity, pushing an entirely different idea about consent and about the mental capacities and the maturity of children.
Which is why I believe the people that are pushing transgenderism will soon enough be pushing pedophilia.
The two things kind of go hand in hand.
Because in order to make their case that kids can make this choice, they have to tell us that actually, no, kids have all the knowledge and power and maturity that they need.
So when pedophilia is normalized in our culture, and I think that it will be soon enough, this is the vehicle by which it will reach that state of normalization.
And this is the reason why.
This is one of the reasons why this issue really matters.
This is why it's important.
Because what we're seeing here is an attack on kids, an attack on childhood.
And it's not going to stop with just this.
It's not going to stop with just the transgender stuff.
Nothing ever stops.
You know, you never get to a point, especially with the left, when they're... They never stop, if you've noticed.
Once they achieve one thing, they get to one landmark, they're going to want to go on to the next.
That's how it always works.
So soon enough, the people that are saying that kids are old enough to consent to changing their sex will also be arguing that kids are old enough to consent to having sex.
And this is not some kind of like far-fetched scenario, okay?
Pedophilia has been in the past and is now today in some cultures considered normal.
Ancient pagan cultures had no problem with it.
It's a relatively normal practice in some parts of the world even today.
So it's by no means impossible or even implausible that we in our culture could slide back into that state of things.
But there has to be a catalyst for it.
There has to be something that sparks the change.
And I think this is it.
This is what will spark it.
And so this is why we need to pay attention.
Okay, a couple other things I wanted to discuss.
There's a piece that's been going viral over the last few days.
It's been pushed out, especially by the feminist corners of the internet.
And it originates from Glamour Magazine's website, which is a website that I personally check every day, as I'm sure you do as well.
And the article is titled, I'm a great cook.
Now that I'm divorced, I'm never making dinner for a man again.
And the pull quote right under the title says, I stopped cooking because I wanted to feel as unencumbered as a man walking through the door with the expectation that something had been done for him.
The piece written by Liz Lenz talks about the oppression that she experienced in her marriage when she was forced to cook all the time.
And this seems to really be resonating with a lot of people who are reading it.
So, the article starts like this.
It says, When my marriage fell apart, I stopped cooking.
I gave my children frozen chicken nuggets, pizza, quesadillas, or their favorite cheese sticks, nuts, fruit, crackers, veggies, all displayed on a hand-me-down china platter.
Now they eat like fancy ladies, as my first grader says, piling her little paper plate with nuts and grapes.
I live off of bags, salads, rotisserie chicken, and whiskey.
That makes two of us.
Except for the salad part.
I stopped cooking because I was tired.
The kind of tired where your face vibrates and your eyes throb.
Too tired to care what I put in my mouth.
And my children, then six and four, only wanted to eat Go-Gurts and Cheez-Its anyway.
The person who cared was my husband.
I had been cooking for him for 12 years.
When we first married and moved to Iowa, I couldn't find a job.
I spent my days cooking.
I worked my way through the joy of cooking.
Mastering pastry dough for Beef Wellington, so on and so forth.
She talks about all the things that she made, hoping that when he came home, my husband would sit down and taste them and say, thank you.
But he doesn't say thank you.
And then it goes on.
It's pretty lengthy, talking about all the things she cooked.
And then we get to the climactic moment.
She says, and then one night, as my daughter watched TV, my toddler screamed from the living room, and the water boiled, collecting steam on the windows.
I broke.
I cut and chopped and desperately looked at a recipe on my phone.
My back burned with frustration.
My feet ached from standing.
The steam flushed my cheeks and I wondered at the molecules that could escape from the heat as I stood there, spatula in hand.
It's hard for me to understand when cooking became more repression than liberation, more act of obligation than act of creation.
But I knew it then.
This thing that had sustained me now felt like a prison.
And whose fault was it?
It certainly wasn't all my husband's fault.
After all, hadn't I wanted to cook?
Hadn't I enjoyed it?
In the tangle of performance and purpose, in my quest to make a home and love, I had created elaborate offerings which were consumed and judged, and yet afforded me no redemption, no grace, no more than four out of five stars.
That night, I dumped the water in the sink, tossed the ingredients in the trash.
I poured myself a glass of wine and threw some frozen chicken nuggets in the microwave.
When my husband came home, we were already eating.
That was the last time I cooked for two years.
And then she talks about how she would spend her days.
I would wake up at 5 in the morning and go work out.
Then I'd come home, get the kids ready for school, drop them off, come back to the house and cry.
I was supposed to be working but mostly I just sat and stared at the Word document that had become my daily journal and I wept.
Then I would try to nap in the guest room until it was time to pick up the kids from school.
So basically this is a I would say a tad dramatic self-pitying that's going on here.
I mean, she paints it as if she's in some kind of like POW camp or something like that, when all she's doing is just making a meal for her family.
But my back aches, my feet were burning from cooking all day.
I mean, yeah, look, you know, fine.
It seems that she's upset mainly about the perceived, so if we could put all the drama aside and everything like that, and cooking is supposed to be an act of redemption.
You know, I don't even know what that means.
I don't think it's supposed, it's not supposed to be an act of redemption.
