Is Meghan Markle an American sleeper agent sent to sabotage the Royal Family, finishing the job that George Washington started? Also, Democrats continue to valiantly defend America's enemies. Feminists achieve a major victory by renaming manhole covers. Finally, Jillian Michaels causes controversy by pointing out that morbid obesity is unhealthy.
Can't get enough of The Matt Walsh Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS subscriber TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
That Meghan and Harry have put in their two weeks notice and are quitting the Royal Family.
Or rather, as they put it there, they intend to step back as senior members of the Royal Family.
Which I didn't realize was an option, you know?
Though now that I know that it is, I've been working on my wife to explore this possibility with my in-laws.
I mean, think about it.
Meghan Markle actually convinced her spouse to resign from her in-laws.
So in that way, she's a legend.
I think she's living the dream.
She's an example for us all.
If I could just get my wife to show up to her family's Thanksgiving next year with a resignation letter.
That's my goal.
But I guess I shouldn't joke about this because this is a very serious issue.
Very serious indeed.
Because with this dismantling of the royal family, the royal family will be less equipped, less capable of performing their essential duties, such as wearing pretty clothing and waving.
I'm worried that they'll be able to do less waving than they would normally do.
And I'm not sure if the world can continue spinning, honestly, without them performing that task.
But personally, I can't say, as important as that is, I can't say that I blame Meghan and Harry that much, because they want to live their own lives, and who would want to be a useless figurehead, honestly?
Well, I guess I would actually.
I would enjoy that.
So, if the royal family is looking for a fill-in or a replacement, I have my resume and I'll send it to the Buckingham Palace.
I have a lot of experience not doing stuff, so I'm very good at being useless.
So, you know, and I put that on my resume, I'll send it over.
Then again, I guess I read about two-thirds of one article about this situation, so maybe my analysis is completely off.
I will say that You know, Meghan, I guess as I've been talking about this online, a lot of people, Americans and Brits, have told me that I'm way off and Meghan Markle is a villain, is a villainous woman.
She's a sleeper agent sent by America to undermine the royal family, finishing the job that George Washington started, which to me, again, would just make her a hero.
But they say she's a terrible person.
I don't know.
You know, I really don't know.
I don't know the dynamics of these people.
I don't think anybody does.
But I will say that, you know, Prince Andrew is... You want to talk about a villain.
Prince Andrew was good friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
Allegedly raped one of Epstein's child sex slaves.
At least one, allegedly.
And is being protected by the royal family.
So, I guess, excuse me if I'm not too broken up about the fact that they're suffering this misfortune.
When they're protecting this alleged child rapist.
Everybody made a big joke about it, and I joked about it too, because of what a clown this guy is.
Not joking about what he did, obviously, but when he gave that interview to the BBC a few months ago, or a few weeks ago, and his excuses, his alibi, was just so laughably weak.
The only thing that makes it not laughably is when you think about what he actually allegedly did, but remember his excuse?
It was, number one, he said that he's, he's, he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein because he's so honorable.
He, Prince Andrew, is such an honorable guy, and he's, he's even, he's even too, he's willing to admit that he's too honorable.
He's a little bit too honorable, and so all of that great honor had, had, for whatever reason, convinced him to be friends with this convicted pedophile.
He never explains why that's honorable.
I guess because everybody else is ostracizing the pedophile and Prince Andrew was going to take him under his wing and show him compassion because he's such an honorable guy.
So that was his first alibi, his first excuse.
His second excuse was that The woman accusing him said that he was very sweaty when she was being assaulted by him, and he said that no, it couldn't have been him because he knows that he wasn't sweating back then.
He checked his calendar, and because he keeps a log of all the times that he sweats, and he checked his calendar, and no, he didn't sweat on that day.
He sweated on other days, but not on that particular day.
That was really his excuse, that he knows he wasn't sweating then, so it couldn't have been him.
And so everybody has a nice little laugh about how silly that excuse is, but what are we talking about here?
We're talking about this guy allegedly raped somebody, a child, and his excuse is so ridiculously unbelievable, yet he's not going to be held to account.
You think Queen Elizabeth, with such honor and dignity, You think she's working behind the scenes to make sure that he's held accountable for what he allegedly did?
You think she's doing that?
Or is she more concerned about the image of the royal family?
What do you think that the honorable, dignified, wonderful Queen Elizabeth is worried about?
