All Episodes
Previous Next
June 10, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
46:57
Ep. 272 - How The Left Normalizes Abuse

Today on the show, we will discuss the Left’s increasingly disturbing and grotesque efforts to normalize pedophilia. We are headed to a very dark place in our culture. Also, a Democratic presidential candidate reaches the most extreme levels of pandering imaginable. And a feminist presents the only honest argument for abortion you’ll ever hear. Date: 06-10-19 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on The Matt Walsh Show, we're going to talk about the left's increasingly disturbing and grotesque efforts to normalize pedophilia.
We are headed to a very dark place in this culture, and I think we need to discuss it.
Also, a Democratic presidential candidate reaches the most extreme levels of pandering imaginable, and a feminist presents what I think is the only honest argument for abortion that you will ever hear.
So we'll talk about that today as well on The Matt Walsh Show.
All right, I'm back.
Back with a surgically repaired Achilles, so I'm good as new.
Well, not really good as new.
I've got a six to eight month recovery process, which is kind of depressing because that's a long time.
But, you know, I'm on the road to recovery, which is nice.
One note about the surgery, though, because, you know, the great thing, maybe the number one benefit of having kids is that they keep you humble.
I think that's, and here's a wonderful example of that from after I got back from the surgery.
So I got home on Wednesday, it was an outpatient thing.
So I got home from the operation.
I'm hobbling inside, feeling not very good.
I still have the effects of the anesthesia and I'm feeling nauseous from that and it hurts because I just got surgery.
So I've got to get upstairs to my bed, which is where I'm going to end up spending the next 48 hours.
And the only way that I can get up to the bed in that condition is to crawl.
So I'm crawling up the steps to get to my room and my six-year-old daughter comes in and she sees me crawling up the steps and she starts laughing hysterically at this sight of her dad crawling up the steps.
And she's going, oh my gosh, look at daddy, he's crawling.
And then she calls to her brothers in the next room.
Say, hey, come here, look at this.
Daddy, he's crawling.
He's like a dog.
Yeah, like a dog.
Come look, look, look at this.
And then they're both just standing there as I'm crawling up the steps, you know, in pain, grimacing.
And they're just laughing.
This is the funniest thing they'd ever seen in their life.
And so, anyway, I'm going to put them in sensitivity training for that because you just, it is not PC to laugh at a cripple as he crawls up the steps.
I mean, I get it.
But still, actually I explained to them that if you want to laugh at the misfortunes of others, you need to do it like an adult.
And that means waiting until they leave the room.
And then you laugh at them.
So it's an important life lesson.
Alright, a lot to cover as I play catch up here, but first...
Before we get to all that, a word from our friends at Noom.
Getting in shape isn't just about losing weight, it's about learning healthier habits.
That's where it really sticks.
That's where you get the lifestyle change.
And it's also about feeling better about yourself, whether that's more stamina to keep up with with your kids and your busy life or being more in tune
with your body's needs, practicing better self-care, whatever it is. What if you
could use just one program for all of that, for all your health and weight loss needs? No more hunting
for training apps and workouts, calorie trackers, meal plans, all that stuff. What if you
could get it all under one roof, so to speak? And that's where Noom comes in.
The great thing about Noom is that it works no matter your situation, your age, whatever it is.
It works for you.
I know for my specific situation, now that with my injury, I'm looking for something that will keep me healthy, keep my energy up, keep me feeling good, keep me from gaining 50 pounds as I'm laying around the couch.
even though I can't do all the things that I normally physically would do.
And Noom is great for that as well.
So Noom is a habit-changing solution that helps users learn to develop
a new relationship with food through personalized courses.
It's based in psychology.
So Noom teaches you why you do the things you do, and it arms you with the tools to break the bad habits
and to replace them with good habits.
That's the name of the game.
You don't have to change it all in one day.
Small steps make big progress.
So sign up for your trial today, your trial at Noom, Noom.com.
Okay, that's N-O-O-M.com slash Walsh.
You really don't have anything to lose except for the weight you want to lose.
