Ep. 478 - The World Health Organization Preys On Children
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Joe Biden finally addresses the rape allegations against him, and it goes about as well as you expected. Also, many leftists were mad at Trump for defunding the World Health Organization, but today I want to talk about a good reason to defund WHO that has nothing to do with the coronavirus. In fact, the organization has been for many years a leading advocate for sexualizing and grooming children with radical "sex ed" courses. Also Five Headlines, and in today’s Daily Cancellation I finally cancel feminism. Long overdue.
Just head on over to dailywire.com/subscribe. That’s dailywire.com/subscribe, coupon code WALSH, and get the rarest of all beverage vessels, times two.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Joe Biden finally addresses the rape allegations against him, and it goes about as well as you expected, which is not well at all.
Also, many leftists were mad at Trump for defunding the World Health Organization, but today I want to talk about a good reason to defund who that has nothing to do with the coronavirus.
In fact, the organization has been, for many years, a leading advocate for sexualizing and grooming children with these radical sex ed courses.
And I want to talk about that, and it's pretty horrifying stuff.
Also, five headlines, and in today's Daily Cancellation, I finally cancel feminism.
Long overdue, and it's finally happening, and I do that today.
Alright, but starting with this, we're going to get to the Joe Biden stuff in just a second.
But I wanted to begin with this.
There was a lot of consternation and outrage, as I said, when President Trump suspended funding for the World Health Organization last week.
And outrage aside, they clearly deserve to lose funding just on the basis of the past two months alone.
This is a health organization.
A global, a world health organization, no less, that has addressed a world pandemic by getting nearly everything wrong every step of the way.
They originally covered for China, downplayed the threat from COVID-19, then they reversed themselves and called for these draconian lockdowns, and then they seemingly reversed themselves again.
A couple days ago, they were putting Sweden forward as a model for battling epidemic and Sweden has not gone on a lockdown. So they're
all over the place, they have no idea what's going on. I'm not quite sure if this performance is
worth the $400 million a year in funding that we give them. In fact, I'm quite sure that
it's not. But the case against WHO goes well beyond its stumbling, bumbling response to the
coronavirus for many years.
WHO, as I said, has been an advocate for sexualizing children, grooming children
with these sex ed courses. I want to read from the Federalist, they have some details on this.
It says on the WHO's official website, International Planned Parenthood Federation is listed as
one of their major partners.
Planned Parenthood is one of the largest world abortion providers.
Of course, additionally, the names and logos of top-tier UN agencies, including the WHO, all appear on the front cover of UNESCO's International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, published in January 2018.
This document, posted on the WHO website, is laced with references to childhood sexuality, including these statements.
Young people want and need sexuality and sexual health information as early and as comprehensively as possible.
Children should have agency in their own sexual practices and relationships.
Comprehensive sexuality education can, quote, help children form respectful and healthy relationships with sexual partners.
Now it gets much worse.
As Summit News reports, the World Health Organization's Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe, a framework for policy makers, educational and health authorities, and specialists, that's the name of the whole document, it's a long name, provides a framework for sexual education, and the guidelines for even the youngest age groups are fairly shocking.
The document provides what they call a holistic approach that empowers children to become, quote, more empowered in order to live out their sexuality and their partnerships in a fulfilling and responsible manner.
The true horror of this approach becomes clear when you realize what they want children as young as four years old to be empowered to do exactly.
An educational matrix within the document provides specific guidelines for different age groups, and so it goes through, you know, children ages 0 to 4, children 4 to 6, 6 to 8, and on down the line.
Now, children from ages 0 to 4, we're told, according to these WHO guidelines, should be, quote, given information about the, quote, discovery of their own body and own genitals, And, quote, enjoyment and pleasure when touching one's own body, early childhood masturbation.
They're also supposed to be informed of their, quote, right to explore gender identities.
Remember, we're talking about children zero to four.
So we're talking basically about toddlers.
Children between 4 and 6, according to the WHO's guidelines, are supposed to be informed about, of course also, masturbation and general exploration as well.
This is a common theme that they return to.
They want those topics especially to be talked about quite a lot with kids at all age groups and pairs.
But there's the added wrinkle that homosexual relationships are supposed to be introduced at this point, from 4 to 6.
The guidelines get more graphic as you move into the older age brackets.
Kids between the ages of 16 and 18, we are told.
This is what it says about kids in that age bracket.
It says, The sexual career of young people usually proceeds as follows.
Kissing, touching and caressing with clothes on, naked petting, sexual intercourse, and finally, oral sex and sometimes anal sex.
Now, the phrase, sexual career of young people, Coming from a giant bureaucratic organization, that alone should severely creep you out.
That is very Brave New World, right?
But then all of this, in fact, the very idea of government schools teaching sex ed should creep you out.
This is what I think we need to understand.
It is inevitable that government sex education will take this kind of sharp left turn into grotesquerie of this sort.
That's because every statement about sex that a person can make is aside from the purely scientific statements.
But if you're going beyond that, then all of your statements are going to be wrapped in the moral and philosophical beliefs of whoever it is that's making the statement.
So it's one thing to teach about human anatomy or the biological facts of human reproduction.
That's one thing.
And of course you're going to cover that in school.
But once you veer into lessons on the relative merits and proper or improper context for specific sexual acts and behaviors, you have entered a realm that will always be more ideological than scientific.
It is the opinion of the degenerates at Who that four-year-olds ought to be learning about masturbating.
That's their opinion.
That's not science.
That's not anything.
That's just their opinion.
But children at school don't need to be hearing anybody's opinion about sex.
Especially not that opinion.
But that's what sex ed always comes down to.
Opinions.
And if the curriculum is developed and taught By hedonistic, degenerate perverts, the children are going to be taught hedonistic and degenerate and perverse opinions.
There's no way around it.
The best way, and this is why I say, you know, I'm against sex ed in general.
I don't think there should be sex ed in school.
The best way to stop these outrageously inappropriate and not so vaguely pedophilic sex ed courses is to stop all sex ed courses.
That's what we should be doing.
Let the kids learn about the science of sex in science class.
Again, that's just reproduction, anatomy, okay?
All the rest of it should fall to the parents to handle.
And no, this is not some kind of veiled sales pitch for abstinence education.
I'm not advocating that.
I don't think there should be abstinence education.
Abstinence education in the school creeps me out almost as much as this kind of stuff.
Well, actually not nearly that as much, but it creeps me out too.
I don't like that either.
I'll tell you why.
Because I don't want government employees teaching my kids how not to have sex any more than I want them teaching them how to have it.
That's just... I don't need a government employee to be telling my kids about abstaining from sex until marriage.
The case for abstaining until marriage is a moral case.
Now, there's also the physical component of it, where you could talk about the STDs you can get and everything.
And usually it seems like the abstinence-focused sex ed courses tend to go that route.
But that's not the real reason.
That's certainly not the primary reason, in my opinion, why people should wait until marriage to have sex.
It's not just about STDs.
There's a lot more to it than that.
And I don't think the classroom is the right place for that sort of instruction.
Nor do I trust the average school teacher to make the moral case against premarital sex effectively.
Nothing against school teachers, I just... I'm not gonna... Just because you teach health class in a high school, it doesn't mean you're equipped to effectively get that message across.
I don't need you to do that.
I can do that.
As the parent.
All of this should go to the parents.
All the teachers need to do is stick to the biological basics.
There should be no moralizing whatsoever, one way or another, about sexuality with kids in a school.
It is not appropriate.
It's not your place.
I don't trust the government to do it.
The government shouldn't be doing it.
There is no reason why this stuff should be talked about in school anyway.
How about kids go to school and they learn about, you know, learn math, science, literature, writing.
How about that?
Why don't we focus on that?
I think of it sort of similar to religion, the way that I think religion should be handled in a public school.
Now, the facts of religion should be taught.
You know, I think Christianity As it lies at the foundation of Western civilization, those basic facts should be taught in a school environment.
You can't give a kid an understanding of Western civilization if they don't have at least a basic understanding of Christianity and the Bible and many of the other world religions.
I think the facts of those religions should be taught because it's important for kids to know that.
When it comes to actually indoctrinating the kids into a particular religious worldview, that obviously is not the place.
It's not something that should happen in a school.
So teach the facts of it.
But don't try to actually directly, in the context of teaching, try to evangelize kids into a particular religion.
That's not what government schools should be doing.
Same thing with sex.
Teach the facts of it, but you shouldn't be trying to evangelize kids as a teacher into a certain view of sex, or certain moral framework for understanding sex.
That's not what the schools are for.
And if we allow it, then this kind of Disgusting, pedophilic degeneracy is going to happen.
There's no way around it.
All right, let's go.
Speaking of degeneracy, let's go to Joe Biden.
Accused rapist Joe Biden, as we move on to news here, finally answered the rape allegations against him after almost a month of ducking and dodging and everything.
Well, not really.
I guess he didn't really duck and dodge for a month because the media didn't ask him about it, so there was nothing to dodge.
It was pretty easy.
You know, it's like a game of dodgeball where no one's throwing any balls.
It's kind of easy to succeed there.
But he went on MSNBC this morning, and I have to say, look, credit, I give the media a lot of grief for good reason, especially when it comes to this Joe Biden thing.
But I do have to say, and I don't get a chance to say this very often, I'll probably never get a chance to say it again, so I want to say it right now.
Great job by MSNBC.
Great job in this case.
They grilled Biden.
I think that Biden probably could have gotten a friendlier interview on Fox.
Now, he didn't know that.
I'm sure he didn't walk into this.
He figured, there's a reason he went to MSNBC.
He figured, let me find the most far-left news organization I can find.
And he went to MSNBC.
Now, his mistake was, he probably should have gone to CNN.
Because actually, these days, I think CNN might take that crown.
It's a lot of competition for it.
But, went to MSNBC.
They grilled him pretty good.
It was a tough line of questioning.
Let's start by playing this.
Here he is, initially denying the allegation.
It's just going to be you and me, and I want to get right to the allegation made against you by Tara Reid.
So, the former Senate aide accuses you of sexual assault.
And please, to our viewers, please excuse the graphic nature of this, but I want to make sure that there is no question as to what we're talking about.
She says in 1993, Mr. Vice President, that you pinned her against the wall and reached under her clothing and penetrated her with your fingers.
Would you please go on the record with the American people?
Did you sexually assault Tara Reade?
No, it is not true.
I'm saying unequivocally.
It never, never happened.
And it didn't.
It never happened.
Wait, so it did happen?
He said it never, never happened.
It never, never happened.
So it didn't not happen.
So it did happen.
I think he just admitted to it.
I don't know.
That sounded like a confession to me.
And then much of the interview was focused on Joe Biden's past statements about believing all women.
This is the part that really surprised me.
I didn't think MSNBC would hammer this as much as they did.
But Mika, to her credit, nailed him on the double standard related to Kavanaugh and other situations.
And we kept going back to this point.
And here he is addressing that question.
You were unequivocal, Mr. Vice President, back in 2018 during the Kavanaugh controversy and hearings, and you said that women should be believed.
You said this, for a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she is talking about is real, whether or not she forgets the facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time.
She's going to be going on national television on Sunday.
Tara Reid is coming forward in the glaring lights.
To use your words, should we not start off with the presumption that the essence of what she's talking about is real?
She says you sexually assaulted her.
Look, from the very beginning, I've said believing women means taking the woman's claims seriously.
When she steps forward and then vet it, look into it, that's true in this case as well.
Women have a right to be heard and the press should rigorously investigate claims they make.
I'll always uphold that principle.
But in the end, in every case, the truth is what matters.
And in this case, the truth is the claims are false.
Believing women means taking the woman's claim seriously.
No, it doesn't.
That is not what believing women means, actually.
And the distinction is really important and obvious.
Believing someone is not the same thing as taking their claim seriously.
Taking a claim seriously means seriously trying to find out if it's true or not.
And that's what we want the court of law to do.
That's what we want the police to do.
Take the claim seriously.
Try to figure out if they're true.
Believing someone means accepting the claim as true.
That's belief.
So these are not the same thing.
One precedes the other.
So you take the claim seriously, you look into it.
If you find evidence, good evidence, then maybe you proceed on to believing the person.
But then, we don't need believe women, either.
It's not about believing women.
The fact that she's a woman has nothing to do whatsoever with believing her or not believing her.
When you're trying to decide whether or not to believe someone, their genitalia really shouldn't enter into the equation at all.
It's got nothing to do with it.
Now, unless the claim they're making is, I am a woman, and then Whether or not they actually are a woman is going to matter quite a lot, and whether or not we believe that claim, at least as far as I'm concerned, although that's controversial these days, I suppose.
So that's not at all the same thing, and Biden knows that, but there's no way around this.
It's very clear that believe all women is nonsense.
It is a dangerous precedent, as Biden is now discovering, because it's being applied to him.
And there's no way around it.
