All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
36:19
Ep. 329 - Okay, Let’s Lower The Voting Age To Zero

Today we remember 9-11. Also, Vox suggests lowering the voting age to zero. I’ll explain why conservatives should actually support that idea for entirely self-serving reasons. Also, a London zoo has the first “genderless” penguin. Date: 09-11-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the show, everybody, on this solemn day of remembrance.
18 years is a long time.
I know that's what everyone is saying today, but 18 years is a very long time.
I was in 10th grade on 9-11, and now I'm 33.
I've got three kids going on number four.
And I know this is again something everyone says, but it is, I think about this a lot, that my kids' generation will grow up with 9-11 as an historical fact, not a lived experience, but just as a matter of history for them.
And that's very weird to think about.
9-11 to my kids is going to be like, you know, what the JFK assassination was to me growing up,
which is, I can remember growing up and hearing my parents talk about it
and talk about what a defining momentous event it was for them, but for me, it was,
it may as well have happened 6,000 years ago because it just, it was,
basically anything that happens before you were born, even if it happened a day before you were born,
it may as well be all the way back in ancient times.
But as far as you're concerned.
Because for you, the moment you're born, it's all after.
There's no before and after.
It's all after.
It's all just in the past, from your perspective.
And that's how 9-11 will be, and is for my kids, and all kids from now on.
But those of us who are older, you know, we remember.
And I guess the tradition on 9-11 is to say where you were when it happened.
So I was, as I said, I was in 10th grade and we were in health class, I remember, and we were in the middle of whatever lesson and another teacher poked her head in and said to my teacher, you might want to turn on CNN.
And so they turned it on.
And the first image we saw was the first tower in flames.
And then, like almost everybody else that day, we watched almost in real time as the second plane hit.
Then within an hour, maybe two hours, we were all sent home for the day.
I don't think because they were worried that the terrorist attack would happen at the school.
I think it was just that there was no hope of anything else happening.
There was no hope of anyone learning or paying attention to school that day.
So they sent us home.
I remember the bus ride.
And another image that I have stuck in my head from that day is the bus ride home and the younger kids on the bus were so excited and cheering about the fact that they could go home early because they didn't understand what was going on.
They had no idea of the enormity of it or really anything.
To them, it was just they got to go home for the day.
I barely understood it myself, being 14 or 15.
I was thinking about this as well.
9-11 is obviously a defining news event for everyone who lived through it.
Probably the defining news event.
But for me as a millennial, it was the defining news event of my childhood, right?
As it was for everyone in my generation.
And then I started thinking about, what are the other defining news events of my childhood?
And I think they would be in order.
It would be OJ.
I remember actually that I was in elementary school with the OJ verdict and they actually came on.
The intercom at the elementary school to announce the verdict.
And I remember my teacher shouting an expletive in frustration.
And to me, that was the big headline of the day was that my teacher said a bad word because I didn't I had no idea what OJ was or what that was all about.
So OJ, then Lewinsky, then Columbine and 9-11, of course, then the Iraq War.
And then for me, the Beltway sniper, I lived in the area where that was happening.
And it was just a surreal, surreal time.
And those are the defining events.
And it occurred to me That all of the defining news events of my childhood are terrible.
Scandal and death, basically.
And I think when you think back to other generations, you have terrible news events that are defining.
But they're also at least usually going to be one or two good things, like the moon landing, for example.
With Millennials though, it's all bad stuff.
There was no real great achievement, some great moment of national unity and celebration that we can remember back to.
The unity that we remember Is the unity that everyone talks about after 9-11 for those few short, unfortunately, months where people were seen to be unified.
But that was unity brought about by a terrible tragedy.
So not exactly the same thing as maybe the unity that you would have had on the moon landing or something like that.
Anyway, I think that there's...
You could probably write a whole book about the and probably people have written books about the psychological impact and maybe that explains a lot about my generation.
I don't know.
All right.
Moving on to some of the news events of today, of this week.
I'm not going to spend much time on this, but I suppose the big news story of this week is that President Trump fired his National Security Advisor, John Bolton.
Well, Trump says he fired him, Bolton says that he quit, so we're going through that whole thing again, that whole rigmarole.