So to me, when I talk about the royal family, that to me is the thing that I'm focused on.
I really, you know, to me I think it's a big deal.
It's a big deal if a member of the royal family allegedly raped a child.
And was friends with Jeffrey Epstein, a global sex trafficker, convicted pedophile.
I think that's the thing that we should worry about, but it seems like the attitude for a lot of people, not just Brits, but Americans, is, well, yeah, but, you know, they're the royal family.
They're basically above the law.
It's the royal family we're talking about here.
I don't get it.
Alright, um, well, The uh, so let's go, let's go talk about the Democrats a little bit.
Speaking of, speaking of things I don't get.
The Democrats, especially recently, have been, of course, coming to the defense of our nation's enemies.
And the Democrats have been very open about doing so, have not been shy about it at all.
We've gone over many examples this week and last week of the Dems openly defending Iran and engaging in pro-Iranian propaganda.
So here's the latest.
This is Representative Pramila Jayapal at a press conference yesterday.
So this is after we found out that Iran's reprisal consisted of a symbolic missile launch that didn't hurt any human being, apparently.
And so here's what Jayapal has to say.
Watch.
This is the result of reckless actions by President Trump of military brinksmanship.
President Trump recklessly assassinated Qasem Soleimani.
He had no evidence of an imminent threat or attack.
And we say that coming from a classified briefing where, again, there was no raw evidence presented that there was an imminent threat.
Recklessly assassinated.
This, again, is absolutely indistinguishable from the language and the rhetoric that the Iranian government is using.
She could have been standing in Tehran making those remarks, and it wouldn't have seemed out of place at all.
It would have seemed exactly—that's the kind of thing that they're saying.
And not that this matters, of course, to her or to the other Dems, but to call it a reckless assassination is false on multiple levels.
First of all, reckless.
Okay, you could get away with that characterization last week, but now it's been confirmed That the move to take out Soleimani was a brilliant strategic play, and it cost us nothing in terms of American lives.
The reprisal from Iran was a face-saving measure meant to give them cover in front of their own people, their own citizens.
I mean, complaining that this was reckless now, that's like if a team goes for it on fourth and five and makes the conversion, scores a touchdown, and then you as a fan are still mad at the coach for making a risky coaching decision.
Maybe it was risky, but it worked.
So why aren't you happy?
As an American, why aren't you happy that this arguably risky play worked out for America?
And then assassinate.
She calls it an assassination.
This, once again, is just false.
It is despicable pro-Iranian propaganda.
It is not an assassination.
An assassination is the illegal murder of a public official or public person for political reasons.
Political or ideological reasons.
This, on the other hand, was a lawful strike against an enemy in a war zone after that enemy had coordinated two attacks against Americans.
Assassination?
That's completely absurd.
Was the killing of Bin Laden an assassination?
Well, no, because that was done under Obama, so that's a totally different situation, we are told.
Speaking of... Speaking of repulsive, watch this.
And I'm very glad to say that I was part of the 132 and also the vote for Barbara Lee's amendment.
But I think that the point of that is that that is the same war that we're dealing with today.
We never solved any problems with AUMF.
We left 4,000 plus, maybe 4,400 dead.
And over 60,000 who came back injured in some form.
And the war never ended.
As I recall the language in AUMF, it deals with hostilities in Iraq.
It doesn't deal with an incident or a dislike or someone in a car coming in from the airport.
That is the danger of Now, if you're listening to the audio podcast, you couldn't see what was happening there.
But as Sheila Jackson Lee is talking about American casualties, she's talking about American soldiers who were killed or injured.
Ilhan Omar is in the background laughing and giggling with the people around her.
Carrying on, you know, as American casualties are being discussed.
This woman, I say repulsive, she really is repulsive.
She is.
She is, I think, not a good person.
There is no evidence at all that she loves this country or cares about it.
She's utterly devoid of anything approaching class or grace.
She's a liar.
She's consistently snide and dismissive about the deaths of Americans, whether it's this we're talking about or when she was discussing 9-11.
And I know that when—see, here's the thing.
When conservatives like myself complain about somebody like Ilhan Omar having zero class and zero grace, The immediate response from the other side is to say, are you serious?
What about Trump?
So they'll go with the what about Trump thing.
Are you saying Trump has class and grace?
Well, personally, no, I don't think he does.
I certainly, when I think of all the words to describe or to apply to Donald Trump, class and grace, neither of those come up.
But what's the difference?