He said, believe women.
He said, assume that the essence of what they're saying is real.
That's what he said, which is another way of saying, assume what they're saying is true.
And he doesn't want us to apply that standard to him.
So the real answer here for Biden and all the other Democrats is that they never actually believed that we should believe all women.
Because even, they may be liars, But most of them are actually not crazy.
Joe Biden might be getting there, but he's not quite there yet.
So if you say, believe all women, you're either a lunatic or you're just lying.
Or you're proposing that standard as a political ploy and as a means to slander a man who's been accused in a given situation.
So those are the two options.
And in this case, it's the latter.
And that's the answer, but Biden can't say it.
The truthful answer for Biden would be, look, obviously you don't believe all women, obviously you gotta look at evidence.
We were saying that because we were trying to take down Kavanaugh, because we were really worried about him getting on the Supreme Court.
We were just throwing everything we could at him, and we were trying to fire people up, and so that's what the believe all women thing was about.
Okay, that's all it was.
That would be the honest answer.
And I would almost respect it if somebody, even if it's not Biden, if it's just somebody on the left would come out and just say that.
I would almost respect the honesty.
Finally, after all this time.
But they're not going to say that.
So they're going to try to find some way.
They're going to try to find some way to make believe all women and I don't believe this woman worked together.
They're gonna try to find some way to make those two things not contradict each other, but there's no way.
There's just no way to do that.
It's like trying to make this is a square and this is a circle work, not contradict each other.
It just can't happen.
So, let's move on.
Number two.
Hundreds of protesters demonstrated in the Michigan State Capitol yesterday.
Some of them were carrying guns, as is their right.
And here are some of the sights and sounds of that protest.
This is the people's house!
You better lock us out!
This is the people's house!
You better lock us out!
This is the people's house!
You better lock us out!
This is the people's house!
Let us in! Let us in! Let us in!
Let us in! Let us in!
Okay, so you see there some of them had guns.
Leftists were very upset about this, as you can imagine.
Nobody was hurt.
Despite what you've been told, it is possible to carry a gun and not kill somebody.
In fact, people do it all the time.
In fact, the vast majority of people who are carrying guns right now as we speak are not killing anybody and probably have never killed anybody.
Okay?
But I do want to address one thing, one talking point that I saw online all over the place yesterday.
There was a lot of stuff like this from this Marxist account on Twitter, says you don't even have to imagine what would happen if these Michigan protesters were black.
The argument is that these protesters got away with holding guns and peacefully protesting because they're white conservatives.
But if they were black or if they were liberal, they never would have been able to do that.
They would have been killed for doing it and so on.
That's the line.
That's what you're seeing today from the left.
And that is the kind of opinion you might have if you suffer from amnesia.
That has caused you to forget literally everything that happened in our country before yesterday afternoon.
Because if you don't have amnesia and you remember what has happened in this country, then you would know that, in fact, protesters who are not white conservatives have, in recent history, been able to get away with quite a lot more than this.
The reason why these protesters could get away with doing what they were doing is because of something called the First Amendment and the Second Amendment.
That's what empowered them to protest and carry a gun.
Very simple.
But, it's been a lot more than that.
Think about all those Black Lives Matter protests that turned into riots.
Buildings burned, stores looted, cops assaulted.
Hardly anybody arrested.
Nobody killed.
In fact, the rioters were basically allowed to riot all they wanted.
Give them space to destroy, in the words of the Baltimore mayor.
You think about the Dallas BLM protests, where five police officers were murdered.
And then, of course, you think about Antifa shutting down streets, bashing people over the head with lead pipes, environmentalist protesters stopping traffic during rush hour.
It's clear that being anything but a white conservative will enable you to do almost anything you want in the name of protesting.
Up to and including setting buildings on fire.
So that whole talking point makes no sense at all.
Number three, you may remember last week I cancelled Land O'Lakes Butter because they seemingly were trying to appease the woke crowd by taking the Native American mascot off of their butter packaging.
Activists have been claiming for a long time that it's somehow offensive and racist to have a Native American woman on a box of butter.
Never quite understood that myself, but that's what they said.
In fact, one lawmaker said that the Land O'Lakes woman was sexualized and that it was a sexual image.
She apparently, the lawmaker, thinks of butter in a very erotic light, it would seem, and make of that what you will.
I mean, I admit that I myself am a huge fan and admirer of butter.
I'm one of butter's biggest fans.
But even I don't take it quite that far.
So, anyway, now, as I predicted there would be, as anyone could have predicted it, you don't have to be Nostradamus, There has actually been a woke backlash against Land O'Lakes appeasing the woke crowd.
So they tried to appease the woke people and they're getting a backlash for doing that.
Because now we're being told that taking the Native American woman off the box was racist.
Having her on the box is racist, but taking her off the box is also racist.
There was an op-ed in the Washington Post from a guy who says that his Native American grandfather designed, or in fact, I think it was redesigned, the Land O'Lakes woman back, I don't know, 50 years ago or something, and that the image was meant to, quote, foster a sense of Indian pride.
And by taking her off, he says it, quote, leaves behind a landscape voided of identity and history.
For those of us who are American Indian, it is a history that is all too familiar.
Now, that strikes me as a bit overdramatic.
A landscape devoid of identity?
It's butter.
It's a package of butter.
The landscape is a box of butter.
But this is what happens when you try to appease the woke crowd.
This is what always happens.
It is a classic, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So that's why I say, don't.
Because if you do it and then you don't, then you're damned on both ends.
So it's better to just... Whatever it is they're telling you to stop doing, just keep on doing it.
Or whatever they're telling you to start doing, don't do it.
The point is, continue along your course, your chosen course.
If you got the woman on the butter box, just continue along with that.
Because, yes, they're going to complain, but first of all, who cares if they whine about it?
These are the most impotent whiners on the planet.
Their whining has no effect whatsoever.
And second, if you listen to the whines, there's just going to be more whines that come because of that.
So just ignore it and continue along.
Number four, a Rutgers University women's studies professor named Brittany Cooper, who goes by Professor Crunk on Twitter, Professor Crunk is her name, said this week that the coronavirus is the fault of Trump supporters.
She said, quote, not only do white conservatives not care about black life, but by most But my most cynical negative read of the white supremacists among them is that they welcome this massive winnowing of black folks in order to slow demographic shifts and shore up political power.
She added, F each and every Trump supporter, you all absolutely did this.
You are to blame.
Yes, China isn't to blame.
It came from one of their labs, they lied about it, it spread out of their country, largely because of their lies.
It's not their fault though, it's the fault of white Trump supporters.
If you're a white Trump supporter in South Carolina, this is your fault somehow.
You did this.
I don't know how, that can't be explained, but you did it.
All I really wanted to say, though, is that while I disagree with Professor Crunk on this issue, at least I know that anyone who went to Rutgers to learn about women's studies from Professor Crunk will emerge from that experience with a usable and translatable education that can land them any number of prestigious job opportunities.
So that's the bright side.
There are so many employers out there.
Who are looking for women's studies majors.
I hear this all the time.
I get so many emails from employers, especially these days, you know.
With the job market being how it is, I get all these emails from employers saying, I need a women's studies major to get in here and help me run my business.
But there aren't enough of them out there.
So think about what you can do with a women's studies degree.
Think about all the things you can do.
You can teach women's studies.
You can write women's studies textbooks.
You can teach women's studies.
You can do all kinds of things, you know, etc, etc, and so forth, right?
Yada, yada, I can't even list them all.
So that's the good part anyway.
And so, you know, don't be too hard on Professor Crunk.
You might think she sounds like a vile human being, but she is providing kids with a very valuable education.
Okay, we're gonna move to our Daily Cancellation, which I'm very excited about, but before we do, I'm even more excited to tell you about our amazing deal, which is going away on Tuesday, so you want to take advantage of this.
When you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or All Access member, you will get two of the Leftist Tears tumblers, and it will make your life complete.
There will be nothing else to do.
That's the one bad thing.
I've heard people have said, I got both tumblers, it's been my goal in life up to this point, but now I don't know what to do.
You know, it almost feels like life going forward is pointless because I have achieved the ultimate goal that I had.
And so, you know, there's a philosophical thing we can get into there, but we won't get into that right now.
Daily Wire members get many amazing benefits, including of course the Tumblr,
but you also get an ad-free website experience, access to our live broadcast, the show library,
full three hours of Ben Shapiro shows.
You get special election insight op-eds from Ben Shapiro.
You can ask questions during the backstage.
You can participate in the all-access live shows, which is our brand new interactive format,
kind of a Q&A discussion, very casual, a lot of fun.
And the deal's going away soon.
So remember, that's two leftist tears Tumblrs you can get when you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus
or All Access member and get 10% off with coupon code Walsh.
Just head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Okay, for our daily cancellation today, we are canceling feminism.
It's about time we did that.
There are many reasons to do this, of course, starting with feminism slaughtering 60 million babies.
You know, I would say that's a pretty good reason.
But beyond that, the real reason they're being cancelled today is because the feminist movement is today nothing but a collection of whiny, petty, ridiculous women searching desperately for a reason to feel persecuted.
And considering that women are so privileged, in fact are uniquely privileged in Western society, they have to get increasingly creative in their hunt for persecution.
The primary persecution that a feminist faces is that she is not persecuted, and so she's looking desperately for something.
Which brings us to an article in The Stylist, website called The Stylist, article titled, Is Sleep a Feminist Issue?
This is How Men Steal Our Sleep.
Dammit, fellows, they're on to us.
The jig is up.
We have, yes, we've been stealing your sleep.
It is how we gain our life force.
It's what sustains us.
So you caught us.
Here's what the article says.
I don't remember how old I was when I first heard the phrase, sleep is a feminist issue, but I know this.
It was before I started sharing a bed with men on the regular.
Consecutive men, I mean.
I never felt I could cope with more than one at a time.
Before then, I couldn't understand how sleep could ever be a gendered issue, let alone a feminist one.
So she hates having men in her bed, but yet she constantly has men in her bed.
Interesting.
Interesting situation she has here for herself.
You go to bed, you go to sleep, you wake up in the morning and go about your day.
Someone else goes to bed with you, you might have sex, chat, and then you go to sleep, and he goes to sleep, and you wake up in the morning, you might have sex, chat, then you go about your day.
Oh, haha, you naive, well-rested, single fool.
Gather round me, children, in the woody glen of truth, and listen to my hard-won words of wisdom as I collapse in chronic fatigue on a bed of moss, because this is what happens when you enter into long-term hetero bed-sharing.
This is, in short, how men steal your sleep.
And this is just heterosexual men.
Of course, right?
She forgot to mention also just white men.
She forgot to stipulate that.
In fact, I think it's pretty racist that she didn't stipulate that.
Because all of these accusations apparently would apply to black men too, and I find that highly racist, personally.
And then it goes through this whole list of bad things that men do to keep women awake.
We'll hit a couple of these.
She says, At X o'clock, your partner bursts through the door, shucks off his clothes, and bounds into bed.
He thinks he is being profoundly thoughtful because he hasn't broken or set fire to anything on his way up.
He thinks he is slightly creeping into his nest like a tiny field mouse without disturbing a single ear of corn.
He is wrong.
And then if he realizes you are now awake, he will start a conversation on whatever subject you are currently finding most stressful, because midnight really is absolutely the best time for this.
And then she mentions that he's going to try to have sex with you, and she does so in graphic terms I won't repeat.
He falls asleep within three seconds, because for him the day took care of itself and there's no reason to think tomorrow won't.
You will be disturbed half a dozen times more by his snoring and or the fact that there isn't a man alive who has learned how to rotate under the duvet rather than take it with him when he turns.
Dawn cracks and his alarm goes off early because he missaid it.
He's back to sleep immediately.
You are not.
These points may all resonate with you, or they may not, but add up how much sleep you lose a week, a month, a year to the ones that do.
Ask yourself how much sleep you lose to a man's unconscious sense of entitlement.
A belief so profound it seems natural to feel his time, his rest, his smooth passage through the world is more important than yours.
You can ponder this sleep and inequality beyond the night hours, then decide what to do about it.
Okay.
I spent way too long reading that.
A few things.
First of all, I also remember the first time that I heard the phrase, sleep is a feminist issue.
And it happened right now.
This was the first time.
Because I don't run in the kind of circles where that is a commonly used expression, because I'm not a lunatic.
Second, I am actually guilty of some of this stuff.
But that brings me to third, even if some of this stuff does represent a common difference between men and women, that doesn't make it a feminist issue.
And I'm not at all convinced that this is common to men, even if it's common to me.
Oversleeping my alarm, coming to bed late, snoring, I do all that stuff.
But it would surprise you, it may shock you to learn, I have heard tales of women who also snore sometimes, or oversleep their alarm, or go to bed late.
I think there are women who do that.
I could be wrong.
But either way, this is something people do.
Not just me, not men, just people.
It's a people thing.
Some of the people are men, like me, but you know what?
Get over it.
You screaming banshee, just get over it.
Regardless, not every difference between men and women, even differences that cause inconveniences for one or the other, are matters of persecution and oppression.
In fact, none of them are.
They're just differences, is all.
And when you put two different people together, there's going to be a little bit of tension sometimes.
That happens.
You're not persecuted.
You're not oppressed.
You're just a person living in human society, dealing with all the things the rest of us do.
Fourth, this idea that men fall asleep easily because we have no stresses while women carry all the burden and they're so stressed and they're dealing with everything while the man is just blissfully off in la-la land.
This is exactly the kind of self-aggrandizing, self-martyring crap that makes it so miserable to be married to a feminist.
And it's why feminist marriages fall apart all the time, because the feminist has a cartoonish view of men And when you view your spouse as a cartoon and yourself as a vivid, real, complex human, that is not a recipe for a great relationship.
And that is also why I thank God every day that my wife is not a feminist.
Fifth, if you think that snoring is a sign of an unconscious sense of entitlement, I'd like to suggest that you might be insane.
Snoring is not a patriarchal plot to oppress you, okay?
It's actually just a blocked nasal passage.
It's not the patriarchy, it's a nasal passage.
That's the issue.
Or else maybe he drank too much whiskey.
That could also make you snore.
So that could also be the case.
But either way, a person can't really help the noises they make when they sleep, so stop body shaming.
Snore shaming is body shaming.
Sixth point is, just in general, people who complain so much about being exhausted, as she's doing here.
I'm so exhausted.
I'm so exhausted and stressed.
I don't sleep.
Oh, shut up.
That's one of the most annoying things.
This is something a lot of people do.
I'm not going to say just women do it.
But people are very proud of, have you noticed this?
How proud people can be of their lack of sleep, their alleged lack of sleep, the stress they're under, how busy they are.
They love telling you about it.
If somebody only got three hours of sleep last night, they're going to tell you.
They're going to find a way to work it into the conversation.
Because they're so proud of it.
I don't understand it.
I don't know why.
And then the seventh point is that feminism is humanity's greatest mistake.
And that's all.
And that's why feminism is cancelled.
Let's move on to emails.
Got a couple of interesting emails here.
And you can email the show by becoming a Daily Wire member.
You get access to the mailbag as well as many other perks that we just went over.
This is from Kevin.
Says, Hey Matt, my brother and I are big fans of the show and I would like some advice.
I have a female friend from college.
We have been friends for six years.
The friendship is plutonic and there is no romantic feelings between us.
I think he meant platonic.
Plutonic would be like a relationship on Pluto.
Or a relationship with an alien from Pluto, which would be very interesting.
And if that's what this is, then that really puts a different tenor on our conversation.
About a year ago, she began dating her now fiancé, who has expressed concern about her hanging out with another man.
Both her and I have attempted to assure him that there is nothing going on when we spend time with each other, but nothing seems to bring his mind ease.
I have attempted to befriend the fiancé, only to learn he makes snide remarks about my friend and I behind my back.
My friend does not want to end our friendship, but I am beginning to fear that our friendship will end her relationship with her fiancé.
Do you think I should end the friendship, or is the fiancé being unreasonable?
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Well, Kevin, I hate to tell you, but I think the fiancé is being reasonable.
Not unreasonable.
Once your friend is married, she's a married woman, it will not be appropriate for her to go off and hang out individually one-on-one with a male friend.
It isn't appropriate now.
I mean, even if they were just dating, I would say it's not appropriate.
But as the relationship becomes more and more serious, your friendship, I think, becomes less and less appropriate.
And you actually didn't say that you guys hang out one-on-one, but the way you talk about spending time together and so on, it sounds like that's what you're saying.
Now, if you don't, if this is just a friend of yours and you guys see each other in groups and stuff like that, then I would say, yeah, the fiancé is being unreasonable.
Assuming either of you haven't given him a reason to suspect that there's something going on.
So if it's a group thing, and this is just someone you knew in college and you stay in touch with, but you guys don't get together one-on-one, then I would say that changes it.
But I'm going to assume, based on context, that you guys do hang out one-on-one.
And that, I would say, is definitely not appropriate.
The fiancé is right to have a problem with it.
Male-female friendships, where one or both are romantically committed, and where you guys are hanging out one-on-one, that's just asking for trouble.
Nothing good comes of that.
And it will be your friend's responsibility to put her marriage before you, which means keeping you at a relative distance.
And, see, the fiancé should be more important to her than you are.
I mean, considerably more important.
And his feelings and his comfort level should be way more important to her than you.
That doesn't mean you guys Can never speak again and that you can't be friends, but as I said, the way you talk about it makes it sound like it is inappropriate.
And not to say that I think you're lying about not, you know, I don't think that you're trying to do anything with her or break up the marriage or something like that, but it's still not appropriate.
And it is, it is a recipe for at least an emotional affair, which often will turn physical, but even if it doesn't turn physical, it's bad enough.
I think a general rule of thumb here is when you're married or you're engaged, if you find yourself having to explain, saying now from your friend's perspective, if she's finding herself having to say to her fiancé, oh there's nothing going on, it's all platonic, if you find yourself having to say that, That's a really good indication that there is something going on and that you're doing something wrong.
You should just really never be in a situation or put yourself in a situation where you have to explain that to your spouse.
Now, there are spouses out there who are way too controlling and paranoid and everything else, and way overly jealous, and, you know, I don't know, maybe just walking down the street saying hi to a man would set them off.
If that's the case, then that's totally different, but that doesn't sound like that's the case here.
And so I would say, yeah, I think you guys need to respect the fiancé's wishes for sure.
It's just not, I mean, people who defend this kind of stuff, I just don't see it as worth it.
When you're married or getting married, it's not worth the strain on the relationship and the emotional risk that's being taken.
It's not worth it for this platonic friendship.
And the problem is, from the fiancé's perspective, from the other guy's perspective, he's going to start thinking, well, if this is so worth it to her, if it's worth it to her to have this tension with me, and for me to be this uncomfortable with it, and all the arguments we're having, you know, if all that's worth it to her to maintain this friendship with you, Then the fiance is going to be thinking, there is something going on here.
She is way too attached to this other guy, and that's a problem for me because I'm getting married to her.
And I think he's right for thinking that way.
Okay, this is from Amanda, says, Matt, I don't agree with your comments on cohabitation.
You say it's a mistake.
My boyfriend and I have been living together for eight years and have two kids and we're happy.
Are we, quote, making a mistake?
Marriage isn't for everybody.
It isn't for us.
But we're raising our family and we're doing fine.
Stop trying to put everyone into your fundamentalist box.
Well, Amanda, you asked me if you're making a mistake.
From my opinion, I would say, yes, you are.
Since you asked, that's what I would say.
I think it's a big mistake, actually.
Especially since you have kids.
So, let me ask you, why won't you get married?
You say it's not for you.
Why isn't it for you?
Marriage is making a lifelong commitment.
It's uniting as one.
You're saying to the other person, we're in this for the long haul.
I'm not going to leave.
That's marriage.
People fall short of it, of course, and marriages do end, but that's what marriage is supposed to be.
So why don't you want that?
Is it because you don't want to make that kind of commitment?
And if that's the case, then I would remind you that you already made a lifelong commitment to your boyfriend by starting a family with him.
So you've got this, if not a lifelong commitment, you have a lifelong attachment to him.
A very significant one, through your kids, right?
And now your kids deserve a mom and dad who are married.
They deserve a mom and dad who are a husband and wife.
I think your kids deserve that.
One of the main points of marriage is to serve as a solid foundation for the family.
And you're saying to your spouse, I'm not going to leave, I'm here.
But you're also saying that to your kids.
It's really important for your kids to hear that.
And to know that they have that kind of security and stability.
So I don't see why you'd want to deprive them of that.
And you can't get mad at me for passing judgment on your personal situation.
You put it out there.
I didn't ask you to.
You did.
You asked my opinion.
I'm telling you what my opinion is.
I think you guys absolutely should be married.
And I think you're depriving your kids of something that they deserve.
And I think it's traumatic for kids, too.
When they go to school or whatever, they're with their friends.
I don't know how old they are, but eventually they're going to figure out that most of their other friends have parents who are husband and wife.
And their own parents are not.
And they're going to wonder about that difference.
And it's going to be traumatic for them when they start to realize that their parents have not made this kind of commitment.
And so there's a real instability there and a real insecurity that your kids are going to worry about.
So that's my view on it.
But thanks for the email and hope you guys have a great weekend.
We'll wrap it up there.
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.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