Visit noom.com slash Walsh to start your trial today.
That's noom.com slash Walsh, the last weight loss program that you'll ever need.
All right.
Where do we start?
Okay.
Well, let's start with this.
Twitter announced last week that they're going to have a zero-tolerance policy for child sexual exploitation, which is good, if they actually followed their own policy, which they don't.
Because on almost the exact same day that they announced this, they reasserted this policy, Vice posted a video, which I'll play for you in a minute, but this video both portrays and glorifies child sexual exploitation.
And yet it has been allowed to remain on Twitter's platform.
Even though I know a bunch of people reported it, I reported it, but no response from Twitter and it still remains.
The Vice video, as you'll see in a second here, is a kind of fun and whimsical look at the, quote, community of young boys who dress in women's clothing and dance for the perverted entertainment of adults.
It is disturbing, I'll warn you, but I think it's important that you see what we're talking about.
So here's some of that video.
Be fierce.
Be yourself.
And if anybody bullies you, stand up for yourself.
Fight back.
Make me president!
What's happening?
Guess who's way taller than you again?
What?
I'm not going to be president.
I'm not going to be president.
Guess who's way taller than you again?
Drag Kids is a new documentary directed by Megan Wenberg that follows four drag obsessed kids from different cities.
I want to show you the transparent dress.
Because it's so cute.
It may or may not fit you, I'm not quite sure.
I'm going to a drag brunch to meet with the young performers and ask them about the community that they've found with their fellow drag kids.
You just fall in love with each of them for so many different reasons because they're all really incredible.
The fact that these kids are brave enough to do something that is so different hopefully would give other people courage to try.
So Vice proudly announces that these children are the next generation of drag queens, but they're not really a part of the next generation.
They are the current generation.
They're the current crop, I guess you might say, of a new type of, quote, drag performer.
I should say, well, I say new, but really just new in the West.
In Western civilization, this is new.
But if you go over in places like Afghanistan, this has been customary for a long time.
Very customary to have young boys in female attire dance for the pleasure of grown men.
And in Afghanistan, the boys will be brought out, they'll dance for the grown men.
And then the boys oftentimes will be brought somewhere and sexually abused.
So it's a very similar sort of thing.
We have adopted a similar custom, but we have done it under the guise of progressivism.
In Afghanistan, it's always very interesting to see how you've got these fundamentalist Muslims, and this is what they're doing, and then you've got progressives in our country.
It's interesting to see how often These two ideologies mirror each other, and this is just one area where they do.
The left, if you haven't noticed, has become increasingly obsessed with dressing boys up like girls and parading them around.
Literally parading them around in some cases, like when the LA Pride Parade last week, they had a seven-year-old boy strutting In high heels.
Strutting is the word that the media used when describing, in a celebratory fashion, describing this boy, seven-year-old boy in high heels and a skirt at the front of the L.A.
Pride Parade.
And, you know, if you think I'm joking about the left's obsession with this, well, here is another video.
This one's from Huffington Post.
This one was also posted in the last couple of days, also ended up on Twitter and has remained there.
So these are two videos, one from Vice and one from Huffington Post, about drag kids.
Here's the Huffington Post one.
I was born in Pride Month in the year 2007.
Gay pride means self-expression to me.
Hi, I'm Desmond is Amazing.
I'm 10 years old and I'm a drag kid and I live in New York City and I am an LGBTQ activist
and advocate.
I discovered that I wanted to drag when I watched the first episode of RuPaul's Drag
Race when I was two.
Then I moved on to, like, little dresses.
Then I moved on to making outfits.
I got my inspiration from designers like Alexander McQueen, Betsey Johnson, Comme des Garçons, Jean-Paul Gaultier, the Club Kids, their fashion and the makeup, not the bad things, the Blitz Kids of London.
And if you wanted to drag, just start off with a little wig and some lip gloss and a little t-shirt and a little skirt and some heels or sneakers, whatever.
You can be a drag queen no matter what.
So you see that the left really, really, really wants to push this stuff.
It's become like a weekly occurrence.