Here's the only thing I want to say about this, and if you're a member of the audience who can't stomach any criticism of the president, if you're one of those people who happen to have that what I think is extremely un-American attitude, where you do not want the president to be criticized at all, as long as he's on your team, of course, If you're in that camp, then maybe now's a good time to just go take a bathroom break and come back in a few minutes.
Because it might be easier for both of us.
Less of a headache.
So I don't have to deal with all the same old emails.
Because look, first of all, I don't care that John Bolton is gone.
I'm not a John Bolton fan.
I'm not a Warhawk.
I'm not a neocon.
I tend to agree with the non-interventionist, or at least less interventionist folks on most of the related issues.
So getting rid of John Baldwin, fine.
Okay?
That's perfectly fine with me.
And even I think it's good, actually.
I support that decision.
I did notice online yesterday most Trump fans, all Trump fans from what I saw, were celebrating this, saying, oh, the president made the right decision!
Again!
Hooray!
Good for him!
Okay, well, here's the question, though.
I don't know why Trump fans aren't asking this question.
Well, I do know why they're not asking it, of course.
But this is the question that should be asked.
Why did Trump hire him in the first place?
Every time one of these people are fired and everyone in the Trump fans say, good job firing him, why don't you ask, what were you doing hiring the guy to begin with?
Yes, John Bolton is a war hawk and a neocon.
Everybody knows that.
I know that.
You know that.
Everybody knows that.
How did Trump not know it?
Every single person with a brain in their head, when they heard that John Bolton was hired by Donald Trump, all of us knew it was going to end this way.
We all knew it.
We knew he was going to get fired eventually.
You knew it.
I knew it.
We all knew it.
We didn't even need to say it.
We just knew it.
How did Trump not know it?
Isn't that astounding ignorance on his part?
Isn't that concerning?
Here's what else I know.
Trump has a habit of making terrible hiring decisions, hiring either incompetents or people who just do not fit in with his vision and his policies such as they are.
And then he ends up firing them, as everyone knows is going to happen.
And then the bitter public feud begins.
And this is just not a sign of competent leadership.
I mean, hiring the right people, that was supposed to be one of Trump's strong suits.
Oh, I only hire the best people, right?
That's what he said.
I never believed it actually would be a strong suit of his, but I was told that it would be.
This is a businessman.
He knows how to hire.
He's going to surround himself with the right people.
Okay, well, how did that work out?
And most of his former employees end up hating his guts.
How many times have we gone through this?
Or people that are close to him, and then they leave, and then there's the feud.
It's not a good sign.
Okay, and I'm sick of it.
I'm sick of the same old routine, the clown show.
I'm just so tired of it.
I'm even more tired of hearing conservatives make excuses for it.
It's just, it's nauseating to me at this point.
Oh, but I forgot, of course.
Silly me, how could I forget that?
Of course, this isn't Trump's fault.
I mean, he had a good reason to hire John Bolton, I'm sure.
He had some good reason.
We don't know what the reason was.
Whatever he does that appears to be wrong, there's always a good reason for it, and he's always the victim, and he never does anything wrong.
I forgot.
Silly me, how could I forget that?
Yes, of course.
It's always everybody else's fault.
Always.
It's the fake news, it's the media, it's the never Trumpers, all five of them, it's deep state.
All these people are conspiring and somehow forcing Trump to do dumb stuff.
They're somehow, it's really them somehow, it's never him, never.
So of course, right, right, right.
Silly me, silly me.
I mean, I almost made the mistake.
Of thinking that Trump is the President of the United States and an adult and therefore could maybe be held responsible for his own actions and could maybe be expected to make intelligent and rational decisions about who he hires.
I almost made the mistake of thinking that.
Silly me.
How could I?
How could I think that?
Yes, so you don't need to send the emails because I already know.
Yes, of course.
Right, right.
It's not his fault.
It's everybody else's fault.
It's my fault even.
It's everyone's fault, not his.
Got it.
Okay.
Moving on.
The brilliant minds over at Vox, I should say, have a proposal.
Vox does.
They want to lower the voting age to zero.
Yes, zero.
No voting age, in other words.
Letting toddlers vote.
This is a real opinion put forward by Kelsey Piper over at Vox in a piece that was aptly titled, The Case for Changing the Voting Age to Zero.
Which means even infants could vote.
Now let me skim through a few bits of this with you.