It's just something that you do because people need to eat in the house.
And so I don't, you know, I don't think it needs to be this great poetic moment every single time you do it.
But it seems that she's upset.
And I think there are many different ways you could go with this.
But there's also a point here to be made about something that seems to be common, especially in my generation and younger generations.
Where we kind of, we don't like anything that's an obligation.
We don't think that anything should be an obligation.
We think that everything we do should have this great deep purpose and we should find deep fulfillment in everything that we do.
She talks about, no, it shouldn't be an obligation.
It should be an act of creation.
And so we want everything we do to be this creative expression of our innermost being.
But that's not how life works.
Not everything you do is going to be that way.
In fact, if you're going to be a competent and mature adult, especially if you're going to be a parent, and you're going to be a contributing member of a family, most of the things you do on a daily basis are just kind of mundane tasks that need to be done.
You know, when I take the garbage out, I'm not asking myself, what am I getting out of this?
You know, taking the garbage out used to be this fulfilling act of self-affirmation, but now I feel like it's just a drudgery.
All I'm doing is, no, I don't have that crisis.
The garbage needs to be taken out, so I just take it out.
That's all.
Not everything has to be fulfilling.
You just do it because it needs to be done.
And it seems like people these days struggle with this concept that there are things you do, there are a lot of things you do, just because they need to be done and for no other reason.
And if you're going to stop doing things that need to be done, and only do the things that you find fulfilling, then you're going to end up like the writer of this piece.
You just spend your days crying and napping, because the thing is, there aren't that many fulfilling things to do in a day.
If you say to yourself, I'm only going to fill my day with fulfilling things, then it's just... You're just going to end up on your bed crying, I guess, which is what unfortunately happened to this woman.
It seems mainly that she's upset about the perceived lack of appreciation and gratitude on her husband's part.
And listen, gratitude is very important in a marriage.
If somebody makes you a meal, you should say thank you.
You should appreciate it.
It can be deadly in a marriage if one or both spouses feel that the other is not grateful, doesn't care, doesn't appreciate.
But You know, as I'm reading this and I'm thinking about how much it apparently resonates with some women on the internet, a lot of women apparently, I couldn't help but notice something.
Maybe you noticed the same thing.
First of all, She says that at first she didn't have a job.
Her husband worked to support the family.
She didn't have a job.
Then she alludes to a job later on, so I guess she got a job later, but she says that she wouldn't do her job and instead she would go to the gym, take a nap, and then go pick the kids up.
So it seems like from this, it seems like her husband was the primary person in the family supporting everyone in earning a paycheck.
That's what it would seem like from how she presented it.
So I have to wonder, Did she appreciate that?
Was she grateful?
So, she wanted a thank you for the meals that she prepared.
Fair enough.
And she should get a thank you.
But did she ever thank him for working?
Maybe she did, but the way she tells the story, she paints her husband as this oaf who did nothing but eat.
Did she treat him that way during the marriage?
Did she treat him that way in spite of all the work that he was doing to sustain the family?
Did she ever say thank you to him?
When he walked in the door from work, did she ever say thank you for the work you did today?
When he brought home the paycheck, did she ever say thank you for that?
If she was expecting gratitude and appreciation, did she ever give it in return?
As I said, I don't know.
But you have to wonder what his side of the story would be.
And you wonder if he went to work every day, long hours, supporting his family, unappreciated.
You wonder if he felt that there was no gratitude for his contributions.
You wonder if he noticed the resentment from his wife when he got home each day.
Because apparently, you know, eventually she started to really hate the fact that she had to cook a meal, and you wonder if he noticed that.
And he would walk in to a resentful, spiteful wife, you wonder, you know?
You wonder how he felt when he came home after a long day's work.
And, as she says, his family was already eating without him.
Couldn't even be bothered to wait!
He walks in, he's been working hard all day, and his wife has, you know, got the feet kicked up, having some wine, they've already eaten without him.
You wonder how he felt about that.
But here's the thing.
If he was feeling just as fed up as his wife, if he was tired too, if his back was aching and his knees hurt and all that stuff, if he was having all those same feelings, he couldn't just stop working.
She apparently decided to stop contributing to the family at a certain point.
That's what she said.
She would just go to the gym and take a nap.
But I assume he couldn't do that.
Someone had to support the family.
He had to continue on.
You have to wonder how he felt about that.
There's a lot of this kind of stuff online.
There are many, many articles that have been written about the unappreciated wife.
Many movies have been made that deal with that theme.
Many TV shows have dealt with it.
This is a common thing that you hear.
This is emphasized, that women need to be appreciated.
And we see these kinds of stories all the time about the unappreciated wife.
And that's, you know, women do need to be appreciated in a marriage.
That's definitely true.
But that fact, at least, is generally emphasized in our culture.
The reverse is not emphasized.
Hardly at all.
It seems that women are rarely encouraged to be grateful for their husbands.
That's just not something that you see very often.
Now, fortunately, I feel a lot of appreciation in my marriage, and I try to give appreciation, too.
I hope that I give it as much as I should, although I'm sure I can be better at it than I am.