You know, why is it that the classlessness of Ilhan Omar tends to rub people the wrong way more than the classlessness of Donald Trump.
Or, you know, why is it that he can get away with some of that stuff, but she can't?
What's the reason?
Well, because we've never had any reason to suspect that Donald Trump hates America or hates our country, you know.
We've never had any reason to suspect that.
He's never said anything that would make us believe that.
Now, we know that Donald Trump hates a lot of people.
He hates the media.
He hates anybody who's insulted him.
So when he's being vicious and dismissive, which he can be, of course, it's always directed at some particular individual or particular group like the media who's attacking him.
And if you attack him and insult him, he's going to come after you.
That's the way Donald Trump works.
And I think that doesn't upset people, because number one, when it comes to the media, a lot of people hate the media, and the hatred is very well deserved.
That's why CNN lost that lawsuit against, or lost the lawsuit that was filed against them by the Covington Catholic kids.
But also, people sort of understand, even if Donald Trump can go overboard many of the times, people understand the idea of, well, if someone attacks you, then you attack them, and so we get that.
But he's never directed that at Americans as a whole.
That's the problem with Ilhan Omar.
And I think Democrats just don't understand this.
They struggle to understand this.
That we as Americans, we actually want you to love our country.
I mean, can you believe it?
That's sort of the unforgivable sin.
And it makes sense that it's unforgivable.
If you're an American politician, you can do a lot of bad stuff, you can say a lot of bad things, But we need to see and believe that you at least love our country.
If you don't, and if we don't see that, that is unforgivable.
Of course it is!
Given your job is to represent the American people.
You are working for America.
So, at a minimum, we need to see that.
And that's the problem.
That's why it upset us so much when Barack Obama was going around the world apologizing for America, talking badly about his own people in other countries.
I know this is hard for Democrats to understand, but you gotta try to get it through your head.
Most Americans love their country, and they want their representatives and their politicians to love it too.
That's all.
And I see no evidence of that with Ilhan Omar.
I see a lot of evidence to the contrary.
With not just her, but many of the other Democrats.
And their performance with this thing with Iran is just, talk about unforgivable.
And it is definitely evidence that you do not love your country.
When you're taking sides with an enemy who has just attacked us, And you're taking sides, you're taking their side and engaging in propaganda for them after they've just killed an American, they've attacked an embassy, and then we take out a global mass killer and one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, and you're practically weeping over it.
Yeah, we're gonna see that and we're gonna think, well, you must not love this country very much.
And that, to us, is going to be way worse than anything Donald Trump has ever said.
All right, more to discuss, but first a word from Rock Auto.
You know, with the ever-increasing number of cars and car makes and models, it's now impossible to stock all the parts you need in a traditional chain storefront.
If you want to go to a physical store, it's just, it's a, it's a, there's a limited space.
So why endure often pointless or seemingly intimidating questions and wait while the guy behind the counter orders the parts on his computer, choosing the only brand his warehouse happens to carry?
You know, there's no point in doing that.
You have computers yourself, and so you can go and access rockauto.com at your home And, uh, or you could pull your, uh, your phone out of your pocket and do it that way.
There's no point in going to the store.
You're just going to order it online.
Why not cut out the middleman, order it online yourself?
rockauto.com is a family business serving auto part customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They got engine control modules, brake parts, tail lamps, motor oil, new carpet, whatever you need, they've got it.
The rockauto.com catalog is unique.
Very easy to navigate.
Quickly, you can see all the parts available for your vehicle and you can choose the brand, you can choose the specification, you can choose the prices you prefer.
You're not relying on the guy behind the counter at the auto parts store to do that for you.
Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are reliably low and they're the same for everybody.
Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.
Rockauto.com.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck.
Write Walsh in their How Did You Hear About Us box so that they know that we sent you.
Okay, here's a bit of cringe for you.
Today in cringe, which could be a segment on the show.
I thought about making it a segment, but a lot of times I think about things that would be good recurring segments on the show, but then I'm too lazy, and I think, well, eh.
But then I gotta do it all the time, and that takes effort, so.
Anyway, so today in cringe, here's Elizabeth Warren giving some advice to the youngsters.
You see it here, she says, you deserve better.
Dump the guy who ghosted you, convince the roommate to let you adopt a dog, and I'll take care of canceling your student loan debt.
Dump the guy who ghosted you, says Elizabeth Warren.
First of all, nobody above the age of 19 should be using the phrase, ghosted you.
Really, nobody should be using it at all, because it's supremely stupid.
But, especially when you're in your 60s.
But if you are going to use it, this is one of the This is a rule here, where if you're going to try to relate to the youth, as an old person, by using these terms, you have to use them correctly.
So, I'm pretty sure, if you're ghosted by someone, that means that they've dumped you, right?
They've dumped you, they've ditched you, and without saying anything, and they're gone?
That's what ghosted is?
So how are you going to dump someone who's already dumped you?
That's kind of a, you-can't-fire-me-I-quit sort of move.
So that doesn't make a lot of sense.
And this is a very important issue, so I'm glad we could talk about that.
On that note, speaking of important issues, here's something.
Reading now from the Daily Wire, Washington, D.C., having solved all of its other problems, may delete and replace gendered language from the D.C.
city code and the city's home rule charter in its next legislative session, putting an end to male terms like manhole, chairman, and fireman.
DCist reports that, quote, currently our older laws show outdated thinking about gender, with a default to masculine pronouns or to masculinized forms of nouns.
And if the 43-page bill passes, Washington, D.C.
residents will no longer be subjected to the emotional distress that accompanies seeing such gendered terms in everyday life, at least as far as Washington, D.C.
code and charter are concerned.
So, it's gonna rename Chairman to Chairperson.
Bondsman will be Bondperson.
Fireman will be Firefighter, or maybe Fireperson.
Ombudsman will be Ombudsperson.
Let's see, Manmade would be Humanmade.
Manpower would become Workforce.
Manhole would become Peoplehole.
Or no, Maintenance.
Maintenance cover?
Okay, that makes more sense.
And you get the idea.
Couple of quick points here.
First of all, it's obviously ridiculous to be offended by any of the, quote, gendered language listed above, but manhole cover?
So the lid to the hole that leads to the sewage system has the word man in it, and feminists feel left out?
So when you see a manhole cover, someone talks about manhole cover, you feel left out as a feminist?
You want to be included in that?
Okay, look, I'm willing to give that one up.
I've talked to the male delegation, and we've discussed it, and we've said, you know what, we, that's fine, you can have that one.
In fact, you can, we don't have to make it gender neutral.
To feminists, you can just make, you can, whatever you want.
You can make that particular, we can call it a feminist hole if you want.
Go ahead, if it makes you feel better.
And feminists do tend to spew a lot of sewage, so it would sort of make sense.
Second thing, quickly here, it's interesting to me, and I've been waiting for this, and you see, you hear, you see gestures towards this every once in a while.
You hear whispers of it, but you don't often see people explicitly going after the term woman itself.
But of course, the term woman has man in it also.
So, you can't even talk about women without including men.
That's the reality.
And it's worse than that, actually, because if you follow the etymology of the word... Now, it's not true that a lot of people think that woman, the etymology is womb-man.
So, you know, womb-man, a man with a womb.
Which, these days, those exist, I'm told.
But that's not actually the etymology.
The etymology is, it goes back to the Old English, with-men, which means wife.
So the word woman really means wife, which means that women are being defined, literally, by their relationship to men.
Think of the sexism of that, my God!
So we need to get around to changing that too.
Let's not forget.
That's my only point.
We gotta think of another word for woman entirely, if we want to be completely gender neutral.
Okay, let's now check in with our friends at Ashford University.
Flipping the calendar creates endless possibilities.
New and exciting opportunities are coming your way.
You just have to be ready for them.
And it all starts with earning your master's degree at Ashford University.
You can make this year the year that you really advance your career.
You advance toward your own goals by earning your master's degree.
Get started today at Ashford University.
These days you can't always get that opportunity, that job you wanted with a bachelor's degree.
That's the reality of the situation.
And you might find that you need to get that master's and that's where Ashford University
comes in.
Ashford University's online master's degree program allows you to learn at your own pace.
You can study wherever you're the most comfortable learning.
Ashford University's six-week long courses allow you to take one course at a time.
Being enrolled in one class at Ashford means you're considered a full-time student, so you're taking your time, you're at your own pace, your own leisure, you're in your own home or wherever you want to be, and you're taking these classes.
Get ready to grab new opportunities.
Start your master's degree today.
Enroll now by going to ashford.edu slash Walsh.
That's ashford.edu slash Walsh to start your master's degree today.
ashford.edu slash Walsh.