It says, in just over a year, American citizens will have a chance to cast their ballot for the next president, except for the 75 million Americans barred by state and local laws from registering to vote, that is.
Are there really that many American citizens illegally barred from voting?
The answer is yes.
Our kids.
Around the world, almost every country bars people under 18 from voting.
The reasons vary.
They won't be informed enough.
They don't pay taxes yet.
They can't serve in the military yet.
They tend to liberal.
They tend to be too rebellious.
But the rules persist, even in the face of a generation of passionate, smart, and informed teenage activists.
Oh, that wasn't supposed to be a joke.
Okay, sorry.
And even as it becomes obvious that our current political system is failing our children.
In the last year, there have been encouraging signs that we might rethink this.
Democratic candidate Andrew Yang has argued for a voting age of 16.
And other people have argued as well.
Well, let's do them one better.
The United States should consider eradicating the voting age entirely and letting every American citizen... Wait a second.
Why just American citizens?
You fascist!
You bigot!
Who can successfully fill out a ballot, be counted.
What do you mean, who can successfully fill out a ballot?
So now we're excluding illiterates?
Should be counted in our local, state, and national elections.
And then it goes on, so on and so forth.
Okay, so she gives four reasons why we need to get rid of the voting age.
Here are her reasons.
Number one, the whole concept of a voting age is kinda unprincipled.
Yes, it does say kinda.
She did write, actually, kinda.
K-I-N-D-A.
The voting age is unprincipled.
There are long explanations for each of these, so I can't read them.
The U.S.
Constitution holds that the right to vote cannot be abridged on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age if you're older than 18.
It's an awkward exception we've carved out to the Admirable general principle that just government requires fair and free elections in which everyone can participate.
Number two, the case for democracy can't rest on voters being rational, informed agents.
Indeed, there's a strong case for democracy that doesn't.
So she's saying, no, you know, you think that voters should be rational and informed.
You're wrong.
I'm going to debunk you.
Then she says, number, where are we?
Number, where's number three?
Did we skip number three?
Voting as kids will turn young people into better citizens and likely increase participation their whole lives.
And then number four, kids have the same or even a greater stake in political issues that adults do.
Okay.
You can go to Vox and read her entire explanation if you really want to.
It is good for a laugh.
I'm not going to harp on the irony here, the morbid irony, that this writer, considering the fact that she writes for Vox, probably is pro-abortion, which means she wants to give voting rights to babies, but she doesn't want to give the right to life to babies.
Putting that aside, I'm of two minds here.
One side of my brain, probably the more sensible side, says, this is crazy, obviously.
Kids don't know anything about the world.
They have no perspective.
They have no wisdom.
If anything, we should be raising the voting age to like 25 or 30.
I think we should be thinking about that.
Or, as I have proposed, keep it at 18, but institute some sort of basic entrance exam to make sure that the people who are voting are, in fact, rational and informed agents.
And in that case, actually, now, if you were to do that, that's my idea.
Now, if we were to do that, then I think maybe you could get rid of the voting age, because at that point, if you're a rational informed agent, Go ahead and vote.
So if you happen to be particularly rational and particularly informed at the age of 15, you should vote.
If you are not rational and informed at the age of 50, you should not be able to vote.
So I would, if there was that caveat, then I would be fine with saying no voting age because that's the main thing is do these people know what they're doing when they go in the voting booth.
But generally speaking, kids are not going to be in that camp because they haven't been around long enough.
It's like the kids I told you on the bus on 9-11 coming home from school celebrating because they were kids.
They didn't have any idea what was going on.
They have no perspective.
They can't see beyond the nose on their face.
And that's why they shouldn't be voting.
Contrary to the claims being made here, our democracy does in fact rest on voters being informed and rational agents.
It does rest on that.
Now, the question is, can a democracy survive when the majority of voters are uninformed and irrational?
Well, I guess we're gonna find out, because that's where we're headed.
But if it does survive, it will survive in spite of that obstacle, not because of it.
It's very clear that the best-case scenario is where most voters are rational and informed, and also have a stake in what's going on, because they pay taxes, they have a job, right?
That's best-case scenario.
And that's who voting should be restricted to.
But then, the other side of my brain kicks in, and I say, actually, this maybe is a great idea.
Maybe we should lower the voting age to zero.