Or more than that.
They want little boys to dress like girls.
They really want it.
And what you find is that little attempt is made anymore to hide the sexual nature of the drag kid phenomenon.
Now, if you confront the leftist about this directly, of course, they're going to say, oh, what are you talking about?
There's nothing sexual about this.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you've got little boys in dresses dancing for grown men, but that's nothing.
You're the one, something wrong with you that you would think of as sexual.
So that's how they'll respond if you confront them about it directly.
But then, when you look at what they're actually doing, it has become more and more sexual.
You may remember, for instance, the, quote, drag kid who posed with a naked man.
And that picture was posted on Instagram a couple of months ago.
Now, I'm not going to put that picture up for you.
It's out there.
If you feel like confirming what I'm talking about here, I would recommend that you don't, just so you don't subject yourself to that.
But an adult drag queen posed naked with a nine or ten year old boy who was dressed
in women's clothing.
And that was put on Instagram.
And as far as I know, allowed to stay there.
And then there was the drag kid who danced at a gay bar recently while men tossed money
at him.
This should really put into perspective for those still oblivious enough to think that
things like the drag queen story hours popping up at libraries across the country are just
a bit of harmless fun.
Occasionally, I'll come across a conservative who will say, you know, it's not a big deal.
I mean, if this is how people want to dress, what's the big deal?
Well, this is why it's a big deal, because it's part of an agenda.
These are not isolated incidents.
I mean, hundreds of libraries have hosted these events where they bring children and cross-dressing men together.
And there is, of course, no practical reason why, if you want to read a book to children, why you would need to dress in women's clothing first if you're a man.
And there's no practical reason or coherent reason why a library, if they want to have a story time, which is great for libraries to have story times.
My wife brings our kids to library story times all the time, but they're just story times, okay?
It's not drag queens, it's just the librarian is sitting there reading a book to the kids.
Great.
There's no reason why you need a man dressed up like a woman from a Tim Burton movie, which is how all drag queens dress for some reason.
There's no reason why you need someone like that reading the story.
The decision to add that rather grotesque element into the equation is purposeful.
And the purpose is to get children, boys especially, accustomed to the idea of cross-dressing.
So the sexual exploiters of children want to ensure that there's going to be a constantly refreshed supply of, well, they call them baka boys in Afghanistan, but we call them drag queens, or drag kids.
The left wants to make sure that there's a constantly refreshed supply of Drag quids.
Kids.
So, follow the trajectory, and it's not hard to see where we go next, right?
Ten years ago, there was no such thing as drag kids, or drag queens, or drag queen story hours, at least.
You had drag shows, you had drag queens, but the idea of bringing them into a library, that didn't exist ten years ago.
Drag kids, that didn't exist.
And in fact, 10 years ago, if you had looked into your crystal ball and predicted that we would end up in this spot, leftists would have laughed at you and called you a paranoid lunatic.
They would have said, what are you talking about?
Yeah, we're going to have drag queens come into libraries to read stories to kids.
What are you?
You're insane.
Come on.
You're being ridiculous.
But now that's utterly commonplace.
Yet leftists will still insist that even though grown men in dresses like to hang out with little children at libraries and adults like to go to gay bars to watch boys dance around in skirts and high heels, they'll still say that there's nothing sexual about it if you ask them directly.
But ten years from now, if you follow the trajectory, ten years from now or maybe sooner, I think what's going to happen is they're going to admit that it is sexual, but they'll insist that there's nothing wrong with a young boy and a grown man getting together so long as it's consensual.
You don't need to be Nostradamus to see the next step.
Okay?
This is not some sort of prophecy that I'm offering here.
This is just observing where we are, where we were 10 years ago, and you just follow the line.
I mean, we're on a train.
Look at the track and you can see where it's going.
There's no mystery.
There's no mystery about where a train is headed because it's on a track and it's the same for our culture right now.
That is why leftism is an active threat to our children.
And this is why we cannot compromise with it or seek common ground or try to understand where it's coming from.