But I do know for sure that there are a lot of men who feel just like the writer of this article feels, and perhaps with more justification than she had.
Yet their plight isn't taken as seriously.
And if they complained, they would probably just be called lazy deadbeats and told to just, you know, get their act together and do what they needed to do.
I mean, can you imagine an article from a man complaining that his wife never thanked him when he got home from work each day, so eventually he just stopped going to work?
Can you imagine that?
Do you think that article would be well-received?
Because I don't think it would be.
Look, the point is, Gratitude and appreciation are extremely important in a marriage in both directions.
They are absolutely essential, going both ways.
Husband to wife, wife to husband.
The wife's job, the mother's job, is difficult.
There's no question about that.
Whether she works outside of the home or whether she doesn't, it is difficult to be a mother and to be a wife.
No question.
But the man's job, the husband's job, the father's job, is also difficult.
And if one of them is home and the other is out working, it's wrong for the person who's out working to treat the other like they don't do anything all day and they don't contribute to the family.
That's wrong.
But it's also wrong in the other direction.
It's wrong for the one who's at home dealing with the kids and all that stuff to treat the other person like they're on vacation when they go to work, because work is not a vacation.
To support a family is not a vacation.
It's a difficult thing to do.
So either attitude from either direction is deadly to a marriage.
Both are completely wrong.
And you just have to wonder.
I think this is something that we all have to think about.
And if you're feeling unappreciated in your marriage, and you're feeling like your spouse isn't grateful for the things that you do, I think you have to stop and ask yourself, okay, do I appreciate them?
Do I express gratitude to them?
Is it possible that they feel exactly like I feel?
Is it even possible that my own lack of appreciation and gratitude is what precipitated their lack of it?
Is it possible that they're now resentful because of me?
Did it really start with me?
I mean, these are questions... In the article, she never grapples with that question at all.
She never, in the article, stops to wonder, hey, you know, I wonder what my role in this whole thing is.
And so it's no surprise that the marriage fell apart.
Because if both or even one person in a marriage is not willing to look at themselves critically, then again, that's just going to be deadly for a marriage.
One last thing.
A mother is very angry because she heard a Southwest gate agent at the airport making fun of her daughter's name.
Her daughter's name is spelled A-B-C-D-E.
The letters, A, B, C, D, E. That's what she named her daughter.
It's pronounced Ab-City.
Ab-City.
Ab-City.
Anyway, I think Ab-City?
The mother, Tracy Redford, well, she has a normal name, but she couldn't give her daughter one.
The mother says, the gate agent started laughing, pointing at me and my daughter, talking to the other employees, so I turned around and said, hey, I can hear you.
And if I can hear you, my daughter can hear you, so I'd appreciate it if you'd just stop.
While I was sitting there, she took a picture of my boarding pass and chose to post it on social media, mocking my daughter.
It was actually brought to my attention by somebody who had seen it on Facebook, and I reported it to Southwest Airlines.
Southwest hadn't done anything yet.
Now, listen.
Obviously, it's wrong to put it on social media, and they shouldn't be making fun of the daughter, but whose fault is it?
I mean, what did you think would happen?
You can't give your child an insane, ridiculous name, and then act surprised when people react to it.
What did you think is going to happen?
You give her the name A, B, C, D, E. It's not possible to react to that in any other way.
It would take immense self-control to read that name with a straight face.
It would be very difficult to do.
So here's my message to all parents.
Your kid has to live with the name that you give him, at least until he's old enough to change it, which means he's definitely going to go through grade school, at the very least, with whatever name you hung around his neck.
So do him a favor and give him a normal name.
Don't be selfish about it.
Don't try to be cute.
Don't worry about what's trendy.
Just give him a normal name.
He deserves a normal name.
You have a normal name, so give him one.
Not a name that needs to be explained.
Not a name that will elicit instinctive laughter from anyone who sees it or hears it.
If it is a name that he is going to have to explain and justify for the rest of his life, then don't give it to him.
The name is a curse then, so don't do that.
Now, if you want to give something a crazy name, then get a pet.
This is one of the only advantages of having a pet, is that you can name it whatever you want, and it doesn't matter.
So, get a gerbil, and you can get that out of your system.
That's my recommendation.
If you really feel like you want to give your kids some crazy name, go get a gerbil or a hamster instead, and get it out of your system.
Give the name to the gerbil.
Or to your dog, or whatever.
It doesn't matter.
You could, to name a pet, you could just mix up some Scrabble titles, take some Scrabble tiles and mix them up in a bag and then spill them on the table, and whatever comes out, just make that the name.
Oh, I guess we're going to call our dog Pluffnew.
You know, whatever, it doesn't matter.
But, don't do that to your child.
We named our dog after, um, After one of my favorite bourbon distilleries, Weller.
We named the dog Weller.
It was either that or name him after an obscure Civil War general.
Now, I would never do that to a child.
I would never name a child after bourbon.
But I figure, it's a dog, why not?
So, do it to your pet.
Give them whatever name you want.
Not to your child.
Your child should just have a normal name.
There are probably about, I don't know, you know, for either gender, there's probably There are probably 100, 200 names that are perfectly normal and fine.