Maybe lower the voting age to zero, no tests, nothing, just let everyone vote.
And I'll tell you why.
Because a child's vote is really his parents' vote.
A kid is gonna vote however his parents tell him.
A child's political opinions, such as they are, are going to be 100% inherited from their parents.
Okay, there is no nine-year-old out there who has their own political stance that's completely apart from their parents.
They get it from their parents.
So what that means is giving voting rights to kids is really just giving extra votes to parents.
Now that idea I kind of like.
So if you have two kids, Then really, you have three votes, because you have your own vote, and then your kids' votes, and those are, by proxy, your votes.
I'm about to have four kids, so that means that I would get five votes.
And really, it's sort of is like, it's even more than that because my, you know, me and my wife
are on the same page and we have our kids. So as a family unit, we're going to count for six votes.
So actually, okay, I think I'm in.
Let's do it.
Let's go ahead and do that.
Because, think about it, who has the most kids in this country?
Conservative Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews.
They're basically the ones having all the kids.
And, I mean, I run in Catholic circles where families of 11 or 12, even more, are pretty routine.
So this is a recipe for conservative religious people taking over the country.
I don't think the left has thought this all the way through.
You get rid of the voting age and then what are you gonna have?
You're gonna have all these homeschool families rolling up to the polls with their 15 passenger vans and all of those nice well-behaved kids filing out and voting for the most conservative candidates right down the ballot.
That's what's gonna happen.
Um, and, uh, you know, I, I go to a lot of homeschool conventions to speak and I'm telling you those, those parking lots are full of 15 passenger vans, buses, little mini buses.
And you think, oh, there must be, no, those are, those are buses for, for one family.
Yeah.
If you want to unleash that on the voting booth and then sure, let's do it.
At a certain point, I think liberals are going to have to figure out that this plan of not having any kids and even killing off your own young, not only is that morally deranged, but it's politically counterproductive because you are taking yourself out of the game, as it were.
All right, what else we got here?
Antonio Brown, the wide receiver who forced his way out of Pittsburgh, went to Oakland, forced his way out of Oakland, ended up on the Patriots.
The guy is clearly a jerk, to say the least, probably a sociopath, not a good person.
But that doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions on this news.
That a woman, and this was announced last night, a woman has filed a lawsuit against him claiming that he sexually assaulted her three times beginning in 2017.
She says Brown assaulted her three times, the first time being two years ago, but the lawsuit wasn't filed until this week.
Until Brown was already in the news.
Coincidentally, I'm sure, right?
This happened two years ago.
She didn't file the lawsuit until Brown's all over the news.
Just a coincidence, obviously, right?
Now look, I don't know if Brown is guilty.
Like I said, he is a bit of a scumbag, clearly.
So I'm not a fan of his by any means.
But that doesn't mean he's a rapist.
And I read the allegations, and to me there are some serious red flags here.
This woman was Antonio Brown's personal trainer, she says.
She says he sexually assaulted her while they were doing training together.
A month later, after being assaulted, she still went to his home, for some reason, and was assaulted again.
And then a while after that, after being allegedly assaulted two times, she went out on a town with him.
She went, like, clubbing or something.
And then goes back to his house and is assaulted a third time.
This doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm sorry.
I... No.
That makes no... There's more going on here, at a minimum.
Because that doesn't make any sense.
And every time I hear stories like this, it just, now I questioned this story on Twitter last night and a bunch of people scolded me saying, how dare you?
How dare you judge this woman, victim blaming, so on and so forth.
Sometimes women stay with their abusers.
It's complicated.
You can't judge.
And yes, I realized that sometimes a woman might stay.
Oftentimes you hear about these cases where a woman stays with an abusive husband.
Um, uh, or, or even boyfriend who she's living with because she feels trapped and, you know, they have kids and, and all of that.
And it's a terrible situation to be in.
I'm sure.
Um, and the blame is entirely on the abuser there, of course, but that's not what's going on here.
Okay.
This is not, they aren't married.
They weren't dating as far as we know.
Um, she was just his trainer.
This was basically a casual relationship.
And yet she goes back to him after being assaulted, is assaulted again, then goes back to him again, and is assaulted again.
Who in their right mind would behave that way?
I ask you, any woman watching this, would you casually get together with a guy who had assaulted you twice?
And not only get together with him, but go back to his house after a night out on the town?
She says she only went back to his house to use the bathroom or something because there were no bathrooms where she was.
She had no choice but to go back to the guy's house who she says had assaulted her twice already.
Is there any way in hell?
I mean, I'm asking you as a woman, if you're watching this and you're a woman.
Is there any way in hell you would casually get together with some guy who assaulted you twice already and go back to his house?
So, I question it.
It's a red flag.
It's not victim-blaming.
It's not victim-blaming because I'm questioning whether or not she actually was a victim.
Whether or not this story is true.
We can't just assume that it is.
We can't necessarily assume that it isn't, but we have to look at the story as it's presented to us, and given the information we know now, figure out which direction it most plausibly points.
Could be true, it could not be true.
But what's more plausible?
That a woman would be assaulted by a man and then go back to his house anyway, get assaulted again, and then go back to his house a third time?
Is that more plausible than the possibility that she might be fabricating some of this Because he's rich, and he's in the news, and also this is a perfect time to file a lawsuit like this because everyone's against him.
So which is more plausible?
That's the question.
And I think probably the latter right now is more plausible.
Finally, before we get to some emails here, let me share one other thing with you.
And this is real, okay?
This is not parody, this isn't satire.
Reading from The Hill, a same-sex penguin couple to raise first gender-neutral chick at London Aquarium.
It says, a same-sex penguin couple will raise what may be the world's first genderless chick, a London Aquarium announced Tuesday.
The four-month-old baby will be raised by two female penguins, Rocky and Merima.
At Sea Life London without a gendered name or a specified gender.
General Manager Graham McGrath said, while the decision may ruffle a few feathers.
Get the pun there.
Very good.
Gender neutrality in humans has only recently become a widespread topic of conversation.
However, it is completely natural for penguins to develop genderless identities as they grow into mature adults.
I know what you're thinking when you hear that.
I know exactly what you're thinking.
You're thinking, it's great that they're letting it be gender neutral, but what kind of fascist assigns a species in the first place?
I mean, how do they know that it's a penguin?
Isn't it rather presumptuous to sit here and say, oh, we've got this penguin chick.
I mean, good for you, fascists.
For SEGA, we're not going to call it male or female.
Good for you.
Well done.
Let me get you a cookie.
Meanwhile, you are consigning it to a life as a penguin, having not asked it what it prefers to be.
How do you know it could be a buffalo?
It could be a tarantula.
It could be a three-toed sloth.
It could be a middle-aged Korean man.
You don't know?
You haven't asked?
And yet you just assume that it wants to live life as a penguin.
Maybe it wants to be out on the plains, you know, skipping through the fields like a gazelle.
Maybe it wants to be climbing a tree like a spider monkey.
You don't know because you didn't ask, you bigots!
Outrageous!
Sorry, I'm a little heated.
I just, when I see this kind of closed-minded thinking in people, it sends me through the roof.
This is what it's like to be to be so much more enlightened than everybody else as I am This is the this is the burden.
This is the cross that I carry In my life as a squirrel Let's go to emails Hello Matt, I am and have been an atheist for much of my life, despite growing up in a Roman Catholic family and a largely Christian community.
Recently, however, I am finding that I would like to pursue faith and bring God into my life.
The part I'm struggling with, and where I would appreciate your insight, is some prominent scientific discoveries seem to contradict the existence of a god, or at least come into conflict largely with the book of Genesis.
I've talked to some individuals in my community about this, and I've generally been urged to toss certain scientific discoveries to the side as nonsense, such as evolution, in favor of blind biblical readings.
I cannot simply turn a blind eye to scientific discovery and am not sure where faith and science coincide.
What are your thoughts and where can I look for answers in this regard?
I felt turning to your view would be a good start, as you have in the past at least recognized where and how some views of faith fall short.
All right, Mike.
Well, first, it's great that you're thinking about these things and you're turning this over in your head.
And as I say to everybody who sends me emails like this, I think that that's You should be applauded for that because now you'd like to think that everyone thinks about these things and is working them out and you know you like because for you it comes naturally, right?
But I think most people live their lives and just don't even think about it.
So that's good.
The people telling you to toss science to the side I don't know if that's a verbatim quote you're giving me, I suspect it isn't, but if that's the general attitude, approach that you're hearing from, I guess, Christians you've talked to, telling you to forget about the science, well, those are people that you shouldn't take seriously.