What kind of common ground can a sane and moral person find with the sorts of people who think it's acceptable to have a 10-year-old boy perform at a gay bar?
I mean, me as a normal person, I just, I cannot fathom what area of agreement I could possibly find with a person like that.
We could not be further apart in every conceivable way.
And what's more is I don't want to find common ground with them.
I don't want to compromise.
I don't want to get along with them.
With these people who are doing this to kids.
I don't want to hold hands with them.
And, you know, skip merrily into a better tomorrow.
I don't want to do that.
Because this is an evil ideology through and through.
And it has to be destroyed.
Defeated.
That has to be our objective.
We defeat it, or else we just sit back and watch as our children are destroyed by it.
Those are our choices.
And it really is as simple as that.
I think it's a choice now between leftism and our children.
You can't really have both.
All right, let's liven the mood a little bit and talk about Democrats humiliating themselves.
That's kind of, it's always a fun, you know, it's a fun way to...
to pass the time. So first there's this alleged presidential candidate Eric Swalwell who is
polling at zero percent last I checked. He gave a speech over the weekend and
I almost feel bad for him for laughing at him for this but it's especially as someone who does
public speaking myself I feel like there's some bad karma laughing at someone in a situation like
this but I can't help myself. So Eric Swalwell he went hard for the applause line and he didn't
didn't land it. Watch this.
always be real with you.
I will be bold without the bold.
My wife and I, we fight insurance companies.
I'll be bold without the bold.
See, the problem is that he, first of all, it was a bad line.
I mean, what do you, how are, I don't even know what that line means.
Bold without the bold?
And especially if you're a politician and you're talking to the kind of audience that would show up to hear a politician speak, well then, it should be really easy to land an applause line.
You know, I mean, almost anything could be an applause line.
So to fumble it like that is pretty impressive, but the line made no sense.
And the problem is, when you go for the applause line and you don't get the applause, you gotta move on quickly.
So I think when Swalwell's a little bit more seasoned, he'll know that, you know, you go for the applause, you wait like just half a beat, like half a second.
And if you don't hear that applause starting, you just keep going so that maybe nobody will notice that you were expecting applause there.
So there's Eric Swalwell.
Meanwhile, Kirsten Gillibrand was at, I think, a gay bar.
I think a gay bar in Iowa, because this is Pride Month.
I'm not sure if you've heard that yet.
I'm not sure if that's been beaten into your head with a hammer quite enough yet, but it is Pride Month, if you didn't know.
So Gillibrand was at a gay bar for Pride Month and this happened.
Yes, she actually shouted did.
Gay rights at the end there.
She literally added gay, she went to a gay bar and shouted gay rights.
I mean that's actually what happened.
This isn't even pandering.
I mean this is beyond, this is uber pandering.
This is like the platonic ideal of pandering.
This is, someone came up with the word pandering Centuries ago.
And that word has been floating around out there in the ether, waiting for its most perfect physical manifestation.
And that's what this is.
Here it is.
Here it is in the form of a Democratic presidential candidate wearing a rainbow Love is Brave t-shirt at a gay bar during Pride Month shouting gay rights.
The only thing more pandering than that would be... I mean, I can't even think of anything.
Honestly, I can't think of anything.
That's it.
This is the ultimate.
This is a level of pandering that all other pandering has been reaching for but could never attain.
I mean, it's impressive.
Now, going down the list here, Joe Biden.
Joe Biden also humiliated himself last week, but I think humiliated himself in a deeper, more shameful kind of way.
Biden is taking a dive in the polls after reversing his position on the Hyde Amendment.
Now, you probably heard about that last week, but just to recap, Biden has for decades supported the Hyde Amendment.
And when I say for decades, I mean, Biden's been in politics for, you know, about 600 years, I think.
So that's a long time, you know.
For pretty much his entire career, he has supported the Hyde Amendment, which bans the taxpayer funding of abortion.
But now, after decades of supporting it, at the age of 76, he has had an epiphany.
You know, the clouds opened up, and he realized, after all this time, That, oh, you know, actually, yeah, we should force the taxpayers to fund abortion.