Okay, before we read some emails, Jillian Michaels, who is, what is she, a fitness guru, I think?
She was being interviewed by BuzzFeed.
And BuzzFeed interviews always, always a lot of great, insightful content comes out of those.
And she said, she said some things about Lizzo that have caused backlash.
Listen.
I have to say, I've personally found, and I love celebrities like Lizzo or Ashley Graham who are really preaching self-acceptance.
I love her music.
100%.
I don't know anything about her.
I'm sure she's a cool, awesome chick.
Yeah, and I love that they're putting images out there that we normally don't get to see of bodies that we don't get to see being celebrated.
But why are we celebrating her body?
Why does it matter?
That's what I'm saying.
Like, why aren't we celebrating her music?
Because it isn't going to be awesome if she gets diabetes.
Well, I want to ask you... I'm just being honest, like, I love her music.
Like, my kid loves her music.
But there's never a moment where I'm like, and I'm so glad that she's overweight.
Like, why do we, why do I even care?
Why is it my job to care about her weight?
You know, people are upset about this saying, how dare you comment on Lizzo's body?
How presumptuous, how judgmental of you.
Well, uh, If you recall, Lizzo, just as one example, she went to a basketball game in pants where the butt region was cut out.
So, when you dress like that, I think what you want is for people to notice and comment on your body.
So, whatever comments come, you know, when you dress like that, Whatever comments come, that's on you.
You had that coming, because that's obviously what you are going out of your way to solicit, provoke comments about your body.
Second point, this is the kind of thing that, when people make comments like this, like Jillian Michaels did, That, hey, let's not talk about her body, and she doesn't say it, but Lizzo's morbidly obese, and that's not healthy, it's not good to be obese, it'll kill you, get diabetes, there's nothing great about that.
And so that's basically her point.
It's the kind of thing that people on Twitter get upset about, but I think in the real world, everybody understands this.
I think most people you talk to understand that, yeah, we shouldn't be celebrating obesity.
Of course not.
That doesn't mean that we're... Doesn't mean that we are bullying obese people or that we hate them or anything.
It's actually exactly the opposite.
But, you know, there are certain things... We talked about loving your body.
We talked about this a few weeks ago.
This whole concept of loving your body.
I don't even know what that means, first of all.
I mean, what does that effectively mean?
To love your body.
I mean, you are your body, you have your body, however you want to put it.
I don't know what it means to love it or why you should be focused on that.
You probably shouldn't spend much time focused on your body one way or another.
You shouldn't spend time staring in a mirror trying to conjure up the right kind of feelings about your body.
Who cares about how you feel about your body?
Just go live your life!
But to whatever extent you can love your body, you shouldn't love the things that are going to kill you, the things that are objectively unhealthy.
Especially if you can help them.
So if you've got some kind of chronic condition or disease or something, well, there's nothing you can do about that, but even then it would be kind of weird to say you love it.
It doesn't mean to say, I love my chronic condition.
Of course you don't love it.
But if it's something you can help and you can change, then you shouldn't love it and you should try to change it.
That's all.
It's just basic common sense.
Nothing to be upset about there.
Let's go to emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Emma.
Says, Hi Matt, I had a situation arise at my work the other day.
Would love to hear your opinion on the subject.
An employee of five years is leaving our business.
The employee was a great asset.
Very well liked amongst the office.
Always cared to do a good job.
The employee got another job from a larger corporation who can offer her more money, better benefits, and a higher chance of moving up within the company.
The employee wasn't looking for a different job at the time but couldn't pass up the offer.
The employee gave our boss a month's notice because they didn't want to leave us empty-handed and wanted to help train a new employee taking over that position.
The employee also had a week's worth of vacation time that they decided to take the last week before they left.
Do you think that they're in the wrong for taking a week's vacation after putting in a four-week notice?
Thanks for all you do, love the show.
I don't even see the controversy here, Emma.
Are people at your job upset about this?
No, I don't see any problem with it whatsoever.
That's her time.
It's in her employment contract.
She has every right to take it.
I don't see any controversy here, personally.
I'm a firm believer in using your vacation time.
You have vacation time.
That's your time.
You have a right to it contractually.
Why are you going to do your employer a favor?
Do a little charity and say, oh, I'll give you back the time.
Why?
Why should you?
They're probably not going to do you any favors.
So use your time.
Yeah.
No problem with it at all.
Let's see.
This is from Kay.
Says, Dear Matt, I really appreciate your show.
I have a marital question.
How do you divvy up the responsibilities slash chores in your household between you and your wife?
My husband and I have been married for less than three years, but we're having a lot of problems lately and have been having too many arguments and fights because we can't agree on who should be doing what.
From my perspective, I do probably 90% of everything from cooking to cleaning to all kid-related stuff.
But every time I bring this up to him, he tries to flip it around and say that he is so stressed because he's expected to do everything and carry all the weight.
It's been recommended that we come up with a chart that keeps track of who is supposed to do what and what our roles are.
And we started doing that recently, but it hasn't cut out all the fights completely.
How do you handle this in your marriage?
Have you had similar problems?
Well, Kay, first part of my answer is that sure, yeah, everybody has had issues like this in their marriage.
Everyone who's been married for more than like three days has had those kinds of arguments, the sort of, you don't do anything and I do everything types of arguments.
Really stupid arguments, arguments that just are...
Not productive and aren't going to lead anywhere.
But, you know, that is normal.
So to have an argument like that is normal.
But if you're having those arguments all the time, and you can't get along at all, and it's become an obsessive focus, and you've had to resort to a chore chart, then I think there's a deeper issue here.
I think it's a bigger problem, as I'm sure you've noticed.
So if I'm going to be straightforward with you, Okay, and I'm gonna be blunt about it, and you gotta keep in mind, I don't know... All I know is what you told me, so I don't know any of the background.
But I would say that it sounds like you guys need to grow up a little.
I would say you need to maybe mature, because you're adults, but you're acting like feuding siblings.
And so this intense obsessive focus on everything being fair and making sure that you're doing the exact same amount of things and sharing the burden exactly 50-50 is, I think it's a symptom of immaturity more than anything else, which we're all immature sometimes.
So that's not, I don't mean that as any kind of dramatic condemnation, but it is immature.
Now, I don't know who recommended the chore chart idea, but I think that it's honestly terrible.
And I think it's a terrible way for married adults to handle the distribution of duties in the household.
And I'll tell you why I think it's a terrible way to handle the distribution of duties in the household.
It's because it completely removes two, I think, essential ingredients from your marriage, and those are gratitude and generosity.
And those are ingredients that it sounds like you guys are desperately missing right now.
So a solution that eliminates them is probably not a great solution.
Because if you have it written down contractually that your husband is going to do such and such, take out the trash, do the dishes, vacuum the living room on Tuesdays and Thursdays or whatever, however you broke down the situation, whatever it is, there's no generosity, there's no love in him doing it.
He's just doing it because it's his thing on the chart.
And there's no reason for you to be grateful that he did it because it's what he's supposed to do and it's on the chart and so he did it.
And it seems to me that really, and I don't mean to try to read your minds here, but it seems like what you both really want is gratitude.
from experience, okay?
and you want to feel like the other one is being generous, right?
You want the other to be grateful, grateful for what you're doing in the marriage, and
generous.
You want them to be generous in giving themselves, putting in the work and the effort and all that.
So, I think any solution that isn't focused on that is going to be a problem.
And I say this from experience, okay?
We've made the mistake in the past in my marriage, every couple has, where you get too legalistic about this
sort of thing.
You say, you do this and I do that.
Let's keep it all even.
And it doesn't work.
What I think does work is for both partners in the marriage to just keep the other one in mind.
To stop thinking so much about what you're doing and the credit you deserve and what you need and how much you need a break and all the stress that you're under and so on and so forth.
And instead to think about what the other person Needs.
And I think if one spouse takes the lead on that and leads by example, not making a system out of it and not making themselves into a martyr, but just gets up and does what needs to be done, I think the other one will probably follow suit.
I think probably the goal is you want to settle into natural roles where you're both contributing in your own unique way and where there's still the opportunity for generosity and gratitude and all that.
One other thing.
So that's my answer there.
Probably wasn't much help, but that's my answer.
I guess my advice is just stop doing it.
You're having a problem.
My advice is stop having that problem.
I wouldn't be a very good therapist.
Just stop!
Okay?
That's it.
Give me $300.
But one other thing.
Here's something maybe a little bit more substantive.
Or practical, anyway.
I do think it's extremely important for moms and dads.
I think, did you say you have kids?
You said you made a reference to kids.
So you have kids.
Okay, so I think it's extremely important for moms and dads to both get breaks.
On a regular basis.
