Ep. 525 - Tucker, Hannity Targeted With The Most Frivolous Harassment Allegations Yet
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the latest Me Too allegations against Fox, including Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, are perhaps the most frivolous harassment claims we’ve heard yet. Also Five Headlines including George Stephanapolous’s wife saying that she would watch porn with her adolescent daughters. And in our Daily Cancelation, we discuss the unnamed woman who got naked for the cops at a Portland protest. Something tells me this would be received much differently if the naked woman was a dude.
Ben's new book "How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps" is out today! Get your signed copy here => https://utm.io/uGvF
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the latest MeToo allegations against Fox, including this time Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, are perhaps the most frivolous harassment claims we've heard yet.
We'll talk about that.
Also five headlines, including George Stephanopoulos' wife says that she would watch porn with her adolescent daughter.
She says it would be a learning experience for them and so she would be willing to do that.
And in our daily cancellation, we discussed the unnamed woman,
speaking of pornography, who got naked for the cops at a Portland protest
and showed off her genitals to the police officers.
Something tells me that, you know, although this woman is being celebrated as a hero
by the media, she would not be received in quite so positive a light
if this was a naked dude showing off for women.
So, we'll talk about the double standard there.
That and much more on the way today on the Matt Wall Show.
Now, we begin here, you know, and I must admit, I'm not a huge fan of cable news myself.
It's not how I choose to get my information.
I generally find that cable news hosts tend to be uninteresting and the insights they offer, such as they are, the talking points they offer, are usually superficial and redundant.
One of the very few exceptions In my opinion, to that rule is Tucker Carlson, who actually uses his platform to say things that are necessary and important, and he engages with issues and engages in a way that others won't.
Even other conservatives won't.
Especially other conservatives with comparable platforms won't.
And this has made Tucker the highest rated host on cable news, the most relevant voice in media by far, the most talked about voice in media.
It's also made him a target.
A prime target.
And it's why, even though he has the highest rated show on cable news, a lot of advertisers have fled because the left is focused intently on scaring away his sponsors to silence him.
Last week, the media ran wild with a story about inappropriate stuff one of Tucker Carlson's staff members posted anonymously on a message board.
And this was supposed to be a huge scandal for Tucker Carlson, for some reason.
That one of his staff members was posting edgy content on a message board anonymously.
Because I guess, what, Tucker is supposed to be monitoring the activity, even anonymous activity, of all the people that work for him?
Because that's a normal thing that I guess all media personalities do?
Then last night, Tucker revealed that the New York Times was planning to dox him and expose his family to harm again.
Not for the first time.
Here he is addressing that.
Watch.
Last week, the New York Times began working on a story about where my family and I live.
As a matter of journalism, there is no conceivable justification for a story like that.
The paper is not alleging we've done anything wrong, and we haven't.
We pay our taxes.
We like our neighbors.
We've never had a dispute with anyone.
So why is the New York Times doing a story on the location of my family's house?
Well, you know why.
To hurt us.
To injure my wife and kids so that I will shut up and stop disagreeing with them.
They believe in force.
We've learned that.
Two years ago, a left-wing journalist publicized our home address in Washington.
A group of screaming Antifa lunatics showed up while I was at work.
They vandalized our home.
They threatened my wife.
She called 911 while hiding in a closet.
A few weeks later, they showed up again at our house.
For the next year, they sent letters to our home, threatening to kill us.
We tried to ignore it.
It felt cowardly to sell our home and leave.
We raised our kids there in the neighborhood, and we loved it.
But in the end, that's what we did.
We have four children.
It just wasn't worth it.
But the New York Times followed us.
The paper has assigned a political activist called Murray Carpenter to write a story about where we are now.
They've hired a photographer called Tristan Spinski to take pictures.
Their story about where we live is slated to run in the paper this week.
Editors there know exactly what will happen to my family when it does run.
I called them today and I told them.
But they didn't care.
They hate my politics.
They want this show off the air.
If one of my children gets hurt because of a story they wrote, they won't consider it collateral damage.
They know it's the whole point of the exercise, to inflict pain on our family, to terrorize us, to control what we say.
That's the kind of people they are.