And reports that I've read have indicated that Alyssa Milano is the person who helped to convince him to change his position.
He was talked out of a position that he's held for like 40 years because the girl from that show from the CW talked him out of it.
This is evidence either that Joe Biden is losing his mind or that he is a gutless coward.
Maybe both.
I think I'm going with both.
Just a couple of things, though, about the Hyde Amendment and the controversy surrounding it.
Number one, about the Hyde Amendment itself, it bears keeping in mind that the Hyde Amendment bans the direct funding of abortion with tax money.
Which is good.
I mean, it's good to bed, of course.
But we should also remember that we do already indirectly fund abortion to the tune of $500 million a year.
We give $500 million a year to Planned Parenthood, which is an organization that performs 330,000 abortions a year itself.
Now, that money does not go directly to abortions, but money is fungible, which means that if we give them $500 million a year to do other stuff, then they can take the money that would have gone to that, you know, their existing money that would have gone to that other stuff has now been freed up so that it can go to abortion.
So we have, in effect, funded abortions by giving $500 million a year to Planned Parenthood.
It's kind of like, if you know that I'm a heroin addict, and I ask you to borrow $20, and then I take your $20 and I put it in my wallet with another $20 that I already had, and then I use $20, so let's say your $20, to buy lunch, And then I use the other 20 to buy heroin.
Well, you have, in essence, for all intents and purposes, you have funded the heroin purchase by freeing up my existing money for that purpose.
So you see, in other words, if I got 20 in the wallet and I put another 20 in there, it doesn't really make a difference which 20 I use to do which thing.
The fact is, now I've got 40 bucks, which I can split between the heroin and lunch, right?
So that's the way that goes with Planned Parenthood.
So we shouldn't feel, you know, this false sense of security from the Hyde Amendment, where we say, oh yeah, so we got the Hyde Amendment, at least we're not funding abortion.
We are funding abortions, in effect.
Number two, is it surprising that Biden caved on this issue?
Well, no, it's not at all.
Because as I've said many times, abortion is the central issue for the left.
It is the foundational issue.
You know, to be pro-abortion is to say, I am God.
What I want goes.
What I say is right is right.
What's good for me is good.
My truth is truth.
You know, it's relativism.
That's what the pro-abortion movement is based on, and that's what the left is based on, is founded in.
You cannot be a leftist anymore, and you certainly cannot be a Democrat on the national stage without professing that doctrine, that doctrine of relativism and narcissism.
Just like you can't be a Christian without professing the doctrine of Christ's divinity.
And in both cases, that profession has to be absolute and unquestioned and without hesitation and without reservation or qualification.
That's the way that a doctrine works.
Now, theoretically, you can profess the pro-abortion doctrine without believing that it should be free, without believing that the taxpayer should fund it, necessarily.
But if you fail to support free abortions, that's going to make leftists suspicious.
They're going to say, OK, now wait a minute.
Do you really worship at the altar of baby murder or not?
Because you say you do, yet you don't want to fund them and you don't want them to be free.
And then, you know, leftists are going to say, well, why should we go?
Why should we support you when we've got this person over here who is far more invested in this sacrament?
So this is quite literally the deal with the devil that any modern Democrat must be prepared to make.
And if there is a Democrat right now who's running for president, who's on the national stage, That means that they have made that deal, or they are prepared to make it.
Now, this I think will clarify things a little bit.
To understand why the left supports abortion, it's helpful to know what their arguments are.
And we've talked a lot about what the pro-abortion arguments are, such as they are, or what the argument, I guess I should say, what the argument singular is.
Because you know the arguments, the arguments they present, the things they say, the talking points that they put out there to justify abortion.
But most of those are not real arguments.
They're just smokescreens to cover the real motivation, the real argument.
And that, you know, the real motivation, the real argument, was just helpfully expressed recently by a feminist by the name of Sophie Lewis, who is the author of a book called Full Surrogacy Now, Feminism Against Family.
Feminism Against Family.
It's a very revealing, um, but kind of redundant title.