Not every six months or something.
But on a regular basis.
A break as in you get to leave the house for a few hours, not to run an errand or to go to work, but you leave the house on your own and you do your own thing.
You get a coffee, you get a beer, you work out, you watch a movie, you go get a drink with a friend, whatever you want to do.
It doesn't matter.
But I think that's really important.
It sounds like you both also feel like you need that.
And it is important in a marriage.
And I hear from both men and women all the time who say that they haven't really had a chance to get out and be by themselves in years.
And there's just no excuse for that.
If you're married, there's no reason why you can't, on a regular basis, get those kinds of breathers.
There's two of you, after all.
Right?
So, you should be able to go out and relax for a little bit while your husband handles things at home.
And vice versa.
You should both be able to do that.
So while my wife and I have been far from perfect and made plenty of mistakes, this is one area where I think we've always been, it's just, this is one area where we're definitely on the same page.
I think we've always been pretty good about it and giving each other breaks.
And we don't keep a chart or tabulate, and it's not a quid pro quo thing, like, you went out for 47 minutes and now I'm gonna... No, it's not like that.
It's just a general understanding that, you know, sometimes my wife's gotta get out and have her own time, I gotta get out, that's it.
I went recently to watch a movie, by myself, which I enjoy doing.
Actually, well, I think a movie, you don't really need somebody there with you, right?
Because you're not supposed to be talking anyway.
So I went out recently to watch a movie, and I was talking about, I mentioned it online, and all these people were saying, well, how did you, what, you went to see a movie?
Don't you have four kids?
How did you do that?
I haven't gone to see a movie in years.
Well, why not?
Why can't you?
If you have a spouse, right, if you're a two-parent household, why can't you?
If you want to go see a movie, go see a movie.
Have your spouse watch the kids.
I mean, you shouldn't be the only one doing that in a marriage, obviously, but you should both get a chance to do the stuff you want to do.
This thing that people... Now I'm kind of... I guess I'm off on a different... This isn't exactly what you were asking about, but I do think it would be helpful to you guys.
But you hear people talk about having kids and being married and how you give up your personal life and you can't do the things you want to do anymore.
Another one is fishing.
I talk about sometimes, you know, I like to fish and I talk about that on this show sometimes.
And I'll get emails from guys saying, oh, you know, I loved fishing before I got married and had kids, but now that I got kids and I'm married, I don't have time for it.
And they're asking me, how do you have time to fish?
Well, what do you mean, how do I have time for it?
Sometimes I wanna go fishing, I tell my wife, hey, I wanna go out on Saturday afternoon and go fishing.
Okay, why shouldn't I?
And she tells me, hey, I wanna go out with my friends.
She wanted to go down to D.C.
recently with a friend to have dinner and she was, you know, and okay, go ahead.
So that's, I think that's gotta be the attitude.
I think, I don't know, I think sometimes in marriages both spouses can get so, you're so obsessed with the 50-50 model and you want to make sure that, at least it seems like, and this seems like what you guys are going through, where every moment that you're working or watching the kids or doing something that's
Tedious, or you know, whatever it is, doing chores.
Every moment that you're doing that, you want to make sure that your spouse is also doing something like that.
Or you feel put upon.
The idea of you doing the hard stuff while your spouse is out enjoying themselves for a little bit, for some people they get in a marriage where they just can't handle that.
But if that's your attitude, it's disastrous, and it's not going to work, and you're just making it miserable on both of you.
All right, let's see.
We have time for one more email.
No, probably not.
We'll leave that for tomorrow.
mattwalshow at gmail.com again is the email address, and I guess we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Thanks for listening.
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 Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Senior Producer Jonathan Hay, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Donovan Fowler, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
We got to watch in real time this week as the Democrats in the media, that I repeat myself, tried to rewrite reality right in front of our eyes, telling us that our fight with the Iranians was Donald Trump's fault instead of the fault of a terrorist regime that's been with us more than 40 years.
It shows again why telling the truth, speaking the truth fearlessly, is the first business
of a free people, and that's what we'll be doing on The Andrew Klavan Show.
you you
you hey everybody it's Andrew Klavan host of The Andrew Klavan
Show We got to watch in real time this week as the Democrats and the media, that I repeat myself, tried to rewrite reality right in front of our eyes, telling us that our fight with the Iranians was Donald Trump's fault instead of the fault of a terrorist regime that's been with us more than 40 years.