Now, the Times, for the record, says they aren't planning to run with any piece like that.
So it's a he said, they said sort of situation, and I can tell you that I don't believe the New York Times for a second.
It's not like they don't have a track record of doing this kind of thing.
I have no trouble believing what Tucker Carlson is saying here.
It's much harder to believe that Tucker would just invent this out of whole cloth and name names, something he came up with on his own, a fiction story.
It's harder to believe that than it is to believe that the New York Times got called out and is now lying to cover their own asses.
And then so that's you know two things And remember, this is all within a week or two.
Then yesterday, also, we have the big breaking news, which the rest of media is amplifying with trumpet blasts of celebration, that two women are filing harassment suits against a whole bunch of Fox News employees and personalities, including Tucker Carlson and others.
As per usual, when people on the right are accused, these allegations are being taken at face value because, of course, we're back to believe all women, right?
We're back to that again.
We took a break with Joe Biden, now we're back.
Now we're believing women again.
There was a couple months there when we weren't supposed to believe women anymore, but now, yeah, we can believe them again.
And of course, these allegations then, because believe all women, these allegations are being taken at face value, as fact, with very little skepticism.
But let's take a look at the actual allegations.
You tell me if these seem credible to you.
You be the judge here, okay?
I'm gonna read now from the AP report.
This is what it says.
Fox News Channel stars Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Howard Kurtz were accused of sexual harassment by a frequent on-air guest in a lawsuit filed Monday that the network called frivolous and untrue.
In the same case, a former Fox employee said she was harassed and raped by news anchor Ed Henry, who was fired July 1 shortly after the network became aware of the accusations.
Henry's lawyer, Catherine Fodey, said Monday that her client's accuser, Jennifer Eckhart, initiated and encouraged a sexual relationship.
Hannity and Carlson represent two-thirds of Fox's lucrative primetime lineup, while Kurtz hosts the weekend media buzz show.
None of the men have been mentioned before in any misconduct allegations at Fox, until the charges were made by Kathy Areu.
I think that's how you pronounce it.
A-R-E-U.
The lawsuit filed in New York describes Areu's discomfort with a March 2018 incident on the set of Hannity's show, where the host allegedly put $100 on a desk and challenged the man on his staff to take her out on a date.
She said she was a guest on Carlson's show in December 2018, and that after it was over, he told her he was staying in a hotel room in New York that night without his wife and children.
In 2019, she said Kurtz invited her to his hotel room to discuss her hope of getting a full-time job at Fox.
When she instead invited him to dinner with her and a friend, he declined, she said.
In the cases of Carlson and Kurtz, R.U.
believed the men were making sexual advances, the lawsuit said.
R.U.
said she was also propositioned by Gianno Caldwell, a Fox contributor.
Based on an outside law firm's investigation, Fox said it found all of R.U.' 's claims patently false, frivolous, and utterly devoid of any merit.
Fox said it would defend itself vigorously.
And then R.U.
also said she got lewd messages from Ed Henry.
And then we have also the accusations against Ed Henry from, this is from Jennifer Eckhart.
She said she was 24 at the time.
She said that 49-year-old Henry restrained her with metal handcuffs, took nude pictures of her, and raped her in a hotel room.
She said that she had asked Eckhart to, or that he had asked Eckhart to be his sex slave, and quote, little whore, and punished her when she did not comply with these demands.
Um, okay.
So there you go.
There's all, there's all the information.
First, we have Kathy RU who, who, who, by the way, was not an employee of Fox at the time of these alleged incidents, who says, uh, let's, let's go through these one at a time.
She says that Sean Hannity put a hundred dollars on a table and offered to, uh, pay any man in the studio to take her out.
Now this, even if it happened, Isn't sexual harassment.
It makes no sense at all.
Why would Hannity... He was going to pay someone to take her on a date?
What does that even mean?
What's the context here?
Unless there is a context, and this was a joke, that would make sense in the context that we're not being told about.
Now that seems plausible, I guess.
The idea that Hannity did it randomly for no reason, with no context, Just out of nowhere, here's a hundred bucks, someone take this lady on a date.
It's just not plausible.
But either way, whether it happened or not, whether there's context or not, it's not harassment.
It's a weird joke at absolute worst.
Then she says Kurtz asked her to come to his hotel room and talk about getting a job.
She says, let's go to dinner, and he said no.
The end, according to her.
Again, not harassment.
Harassment would be if the propositions continued, and they were unwelcomed.
Inviting a woman to your hotel room when she's not your co-worker may not be appropriate.
It may not be morally right, especially if Kurtz is married.
I don't know if he is or not.
But it's not harassment.
And to the charge against Tucker, I mean, this is really just one of the most frivolous sexual harassment claims I've ever heard in my life.
And the people that are amplifying these claims, they know that.
They know it.
And they know that if you actually click on the headline and the link and you read what the claim is, you're going to immediately say this is ridiculous.
So they know that, but the goal here is just to have Tucker and Hannity labeled as sexual harassers.
All they want, as it says in the AP article, there have been plenty of other claims made against Fox News people as we know.
Hannity and Tucker have never been mentioned by anybody before.
And I think that is much to the chagrin of the left and their competitors in the media who would love it if these guys were also mentioned and here we go.
Finally they get it.
The fact that it's frivolous doesn't matter because now all they care about is that they can label these guys as sexual harassers and they can put that asterisk next to their name for the rest of their lives.
But what does she say?
She says that he said to her, I'll be alone in the city tonight.
The end.
That's it.
That's all that happened, according to her.
Even if her account is completely accurate, which we have no reason to believe that it is, this isn't harassment.
Saying I'm gonna be alone tonight in the city is sexual harassment?
She chose to interpret it as a sexual proposition, which even if it was, again, we have no reason to think it was, we have no reason to think any of this even happened, but even if it was, even if it happened, and even if she interpreted it correctly, that's not harassment.
I can easily imagine a non-sexual way and reason why something like that would be said.
Just, for example, You know, someone could say how they're gonna be alone tonight, they have a hotel room to themselves, and they're just happy to get a break.
That's a sentiment.
People that have traveled and have spent a night alone in a hotel room when they've got kids, you know, happy for the break.
They can relate to that sentiment.
So, could easily interpret it that way.
But this is how she chose to hear it.
Again, if it happened at all, this is how she chose to hear it.
She also says we should note that she suffered punitive damages for turning down this alleged, implied, potential... This is an alleged, implied, potential sexual proposition.
And for turning down this alleged, implied, potential sexual proposition, she says that she was punished because she was only asked to appear on Tucker's show three times after that.
Oh, the horror.
The horror.
You know, I've only been asked to appear on Tucker's show once.
I guess he sexually harassed me too.
I don't know.
Apparently.
In fact, I've been on cable news shows frequently for a period and then suddenly I'm not invited on again.
It's pretty common.
It happens to a lot of people.
It could be just that they have other guests they're bringing on.
They just haven't thought about it.
It could be that they didn't find me that interesting.
It could be that...
Maybe I said something on air they didn't like.
It could be that the news cycle has turned in a direction where they figure I don't have as much to offer.
It could be any of those explanations, or yes, maybe it could be sexual harassment.
I'm being punished in some way.
Yeah, let's go with that last explanation.
It certainly is the most flattering to me, right?
I would prefer for that to be the reason.
It's better than thinking that I wasn't invited on because I'm not interesting.
That would really hurt my self-esteem.
So those are the claims against Tucker, Hannity and Kurtz.
The allegations against Ed Henry are obviously quite a bit more serious, but the seriousness of them raises questions in and of itself.
She says that she was stripped, cuffed and assaulted in a hotel room.
Now, if that happened, It's a brutal, violent felony.
Multiple.
This is rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault.
I mean, we've got probably a dozen violent felonies here.
And according to this, he's a violent kidnapper and rapist and should be facing life in prison if all of this happened exactly as it's said.
So why is this a civil complaint in that case?
Rather than a criminal complaint, why didn't she go to the police to say that I was kidnapped, bound, and raped by a man?
According to this story, this is a shocking felony that was committed.
Why didn't she immediately go to the police after freeing herself and escaping?
You know, I mean, you can argue that in some of these cases of legitimate harassment, and, you know, there's always the question of, well, why didn't you say something earlier?
And sometimes there could be a valid reason that nothing was said earlier.
Maybe you were uncomfortable.
Maybe, you know, you weren't sure if it rose to the level of harassment or not.
Maybe, you know, you were worried about professional consequences.
I mean, we could see all that, but with something like this, It's mind-boggling that you wouldn't go to the police right away with something like that.
I mean, that is such a horrific crime that you would have suffered that it's hard to understand why you wouldn't immediately go to the police.
So, it's a strange thing.
And it's not something that a thinking person can just take immediately on face value.
Maybe it happened, maybe it's exactly as it's being described, but there are reasons to take a step back and wonder what's going on here.
And anyway, regardless, this can't be lumped in with the claims against Tucker and Hannity.
Which are just completely and obviously without merit.
And we know that because even if they happened, they don't rise anywhere close to the level of harassment.
Again, she wasn't even a co-worker of theirs.
And call me cynical, but I suspect that that's actually what she might be mad about.
You know, she's not getting those sweet fox bucks like she wants, so she's finding another way to go about it.
That would just be a potential theory of the case here, and a theory that to me makes a lot more sense than what we're getting from this woman in relation to Tucker and Hannity especially.
And the real point here is that all of this, the avalanche of attacks, all of them gratuitous, Against Tucker Carlson specifically, is what happens to people who peek their heads too far above the crowd, who become too much of a problem to the left.
Because this is how the left plays the game.
It's a take no prisoners approach, win at any cost.
It's not enough to just beat you.
They want to destroy you.
They want to destroy you and everyone you love and everyone who knows you.
That's the way they handle it.
And we should always remember that and act accordingly.
All right.
Let's go to five headlines.
The rioters in Portland are still at it, of course.
Let's check in and see how that's going on.
You know, you see videos like that and we should remember that, yes, these are violent
domestic terrorists who should all be arrested and sent to prison.
Thank you.
But also, these are scrawny, weak, pathetic wimps.
And that's the thing that always jumps out at you when you see these videos.
There's a reason why they operate in packs, in groups, and that's how they attack people, that's how they do everything.
Because one-on-one, these are just utterly pathetic and unimpressive people.
And that's a big reason why they're doing what they're doing.
It's a way of feeling.
I mean, a lot of these people probably were bullied in school and have just been treated as pathetic and unimpressive because they are their whole lives.
And now they're finding a way to finally an outlet where they can feel strong and powerful.
They put on the black costume and the mask and they go out and smash stuff.
But they can't even successfully smash glass with a with a you know with a fire extinguisher Because you know probably the guy you're seeing there probably bench presses 47 pounds or something if that So that's and that's the balance.
I always want to strike when we talk about Antifa and the rioters that on one hand they do represent a very real threat But I don't you know I also don't want to make the mistake of Of portraying them as if they individually are tough and scary people, because they aren't at all.
But you put a group of any, I mean, you put, it doesn't matter how weak and pitiful you are as a person, if you get together in a group of a hundred people or more, and you've got weapons and you're setting fires, yeah, you're gonna be dangerous.
Okay, let's go to number two here.
A report from the Daily Wire says the wife of ABC's Good Morning host George Stephanopoulos revealed she's perfectly willing to teach her teenage daughters about sex by watching porn with them.
Allie Wentworth, whose daughters are 15 and 17, told the Dissenters podcast that porn would be educational for them because she could explain that porn is performative rather than realistic, according to Yahoo News.
Wentworth said, in porn, women have been conditioned to look and act a certain way.
They are performing, and it's dangerous to have boys see this as something women want.
You can't stop them, so I would watch it with them.
I would look at the porn with them, that one time, like they're performing.
Um, and then she goes on, I have an issue with how we are raising this generation of children because we grew up without social media for us, our children, us as parents are guinea pigs.
You know what I mean?
I don't know what to say about don't use your phone, use your phone.
And I started learning as I went.
When I would see other people's daughters and how sexualized they were on social media, and I became very passionate about the idea that we want to regulate social media, we need to chart these waters for our kids, so I started doing these panels on the social media and its effects, and my feeling was this was a very dangerous thing.
I see it with other kids.
Our suicide rate, too, has doubled.
I see the bad effects.
I think there are good effects, too.
I mean, I'm just reading a transcript right now.
This doesn't make any sense.
It sounds like, was she drunk or something?
That wouldn't make it much better.
That would make it a little bit better if she was drunk when she did that.
I have no idea if she was or not.
But this is largely incoherent.
I mean, we do find that she's worried about people's daughters being sexualized.
She seems to be worried, from what I can decipher, about the effects of social media.
And her way of responding to that is to watch hardcore pornography with her daughters, including her 15-year-old daughter.
Nothing matters.
I mean, really, no matter how old the daughter is, that's just creepy and disgusting and weird, to put it mildly.
So, there's George Stephanopoulos' wife.
Number three, reading again from the Daily Wire, it says, St.
Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, a Democrat, announced on Monday that she's charging the St.
Louis couple who defended their private property using firearms last month.
With felony unlawful use of a weapon.
The couple also reportedly faces a fourth-degree misdemeanor assault charge.
The St.
Louis Dispatch reported Mark and Patricia McCloskey each are facing a single felony count of unlawful use of a weapon.
Exhibiting.
Charging documents say he pointed an AR-15 rifle at protesters and she wielded a semi-automatic handgun, placing those protesters in fear of injury.
So, just to reiterate on this case, because this is obviously an outrageous miscarriage of justice.
And the governor has already said that he would pardon, if there were charges brought, he would pardon these two American citizens who were only defending their own property.
And I'm glad to hear that.
But the fact that charges were pressed at all is, as I said, outrageous.
They're standing on their own property.
Holding firearms.
That is their Second Amendment right.
This is a direct attack on the Second Amendment.
And it's not as though, despite what we hear from the media, it's not as though they had no reason to think that these supposed peaceful protesters might be violent.
This is how dumb the media thinks we are, and this is how dumb a lot of people actually are.
That they're portraying the McCloskeys as these gun-toting lunatics and say, well, why would they think that they were at any risk?
I mean, these were peaceful... As if we haven't all been watching the news for two months and seeing cities across the country, buildings being burned, random people assaulted.
Let's pretend we haven't seen that.
Except for all of that, There's just no reason at all to think that for them to have thought that they were in any physical danger at all.
Number four, going back to the Portland riots for a moment, here's another interesting recent phenomenon at these riots.
First, let's just watch this footage here.
And now, let's just watch this footage here.
So commit serious, serious, dangerous felonies.
The moms have shown up to help them, A, to bed them in their crimes.
So to those of us who had been theorizing, That one of the reasons why Antifa exists is because of horrible parenting?
Now we have confirmation for that theory.
If there was any doubt at all...
The terrible, neglectful, awful parents have actually showed up to advertise, to all but announce, oh yeah, yeah, we're horrible.
Well, look at us.
Look how horrible we are.
They're on parade.
They are parading their awful parenting for all of us to see.
So glad to get that confirmation.
That feels good, at least.
Number five, and now the AP.
The AP is the latest to come out and say that the word black should be capitalized, but not white.
And we've seen this more and more recently, but I want you to listen to, here's the AP explaining why there is this dichotomy where we capitalize one and not the other.
It says, the AP said, this is according to an AP report, the AP said white people in general have much less shared history and culture and don't have the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color.
We agree that, this is now John Danischowski, the AP's Vice President for Standards, said in a memo, we agree that white people's skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore these problems, but capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.
Okay.
This is obviously nonsense.
I mean, Even if I were to agree that white people are never discriminated against because of their skin color, which of course is not true.
Talk about systemic racism.
The only explicit, out-in-the-open example of actual systemic racism, like it's a policy that we're going to discriminate against certain races, the only example anyone could come up with is affirmative action.
And that's, that is discrimination against white people.
So, but even if I were to agree with that, um, you know, white people don't have the experience of being discriminated against.
What does that have to do with grammar?
What does that have to do with punctuation?
So we're, we're, you're gonna, uh, or, or capitalization rather.
So you, you capitalize the first letter in the word black because they're discriminating against, but not, but not white because they're not, what relation is there between those two things?
Total nonsense.
But this is the left turning grammar into, and this is not the first example of it obviously, but this is grammar being politicized.
Even grammar now is an ideological concern.
And so even when you're deciding what letters to capitalize, you're not making that determination based on any grammatical rule, you're making it based on ideological doctrine.
And that's what we see once again.
All right, we're going to go to our daily cancellation.
Before we do, you know, there's so much going on this year, it's hard to know where even to start.
And, you know, you just heard a list of all the news stories.
That's just a small sample just from today.
And then, of course, you have the left-wing media constantly pushing their agenda instead of doing actual reporting.
When you can't get the real story, you have to go outside the narrative and get the facts.
So if you're just a political junkie set on getting both sides of the story, whatever it is, get a reader's pass today from dailywire.com.
You'll get access to exclusive op-eds from your podcast hosts like yours truly, as well as guest writers and in-depth analysis from our excellent Daily Wire reporters.
You can go right now and see my latest piece that I just put up talking about the school system basically arguing now that the public school system itself is inessential, as a homeschool parent I happen to agree.
And I flush out that argument there.
This membership tier is already a bargain at $3 a month, so if you join today, you get your first month for 99 cents.
You also get access to our mobile app, you receive push notifications for breaking news and special content, as well as you can join the community of Daily Wire members who are actively commenting and discussing our content with each other.
That's mobile, ad-free access to all of our Daily Wire news, exclusive op-eds, and all of our podcasts on our mobile app.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe now.
Okay, now for our daily cancellation.
We're going to be cancelling this naked exhibitionist and her fans and media.
Maybe you've seen this picture.
This is, I'm told, an iconic picture.
A historically significant picture, I have been reliably informed, of an unidentified pervert showing up naked to the Portland riots and actually, as you can see here, spreading her legs for the officers.
This is supposed to be a way, I guess, of showing the officers... showing them something.
She is certainly showing them something, alright.
Specifically, her genitalia is what she's showing them.
And of course, the media loves this, perhaps not surprisingly.
Here's the LA Times...
Practically breaking into poetry when describing this woman is their article.
It says, she emerged as an apparition from clouds of tear gas as federal agents fired pepper balls at angry protesters in the early Saturday darkness.
A woman wearing nothing but a black face mask and a stocking cap Strode towards a dozen heavily armed agents, attired in camouflage fatigues, lined up across a downtown Portland street.
The agents, dispatched by the Trump administration over a vociferous objections of state and city officials, are part of a force that has fired projectiles at and detained activists protesting nightly since the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police May 25th.
Oh, we're still pretending this has anything to do with George Floyd whatsoever.
Okay.
Numerous photos and videos posted on Twitter show the unidentified woman as she halted in the middle of the street at about 1.45 a.m.
She stood calmly, a surreal image of human vulnerability in the face of an overpowering force that has been criticized nationally by civil rights advocates.
The agents in gas masks and helmets continued firing pepper balls in a staccato pop, pop, pop heard on video aiming low at the asphalt where puffs of smoke mingled with clouds of gas.
Before it was over, she struck ballet poses and reclined on the street.
She also sat on the asphalt in a yoga-like position, facing officers before they left.
The woman making her statement Saturday was altogether uninhibited, at one point standing on one leg and raising her arms in an arc-type motion.
As she struck ballet poses, a patrol car arrived and a dozen officers in blue uniforms replaced the line of agents.
Okay, and then it goes on.
I mean, this thing goes on forever.
I can't even come near arguing or reading the entire thing.
Okay, but this is all for a chick who showed the cops her genitals.
Now, I want you to imagine for a moment a different scenario.
Slightly different, okay, but analogous.
Let's say this was a woman's march.
And those were a bunch of women holding, shout your abortion signs instead of cops, instead of male cops, largely.
And then imagine a naked man comes out, emerges as an apparition from the darkness, as the LA Times would say, and strikes a bunch of naked poses, exposing his whole nude self in all his glory before these women.
What do you think?
Any chance that dude is celebrated?
What do you think?
You think they're gonna be celebrating that?
No.
On the contrary, of course, he would be condemned as a sex predator, probably arrested as such and officially charged.
He'd be on the sex offender registry already.
And his performance would be seen as further evidence that masculinity is toxic and dangerous and women are oppressed and so on and so on and so on and so on.
This is why we need the Me Too movement.
You see?
Right here.
Oh, but this is different somehow.
Right?
This is different.
How is it different?
Why is it different?
Nobody can explain.
No one can explain, but it just is.
We're supposed to accept.
We're supposed to simply accept that it's different and go along with it.
Well, no.
We shouldn't accept it.
And this is something that when it comes to, especially the double standard, I mean, the double standard, especially with how women are treated versus men, the standards that men are held to versus women, I mean, the double standards there are glaring, obvious to anyone with two brain cells.
But this does become, I think for some conservatives, a little bit complicated.
Because, as conservatives, and I actually agree, that men and women are not the same.
And this is what we've been saying all along.
And actually, men and women should not be treated the same.
We shouldn't, in our daily lives and in the way we treat each other, we shouldn't just pretend that if you're dealing with a woman or a man, it's exactly the same.
There is a difference.
And so, as conservatives, we should recognize that.
And I've heard some conservatives, in fact, someone on Twitter today was making this argument to me.
That, yeah, this is a double standard, but there should be a double standard.
This is what we think as conservatives, so we shouldn't complain about this.
No.
No.
Yes, I believe that men and women are not the same and shouldn't be necessarily treated the same.
That's what chivalry is about, okay?
As men, we're gonna, you know, respond to women a little bit differently if we want to be chivalrous.
I believe in that.
But that doesn't mean, and this should go without saying, it doesn't mean that we should give women the license to be jerks and perverts and degenerates while condemning men for the same.
Not only that, but giving women license and actually celebrating them for being jerks, perverts, and degenerates while accusing men of being those things even when they're not.
So just a perfect example here.
Here's a woman naked spreading her legs for officers in the middle of the street.
Okay?
And we're supposed to celebrate that.
On the other hand, if you have a man on a subway who's fully clothed and slightly spreading his legs a little bit because he's, you know, it's just, he's a man and so anatomically he's not able to sit exactly how a woman can sit because he has other, shall we say, concerns he has to take into account here.
That is supposed to be gratuitous and awful and patriarchal and, you know, that's a big problem.
We've got PSAs about it and signs on the subway telling men not to manspread.
Okay.
That's an example of treating men and women differently in a way that is not good and that we should not support as conservatives or as anybody.
I don't care what your political leaning is.
We should not support that.
So there's a difference between advocating for chivalry and for recognizing the inherent differences between the sexes.
You know, you can do that.
That doesn't mean giving license to women.
To act in exactly the kinds of ways they're constantly accusing men of acting and complaining about men acting that way.
So, no.
And there's, of course, nothing chivalrous about seeing that display and celebrating it.
Again, should need to be explained.
I don't think I should need to spell this out, but I think I do.
These double standards, no, we can't accept them.
We shouldn't accept them.
We shouldn't go along with them.
I think too many people are willing to.
And we should. All right. So, canceled. We're canceling.
Who are we canceling? We're canceling the woman. We're canceling the media. Everybody, everyone
involved is canceled on this one.
And we're going to wrap it up there. But before I do, I just wanted to mention Ben Shapiro's book,
How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, goes on sale Tuesday, July 21st, which last I checked,
So it goes on sale today at 6 p.m.
Eastern, 3 p.m.
Pacific.
Ben's gonna be doing a virtual live signing event, um, with your purchase of a signed copy.
You can write in questions, which may be read on air, and he'll, you know, as you sign the books, he'll read those.
So go to dailywire.com Slash Ben right now.
Now's your chance.
You still have a little bit of time to pre-order the book, so I would encourage you to do that and then be a part of Ben's live signing on Tuesday, July 21st, which is today.
So that'll be exciting, and it's a great book as well.
I have it on my shelf, and I've been reading it the last couple of days.
We'll wrap it up there.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
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.
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.
Dr. Fauci throws out the first pitch for the Washington Nationals.