And, uh, she had, uh, she also had some revealing things to say about abortion in an interview, uh, I guess when she was talking about the book, and this is what she had to say.
Watch this.
We're facing a really terrifying attack on abortion in the US where I live, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
In the past, the strategies that our side has tended to use have included a kind of seeding of ground to our enemies.
We tend to say that abortion is indeed very bad, but Or we say, luckily it's not killing, luckily it's just a healthcare right.
We have very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion, and I'm interested in winning radically.
And I wonder if we could think about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work.
Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognise how controversial this is, a form of killing.
It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.
I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.
I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as sort of continuous processes.
The other end of the spectrum is the process of learning how to die well and hold each other and let each other go at the end of our lives as well as at the beginning.
But looking at the biology of this kind of haemochorial placentation helps me think about the violence that, innocently, a fetus meets out vis-a-vis a gestator.
And that violence is an unacceptable violence for someone who doesn't want to do gestational work.
Okay, so there you go.
And that's really, that's good.
It's good that she says this, I mean, because it's honest.
exit that that workplace is unacceptable violence.
Okay, so there you go.
And that's really, that's good.
It's good that she says this.
I mean, because it's honest.
And this is the one honest, coherent, pro-abortion argument.
It's the one pro-abortion argument that makes sense.
Now, it's deranged.
It's morally deranged.
It's horrifying.
It's ghastly.
But it makes sense from a certain perspective.
If you're coming from an entirely selfish perspective, where you don't care about morality, You don't care about other people, and you're just living for yourself.
From that perspective, then yeah, that makes sense.
Sure.
She says, and you know, she admits it, she says abortion is killing.
She says she doesn't care when life begins.
Maybe life begins in the womb.
She's willing to concede that.
She says that the unborn life is innocent.
You know, she uses the word innocent in there.
So she surrenders all that ground.
She stops disputing any of that.
And she says that she thinks pro-abortion people shouldn't dispute any of that.
And she says, yeah, but a woman should still be able to commit this act of violence against the innocent Because they shouldn't have to be pregnant if they don't want to be.
And I think another even more simple way of putting that is, I should be able to get an abortion because I want to.
That really is the argument.
Putting everything else aside, personhood, the humanity of the unborn, you know, rape and incest exceptions, and just putting all that to the side.
The fundamental argument that this woman is presenting is, I want to do it, and so I should be able to do it.
That's really what it comes down to.
And it is, as I say, the only coherent pro-abortion argument Because it avoids making any scientifically disprovable claims.
Most pro-abortion arguments you hear can be scientifically disproven in five seconds.
Like, we can prove scientifically that an unborn, that a quote-unquote fetus is a human being.
That's very easy to prove.
Just pick up any biology textbook and you can demonstrate that fact.
But here, it sidesteps all of that, and for someone to say, well, I should be able to do it because I want to, that's not a scientific claim at all.
So you can't use science against that.
Now you're getting into morality and philosophy and all of that.
So I, for one, am glad that this woman put this out there.
I'm happy when pro-abortion people make this argument.
Because it is honest, and it lays bare the pro-abortion position.
It shows you what really lies at the bottom of it, which is just absolute, uncompromising selfishness.
And what I would encourage, you know, any pro-abortion person who Watches that video, or hears that footage, and just kind of recoils from it, and says, oh, well, wait a second.
It's good that you're recoiling, but you should stop for a minute and think.
What she's presented there is a coherent, although horrible, argument.
Can you think of a of a coherent argument for abortion that is not horrible?
Because as I said, all the personhood stuff, the humanity stuff, that all, that's scientifically disproven.
So if you're a pro-abortion person, and you hear that and you recoil, maybe that should tell you something about your position.
Maybe you should ask yourself whether or not you actually want to be aligned with people who profess that philosophy.
Just something to think about.
All right, let's go to emails.
This is from Emily, says, Dear Future Supreme Overlord, I'm a new listener, so I'm not sure if you've already discussed this or not, but I'm wondering about your thoughts on the MGTOW movement, M-G-T-O-W.