I would recommend, I would strongly, I would plead with you, actually, to not talk to them anymore about this.
You do what you want, but it doesn't sound like those are the kinds of people, they're just, these are not thoughtful people, if that's what they're saying.
To you.
Science is not some sort of fringe subject that you could take or leave.
You can't say, well, science, science schmayance.
Science is how the world works, okay?
It is the study, the exploration, the discovery, the explanation of how the physical world works.
That's all science is.
So, tossing science to the side is like, you might as well say you're tossing gravity to the side.
Gravity which has been discovered and explained through science.
But you can't, right?
You can't toss gravity to the side.
All you could do is delude yourself, try to delude yourself into believing it doesn't exist, but it still exists.
It still just is.
So that's not a good use of your time.
I would say then don't toss science to the side.
Instead, I would explore the ways in which both science and faith can not only coexist but support one another.
Because there's no reason to try to find... There's no reason why the two concepts have to contradict or be at odds.
So that's what I would do, and I would just start reading.
Pick up a book like The Language of God by Francis Collins.
Good place to start explaining the harmony between science and belief in God.
Although I would caution you, though.
You know, I write Language of God.
It's a good book.
Go pick that one up.
There are other books like it, but when you're looking for, and there are plenty of books, uh, written by very intelligent, very well respected and highly regarded scientists who are also Christian, like Francis Collins.
So I would look at those books.
I would caution you.
There are, there are other, there's a whole other sort of cottage industry out there of, of some Christian, um, Some basically hacks and charlatans who they claim they're finding a harmony between science and religion, but what they're really trying to do is debunk established scientific facts.
Because those established scientific facts do not work with their personal reading of scripture.
The ones who do that, again, are charlatans and hacks.
I would stay far away from them.
You know, if you're reading a book and it's a Christian who is trying to claim that established scientific facts are not facts, put that to the side.
Don't listen to that.
But there, fortunately, as I said, are a lot of scientists who are also Christian who do not do that.
And who can look at the world and say, this is how the world works.
I'm not denying that.
No reason to deny it.
Here's how it fits in with A belief in God.
All right.
This is, let's see, this is from Nick says, Matt, have you seen this?
It's a, and then he gives me a link to a USA Today article with the title girl power Hasbro or Hasbro brings gender pay gap debate to game night with new miss monopoly.
And by the way, if you haven't heard of this, this is a, this is a, apparently a new version of monopoly where.
women, if you're a woman playing the game, you start out with more money than the men.
And I think it's every time, because usually in Monopoly, every time you pass go, you get
200.
But every time you pass go in this version, the women get like $240 and the men still
get 200 or whatever.
So that's the game.
And then the email could just...
As the father of two daughters, I can't think of anything more demeaning than telling females they can't win unless they are given a head start.
In this game, female players are given more money at the start and each time they pass go.
The article even feels the need to explain that it is possible for boys to win the game.
Thought I'd share what an embarrassment to our women and our country.
Yeah, well, I tell you what would be really embarrassing.
For me, I would love to play this game.
Because it's like playing pick-up basketball with someone when you just sprained your ankle.
Because there's really no losing.
If you lose, then you could always say, well, hey, I have an injury.
What do you expect?
But if you win, then it's even more impressive that you won.
So for me, I would love to play this game.
Because I figure if I still win, even though I'm at this disadvantage, it makes me look even better, and it's even more embarrassing for the competitors who had that advantage and still were not able to win.
So for me, if there was a version of this game for men where men got more, I wouldn't want to play that game because I'd be way too afraid I would still lose, and how humiliating is that?
So I would say this just sets up a great challenge for guys.
Go out and play the game and win anyway.
That'd be pretty funny.
Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever.
I mean, the original Monopoly game is equality, right?
It's a definition of equality.
You sit down, you play the game.
You all have to roll the dice.
The rules are the same for everybody.
It works the same for everyone.
That is equality.
It's claimed that that's how feminists want the world to work, with equality.
And you discover yet again that, of course, equality is not what they want.
What they want is a head start.
What they want is to be above everybody else.
And this Monopoly game is just one small, rather petty, but still, I think, very telling sign of what feminists actually want.
All right.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Gelliwire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.
▲
Export Selection