I think that's Men Go Their Own Way movement.
I think that's what that stands for.
And men who dislike women as a reaction to feminism.
I don't personally have a problem with men doing their own thing without women.
However, I do have a problem with men who've had bad experiences with women who preach to other, more impressionable men and boys, telling them that all Western women are insane and that marriage is a death trap.
I view those people as little more than a male-centric counterpart to radical feminists, while I'm willing to concede that probably most Western women are either insane or tainted by insanity in some way.
As a Western woman who is a devout Catholic and not an insane feminist, and who intends to marry one day, I find it unhelpful and unfair that women such as myself get lumped in with the crazies by these men, as they don't seem to think that sane women actually exist.
Also, when you ascend to your rightful place as ruler of the solar system, would a gift of a decorative pillow make you more or less likely to grant me a quick death?
Hi, Emily.
Well, I think you already know the answer to that last question, and so I don't think I need to spend any time on that.
As for the MGTOW movement, I don't know if that's actually what they call themselves, MGTOW, I think it, I agree with you.
I think it makes the same mistakes that feminism makes.
Feminism, especially the feminism of the last 100 years or so, well, okay.
Feminism of the last, maybe that's going a little too far.
Feminism of the last 50 years or so has been almost completely anti-family and anti-man with Really no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Feminism over the last 50 years.
Pretty much ever since feminism really invested itself in arguing for abortion.
And when abortion became kind of the central, the centerpiece of feminism.
Now you go back a hundred years and you'll find that feminists did have some legitimate gripes.
Certainly, you know, advocating for the vote for women, okay, that was a legitimate point.
Um, feminism a hundred years ago had some, had other legitimate points to make.
But even then, I think, and this is a mistake that, that I, that conservatives will make where they say that, yeah, you know, feminism used to be a good thing, but it became perverted over time and now it's not so good.
Um, I think that feminism, if you, if you really research it and you read into it and you read what the kind of original feminists actually had to say, You'll find that feminism has always been anti-family and anti-man.
And also anti-Christian, by the way.
It's always been that way.
It just so happened that 100 years ago, or 110 years ago, they had anti-family and anti-man, but they were fighting for some good things as well.
Now, they're not fighting for anything good.
It's just anti-family, anti-man.
I think It's the same thing with the men's rights people, the men go their own way, the male feminists, whatever you want to call them.
They are anti-family because they're anti-marriage, and you can't have a stable, healthy family without marriage.
So they're anti-family and they're anti-woman, to answer the anti-man position of feminism.
Now, they do have some legitimate points.
Namely, their criticisms of feminism are oftentimes correct.
The only problem is, as you point out, they're exhibiting the exact same pitfalls, just from the opposite direction.
So, they aren't really an answer to feminists, because they are feminists, basically.
They are just bizarro world feminists.
I think a real answer to feminism is a movement that is pro-family, pro-marriage, and not anti-either gender.
A movement that recognizes the complementary nature of the sexes and seeks to build up men and build up women.
And encourage happy and healthy marriages and families.
I mean, that's how you combat feminism in my view, not by just being anti-woman in general.
And of course, it's just not true that all Western women are crazy.
I mean, both of those stereotypes are completely false and ridiculous, and all you have to do is just go out there and meet people, and you'll discover that if a feminist would just go out and actually meet men, and get to know them, they would see that the way they
paint men is incorrect.
And same for these male feminist types. I mean, I know plenty of women, my wife included, who
are not only not feminists, but are more anti-feminist than I am, you know.
All right, this is from Dave.
It says, Matt, I can relate to what you're going through.
I tore my Achilles about a week before you.
I admire the fact that you've been able to joke about it so much.
Honestly, I've been extremely depressed about it.
Can't go anywhere, can't do anything, can't drive.
I'm usually a very active person, so this has been devastating.
My question for you is, what are you doing to pass the time?
How are you using all the downtime?
That's the hardest part for me.
Yes, it was the most physically painful thing I ever felt when it happened.
And it hurt pretty bad after the surgery, but the pain is nothing compared to the boredom and the unwelcome change to my lifestyle.
Dave, I feel like we should start a support group, maybe.
A support group for GIMPS.
GIMPS Anonymous.
Although I guess I'm not very anonymous, so it doesn't really work.
It is tough, but don't let my joking fool you.
I am also equally as depressed by the fact that all I can do is basically lay around the house.
It is pretty torturous, especially in the summer.
I just look outside and the birds are chirping and it's a beautiful day.
And here I am.
It's pretty bad.
But we should also remember that this is temporary for us.
There are a lot of people who have permanent disabilities, and I'm sure they look at us whining about a few months of downtime, and they just roll their eyes.
So as far as what I'm doing to pass the time, well, I personally can't sit for hours and watch TV.
I just can't do it.
Much less can I sit for weeks and watch TV.
I just I don't like TV that much.
It gets boring.
So what I decided was I want to take a subject and just learn everything I can about that subject while I'm laying around, you know, just read a bunch of books and Because I don't know why not I mean if I if I can't exercise physically at least I can use my brain and so As someone who's interested in the Civil War.
I decided that I'm just going to binge read Civil War books.
I've got a stack of Civil War books, just working my way through them.
And, um, you know, because I don't know, it's something to do.
And, uh, at least I can learn something in the meantime.
So maybe that would be my suggestion is pick a, pick a topic, any topic really, and, um, get a bunch of books about it and just read about that topic.
And then by the time you're, um, You're physically healthy again.
You'll be an expert on that topic.
Which I think actually, even if you don't have a torn Achilles, maybe that's good advice.
Maybe we could all do that, even regardless of our health situation.
I think it's a good thing to do.
Just every once in a while, pick some topic and learn everything you can about it, just for the sake of learning about it.
Not because you're going to use the information, not because it's going to help you with your job or whatever, but just to know it.
Just for the sake of knowing.
All right.
This is from Lee says, Yo Matt, heard one of your monologues on beards recently and a couple of questions popped into my head.
Is there a moral case to be made for beards, for beards slash not shaving?
Does this fall under the category of vanity?
Is it emasculating or kowtowing to female prejudices to shave?
I think C.S.
Lewis or Chesterton mentioned this somewhere.
On the other hand, is the current relative popularity of beards tied into a subconscious knowledge of the loss of real masculinity and a superficial attempt to retrieve it?
Well, first of all, C.S.
Lewis, I think really his only flaw was that he had no facial hair.
So I don't think he said that, which is really a tragedy that he didn't have facial hair.
Yeah, I think you certainly could argue that it is immoral to be clean shaven.
It's definitely problematic, ethically speaking.
No question about that.
Is it a sin?
Will you go to hell, for instance, for being clean-shaven?
This is something that theologians can debate.
I would tend to say yes, probably.
And my reason for that is very simple.
WWJD.
What would Jesus do?
Well, we know, based on all the paintings that we see, that Jesus had a beard.
Also, he was an Orthodox Jew, so that's another reason why he had a beard.
And so, you know, I mean, Jesus had a beard, yet you as a man shave your beard?
So you're saying that, what, you are better than Jesus?
I mean, it's just... I'll put it this way.
I would not want to approach the Pearly Gates with a baby face.
It's not a risk that I would want to take.
So, that's all I'll say about that.
Let's get to one more email.
This is from... Let's see here.
Do we have time for this one?
I guess we'll save this one.
I got a good email about euthanasia, which has been back in the news.
But that's going to be kind of a long answer.
So I think we'll save that one.
Marie, I got your email and I'll save it for tomorrow.
But thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
Hey, everyone.
It's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
The New York Times, a former newspaper, launched a full-on attack on conservative voices on YouTube over the weekend, essentially giving cover to YouTube's plan to de-platform anything they deem hateful.
In other words, conservatives, or anyone the New York Times, a former newspaper, thinks is unacceptable.
Well, if we're going to start censoring haters, I say we start with the people who support baby killing and spying on presidential candidates.
Like the New York Times, a former newspaper.
Nah, let's let them talk, too.
That's on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection