Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the Right celebrates a new poll showing a majority approval for laws banning men from women’s sports. But I think the truth is not quite as rosy as it’s being made out to be. The Left is playing the long game, and they’re winning, as always. Also Five Headlines including an abortion ban in Arkansas, a new left wing “autonomous zone” in Minneapolis, and the soap company Dove has decided to stop using the word “normal” in its advertising, because it might offend someone. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll deal with a feminist writer who’s worried that stay at home moms might be setting a bad example for their children.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the right celebrates a new poll showing a majority approval for laws banning men from women's sports, but I think the truth is not quite as rosy as it's being made out to be.
The left is playing the long game, and they're winning, as always.
Also, five headlines, including an abortion ban in Alabama, a new left-wing autonomous zone, quote-unquote, in Minneapolis, and the soap company Dove has decided to stop using the word normal in its advertising because it might be offensive, apparently.
In our daily cancellation, we'll deal with a feminist writer who's worried that stay-at-home moms might be setting a bad example for their children.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
So much of your day hinges on how well you rested.
Are you going to have a good day or a bad day?
It all starts with whether or not you got some sleep.
And that means that one of the best gifts you can really give yourself is a MyPillow product,
or especially a MyPillow pillow, which is gonna help you get that good night's sleep.
MyPillow products don't go flat.
You can wash and dry them as many times as you want and they maintain their shape.
Best of all, they're made right here in the USA, given American jobs, which is so important.
If you don't have a MyPillow or if you know someone who doesn't have one yet,
now's the time to get one because for a limited time, MyPillow is offering their premium MyPillows
for their lowest price ever.
You can get a queen-size premium MyPillow, which is normally $69.98.
You can get it for $29.98.
That's $40 in savings.
The Kings are only $5 more.
Now's the time to buy.
If you've been thinking about this, putting it off, Don't put it off anymore.
Get yourself a MyPillow.
Go to MyPillow.com, click on the Radio Listener Square.
There you'll find not only this amazing offer, but also deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the Giza Dream Bedsheets, the MyPillow Mattress Topper, and MyPillow Towel Sets.
Or you can call 800-651-1148 and use promo code DAILYWIRE.
As you know, I tend to focus more on the dark cloud within the silver lining.
That's sort of my thing.
And that's why I can't join in some of the right-wing chest-thumping and celebration I've noticed over a new poll in Politico which finds, dear conservatives tell it, wide approval for banning males from female sports.
A majority of Americans, in fact, do not believe that men who identify as women should be allowed in women's sports.
A majority!
What a victory!
Clearly our arguments are winning the day.
At least that's how it's being presented by some on the right, ever willing and eager to delude themselves.
Let's look at the actual numbers.
This is from a Politico poll.
Of course, take all of the necessary spoonfuls of salt to go along with these poll results, because it is Politico.
But to the extent that we can actually trust the results, Here's what it says.
Reading now from Politico, it says, Former President Donald Trump railed against transgender athletes in female sports in his CPAC speech a few weeks ago.
Other prominent voices on the right have joined in, calling it an example of political correctness having a real-world impact.
Our latest Politico slash Morning Consult poll shows broad support for the GOP position extending across gender, age, and to a lesser degree, party.
Overall, 53% of registered voters support banning transgender athletes from competing in women's sports versus a third who oppose such a ban.
Now, broken down into categories, here's what it looks like.
Men, 59% support a ban, 29% oppose.
For women, 46% support a ban, 34% oppose.
Then you go to Republicans.
Republicans, it's 74% support, 15% oppose.
For Democrats, 40% support a ban, supposedly.
42% oppose.
44% oppose.
Then you go to Republicans, Republicans it's 74% support, 15% oppose.
For Democrats, 40% support a ban supposedly.
42% oppose.
Independents 49% support a ban, 33% oppose.
Generation Z 43% support a ban, 44% oppose.
Millennials, 56% support a ban, 28% oppose.
Then baby boomers, 50% support a ban, 32% oppose.
Now, the one thing that I like about this poll is that it further proves that millennial wokeness didn't happen out of nowhere.
As critical as I've been of my own generation, and for good reason, it's not like we went insane on our own.
The insane millennial generation was raised by the insane boomer generation.
That's the way these things go.
Apples falling not far from the tree, as we know the saying goes.
In fact, according to this, the boomers are even more on board with left-wing gender theory than millennials are.
That also is no surprise, as gender theory was not invented in 2013, or whenever people think, but 40 or 50 years before that.
But the main point here is that, yes, a majority hold the only sane and reasonable position a person can hold on this topic, that a male is still a male, even if he identifies otherwise, and therefore does not belong in female sports.
Yet this is a position held by 53% of the country.
That percentage should be 99%.
And if this question had been asked 20 years ago, it would have been 99%.
Now I can't prove that because nobody was asking it 20 years ago because it was an idea so off the wall and crazy back then that nobody bothered to ask it.
What this means is that the left has taken this idea from one that was so crazy that nobody even mentioned it to one that nearly half of the country believes and accepts and they've done it in less than two decades.
See, that's not a win for the right.
That's not really encouraging.
The long-term trends are thoroughly in the favor of the left.
So the right looks at this kind of poll and says, phew, looks like we win.
The left looks and says, we will win.
We are winning.
The right takes solace in the right now, at the very moment, you know, that they've got a slim majority on their side.
The left is playing the long game.
The left is thinking about the future.
They know that five years from now, those numbers in that poll are going to be reversed.
Fifteen years from now, the majority position today will be seen as a fringe and radical, crazy minority viewpoint fifteen years from now.
They can have this assurance not based on any one poll, because again, take it with a grain of salt.
Also, you have to consider with a poll like that, how was it phrased?
If the question was phrased like, should we ban transgender athletes from women's sports?
Well, I mean, you could argue that, well, no, we shouldn't, because if it's an actual female who identifies as transgender, they shouldn't be banned from women's sports.
So it could have been phrased in a way that's confusing, but I think most people understand what the question means.
But it's not just this one poll.
We talked last week about the Gallup survey showing that trans identification among Gen Z is ten times higher than older generations.
Ten times.
This poll showing a majority of Gen Z opposing a ban goes along with that.
So the left knows that it has the future because it has your children.
It's fighting this fight generationally.
And it's been fighting that way for generations.
What this means is that conservatives, sure, should advocate laws and policies like these bans.
I've been saying that for years.
It's a winning fight for conservatives right now, and so we should take advantage of that and act on that right now.
But that can't be the be-all and end-all.
We have to start thinking long-term.
We have to start taking radical steps to change what now seems to be inevitable in the future.
I've talked many times about what some of those steps should be.
Part of the plan, as you always hear me say, is to raise and educate your children in an environment free from left-wing indoctrination.
That means no public school system.
It also means dialing way back on their exposure to pop culture and the internet.
None of that is easy to do.
We are talking about radical lifestyle changes.
But if we aren't willing to make radical lifestyle changes, then there's no hope.
The complacency and self-delusion on the right can't continue.
This unfounded faith that things will simply work out, that the world can't get any crazier, that the left has finally crossed the line this time and people are going to wake up.
This is too far.
All that needs to end.
The collapse of our civilization has been a highly deliberate act, a result, part of a long-term plan set in motion by people who, say what else you want about them, certainly know how to play for keeps and win.
None of this means that we're doomed or we should give up quite the opposite.
I'm saying the opposite of that.
It simply means that we need to face reality, understand how we got here, where we're going next, and start fighting for victories that will last longer than this present moment.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Here's a controversial statement.
It kind of sucks to have acne.
I think we could all, maybe that's, maybe it's not controversial.
Maybe that's one thing.
Wide agreement.
The polls will show 99% approval on that statement.
Nobody wants acne.
And the great thing is if you have acne, you don't have to, you don't have to suffer through it.
There is something you can do about it.
You can be proactive by getting proactive.
Proactive combines gentle skincare paired with the best acne treatment for your skin.
Proactive has three different systems designed for your skin type.
And those three systems, they all do different things.
There's Proactive MD Advanced, which is prescription strength for stubborn breakouts.
They've got Proactive Plus Gentle for more gentle skin types.
And then the Proactive Solution Original, which is the tried and true original system suitable for all skin types.
And that could always be a go-to no matter what your skin type is.
A simple three-step system designed for you all with It's clinically proven ingredients and tested by dermatologists.
This stuff works.
That's what you need to know about it.
Right now, it's a great time to try Proactiv.
For our podcast listeners, you can get a special offer available by going to Proactiv.com slash Walsh.
Proactiv subscribers will receive the Hydrating Duo as a free gift.
That includes four hydro gel masks and the green tea moisturizer.
You also get free shipping on top of that.
Again, visit Proactiv.com slash Walsh to take advantage of this special offer now.
That's Proactiv.com slash Walsh and subscribe to Clear Skin.
By the way, I wanted to tell you, if you go to my YouTube page right now, as we get geared up for the debut of Candace Owens' new show, which we're all really excited about, I did interview her.
You can go to my YouTube page and check out that.
We've pulled out a few interesting clips from there, but then also we've got the full interview posted with Candace.
And I did want to speak to one thing there, because there's been controversy that's come out of that interview already.
And frankly lies have come out of that defamation towards me.
Because many people who watch the interview have accused me of wearing skinny jeans in the interview.
And I want to tell you right now that I do not, have not ever at any point in my life worn skinny jeans.
Any claim to the contrary is Spurious and defamatory.
So if the jeans appear to be skinny, it's a combination of camera tricks, just kind of the way I was sitting, the lighting, all of those things.
Those were normal jeans.
Of all of the things I've been accused of in my time doing this, all of the accusations leveled at me.
That is perhaps the worst.
I'm simply not going to stand for it.
But you can go check out that interview where me in my normal jeans, I am interviewing Candace Owens.
Okay, number one, from the Daily Wire, Republican Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed Senate Bill 6 on Tuesday that bans abortion unless the life of the mother is endangered.
Almost a full-on abortion ban.
Supporters of the bill hope that it could force the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, though opponents intend to block it before the law takes effect later this year.
Republican State Senator Jason Rappert, the bill's sponsor, said we must abolish abortion
in this nation just as we abolished slavery in the 19th century. All lives matter. Hutchinson
was at first reluctant to sign the bill because it didn't provide exceptions in the case of rape or
incest but explained in a statement that he ultimately decided to support it.
Um, next.
Now, a couple of things here.
First of all, there absolutely should not be exceptions for rape and incest when it comes to abortion bans.
There should be exceptions for the life of the mother either.
And the reason for that is very simple.
That's a non-existent category.
So you might say, it's no harm to put it in there, because that doesn't, that's not something that really exists.
As in, a life-saving abortion is not something that exists.
Abortion has never saved the life of a mother.
There's never been a time when a woman needed an abortion, which is, an abortion, what does that mean?
It means to directly and intentionally kill the child.
That's never been necessary to save the life of the mother.
Now, there have been plenty of times when, especially, we hear this especially with late-term abortions, where we're told by the left that the only reason why a woman would get a late-term abortion is a catastrophic medical situation where she needs it to save her own life.
There may be cases where the pregnancy has to end in order to save the woman's life.
The question is whether you kill the child before you end the pregnancy.
Because one way or another, especially later term, if you're ending the pregnancy, it means there's going to be a delivery.
It means you are taking the child out of the mother's womb, right?
And absolutely, if that needs to happen to save the mother's life, do it.
The question is, do you take the extra step of killing the child before you extract him from the womb?
Or even as you are extracting him from the womb, which is what they do in partial birth abortions.
There's no way that you would need to do that in order to save the mother's life.
I mean, there could be other cases, really difficult cases, where a woman, where she's pregnant, is diagnosed with advanced stage cancer, and she's told that, look, if you treat the cancer, it might kill the child.
But that's not an abortion either.
Taking a step to treat an illness, a disease, or cancer in the mother, Even if it were to have the effect, tragically, of killing a child, that is not to directly and intentionally kill a child, so that's not an abortion.
So this is a made-up category.
The reason I'm actually opposed to putting those exceptions in is that what the left wants to do with the life of the mother, they want to expand that to mean, well, not just life, but physical well-being.
And by well-being, we also mean emotional well-being.
And suddenly, by the way that they categorize it, every abortion, in some sense, preserves the life of the mother, because if nothing else, it preserves her emotional well-being.
And for rape and incest, you know, the reason why the exception shouldn't be in there, to me, again, is simple, which doesn't make it easy.
But it's simple just in the fact that we do not punish children, especially with execution, For crimes committed by their father.
That's not what you do in a civilized society.
You want to talk about abortion, execution for rapists?
We can talk about that.
I'm all ears.
But you can't punish the child for that.
That's why I think you don't make the exceptions, but in this case, even with that exception in there, this is something to be celebrated, and will it Will it cause this confrontation on the Supreme Court?
I don't know.
It seems kind of far-fetched.
It also seems far-fetched that even if it makes it to the Supreme Court, that this Supreme Court, with its current makeup, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts.
I don't see any of them voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, but even so, it is certainly a major step in the right direction, and Alabama should be praised and celebrated for that.
Okay, number two, Fox 40 reports, Minneapolis leaders say they'll reopen a barricaded intersection known as George Floyd Square after the murder trial of the former police officer accused of killing him.
But the activists who serve as unofficial leaders and organizers of this area have issued 24 demands before they'll step aside, even calling for a recall of the county prosecutor.
So they're making demands.
They've occupied this part of the city and they're not going to leave until their demands are met.
Here's a report done by a reporter, Brian Enten, who's exploring this issue further and encounters some of the insurrectionists and terrorists occupying this part of the city.
Here's how that went.
Let's watch.
This area behind me is the George Floyd Memorial.
This is where George Floyd was killed.
You're going to be in a bad situation here in a second.
of the movement. They don't allow anyone in, not even the police. It's called an autonomous zone.
It's very tense near the memorial and a militant style group has closed off several blocks with barricades.
What's the situation at the memorial?
The situation at the memorial is, from what I understand, is kind of volatile.
People that want to go and support doesn't feel a sense of inclusion.
There is more of a like militant type atmosphere over there and a sense of fear.
Kim Griffin supports police reform and was outside the courthouse protesting Floyd's death, but she does not agree with what's happening at the memorial.
Her nephew, 28 year old Imez Wright, was shot and killed there over the weekend.
Were police able to get in and help him?
Police were not allowed to get into that area.
He was carried outside the zone of George Floyd Square.
Not allowed by who?
I mean, they're the police.
The law enforcement, it was made clear law enforcement was not welcome to penetrate that zone.
So, law enforcement isn't welcome.
They're just not.
That's something you could do.
If you're on the left, if you're a left-wing activist, you could just say, well, you're not welcome here.
We're gonna set up camp here.
You're allowed to play revolutionary for several weeks or several months and say to law enforcement, yeah, we don't want you here.
And law enforcement will turn around and say, all right.
The thing that always frustrates me about this is that you watch these videos And the people doing this are so unintimidating and weak looking, and they're allowed to get away with it.
Those two people that walked up to the reporter and said, it's gonna be a bad situation for you if you don't leave.
It's a woman and some scrawny looking dude walking up.
It's gonna be a real bad, you better get the hell out of here.
What the hell are you gonna do?
What are you gonna do?
Do something about it.
I would love to see that response, but of course the reporter just turns around and walks away.
And even the police turn around and say, well, yes, sir.
I don't want any bad news from you.
You look like a tough customer.
And they're allowed to do this.
But remember, again, what we're told by the media, that these people, the left-wing activists, they're the ones who get the real tough treatment from law enforcement and the government, as opposed to the rioters on January 6th.
One of whom shot to death on the spot, if you recall, and then all the others are being hunted down by the government and given, you know, being charged with crimes that will land them in jail for 10 to 20 years.
Meanwhile, the left-wing activists are allowed to take over whole city blocks.
Oh, but, okay, Minneapolis leaders say that we're only gonna let them do this until the end of the trial.
So we'll give them a few weeks more to take over this part of the city.
What else are we gonna do?
I mean, if we tell them to go away, they'll be mad at us.
They'll be upset!
All right, number three, Education Week has an article titled, Texas School Districts Face Safety Dilemma After Governor Lifts Mask Order.
And this is about schools in Texas deciding whether to have mask mandates in their individual schools, because the statewide mandate has been taken away, but the governor said that individual districts and localities can come up with their own policies.
And this is, you're seeing this more and more, as more schools open, they're dealing with this question of, Should we have the kids wearing masks all day?
And a lot of schools are.
They have these kids wearing masks all day while they're in school.
But let me help you out.
If you're a school district dealing with this question, should we have the kids in masks all day?
Should we not?
You should not.
Very, very easy answer.
You absolutely should not.
Masks for kids, especially if they're going to be wearing all day in school, are not only unnecessary, Because we know that kids are not a major risk group, both for contracting and spreading the virus, but also so unbelievably unsanitary and gross.
I mean, think about anyone who's a parent of especially younger kids.
Think about, I mean, I think about my kids now, my son at the age of seven.
At the end of the day, just like his shirt will look like he dug it out of the bottom of a dumpster.
And it did not look that way in the morning when we put it on him.
Everything is nice and clean, put it on him, and within hours really, within minutes sometimes, it looks gross.
And he can go through four or five shirts in a day and make them all look like that.
Because kids are dirty.
It's part of being a kid.
Part of the fun of being a kid.
They're not very hygiene focused.
You work with them on that, but that's not a concern that they have.
And then you're going to take this piece.
So you think about what a shirt looks like on a child after wearing it all day.
Now you can take a piece of cloth and put it over their mouth and have them simply stewing in their own germs all day.
It's disgusting.
I have so many times when I've been at the store, been out, um, I have heard parents, Telling their kids... I've heard sentences like, stop licking your mask.
Stop chewing on your mask.
These are things you have to... Now, I don't say that to my kids because I don't really make them wear a mask in the first place.
But if I did that, I'd be telling them the same thing.
That's what a kid's gonna do.
A six-year-old?
Do you have any idea what they're doing under that mask?
It's like snot and they're licking it and it's just gross.
And you have them wearing it all day.
I mentioned this yesterday on Twitter, and someone said, well, easy solution, just give your child an extra mask.
Give them two or three extra masks.
Then you can change them out, and he'll always have a clean one.
See, that's the problem.
The people pushing for and advocating these policies don't know the first damn thing about kids.
Okay, you give them extra masks, here's what's gonna happen.
Either those extra masks are also going to look like they've been stewing at a dumpster, or, more likely, the kid's going to lose them.
You think you can give your kid an extra mask and he's still going to have it two hours later?
I put shoes on my kids as we've been over, and they won't even still have those two hours later, and the shoes are on their feet.
You think you can just give them a few extra masks?
They're gonna very responsibly, when they notice that the first mask is a little dirty, they'll take that one off neatly, put that away to be cleaned, take out the next one.
That's what kids are gonna do.
Sure.
It's so disgusting.
There is no way.
Whatever minor risk, whatever comparatively minor risk there is for kids with COVID and spreading COVID, there is no way that it outweighs the hygiene concerns of having these kids wear masks all day.
Meanwhile, Dr. Fauci on CNN was asked to explain why people who've been vaccinated can't return to traveling and other normal activities.
And he didn't have a good answer, as always.
But here's what he said.
We know from the Biden administration that they say it will make its decisions based on science.
What's the science behind not saying it's safe for people who have been vaccinated, received two doses, to travel?
You know, that's a very good question, John, and the CDC is carefully heading in that direction.
You know, when Dr. Walensky made the announcement a day or two ago about the fact that when you have a couple of people, two or three or more people in a family setting, both of whom are vaccinated, even if it's someone from another, a friend that doesn't have to be a member of the family, that was the first in a multi-step process that they are going to be rolling out.
They're being careful, understandably.
They want to get science.
They want to get data.
And then when you don't have the data, and you don't have the actual evidence, then you've got to make a judgment call.
And I think that's what you're going to be seeing in the next weeks.
You're going to see, little by little, more and more guidelines getting people to be more and more flexible.
The first installation of this is what can vaccinated people do in the home setting.
Obviously, the next one is going to be what you're asking.
What about travel?
What about going out?
What about getting a haircut?
What about doing things like that?
That's all imminently going to be coming out.
What about getting a haircut?
I guess if you live in a state or a city where they still have this stuff shut down, there's not a lot you can do, but is there anyone still waiting around in their own personal life?
To hear the guidelines, you're not going to do anything, even if it's available to you, you're not going to do it until you get the guidelines from Fauci and the CDC.
Is there anyone still doing that?
Well, yeah, I guess a lot of people are.
Haven't grown tired of it yet.
And so Fauci is saying, well, we don't have the data yet, so we'll just err on the side.
We'll err on the side of having people continue to be shut away in their homes, not living their lives.
Let's continue to err on that side.
Even if they've been vaccinated.
If you are, stop waiting around for this dude and for the CDC and simply go live your life.
One other note on...
COVID here, one other COVID related thing.
Number four, this is from CNBC, a story related to something we discussed at the beginning of the week, but more details are now coming out.
It says an overwhelming majority of people who have been hospitalized, needed a ventilator, or died from COVID-19 have been overweight or obese.
So the story that we had a couple of days ago was that the countries that have obesity epidemics, like our own, are also the ones that have been hit the hardest by COVID.
No surprise there.
Now this gets more specific.
It says, among 148,494 adults who received a COVID-19 diagnosis during an emergency department or inpatient visit at 238 U.S.
to COVID-19 diagnosis during an emergency department or inpatient visit at 238 US hospitals
from March to December.
71,000 were hospitalized.
Of those who were admitted, 27% were overweight and 50% were obese.
So you've got almost 78%.
Overweight is defined as having a body mass index of 25 or more, while obesity is defined as having a BMI of 30 or more.
Now, you hear that.
It seems very significant, and it is, because we know that This is something that has affected overweight and obese people in a hugely disproportionate way.
One word of caution I would mention, and that's why I think we need even more information.
I would be curious for more information on this.
Because the categories overweight and obese are, and I don't mean this as a pun, are very broad.
And so I think I'd like to know more when we talk about overweight and obese.
What exactly do you mean by that?
And the reason I say that is that if you go to CDC website and you go to their section, their obesity section, and you look at their little charts telling you, you know, based on your height and your sex, when are you, what qualifies as overweight or obese for you?
You look at that chart, it's madness.
I mean, for example, according to the CDC, I'm six foot one on a good day.
Some would say six foot, but six foot one on a good day.
And for my height, I'm told that I think like, certainly at 150 pounds, according to the CDC, I'm in the normal range.
At 150 pounds for a six foot one inch man, I would be skin and bones.
I would look, I would be like Tom Hanks in Castaway, after three years on the island, if I was 150 pounds at my height.
And if I remember correctly, it's like, you know, 140, 145, all the way down to there for my height.
You'd be 140 pounds and still be considered normal, up to maybe like 180, 175, 180.
Above that, you're overweight.
So by the CDC's Standards, they expect men to have no muscle mass whatsoever.
If you've ever even been inside a gym, if you've ever taken one rep on a bench press, then you're probably going to be overweight, if not obese by the CDC's definition.
So I'd be curious about that.
When they say overweight and obese, are we talking about six-foot-one men or 200 pounds, which I think is a healthy weight for a man that height?
Or are we talking about 270 pounds?
Is that what you mean?
Big difference.
Okay, number five, finally, from the Daily Wire, it says, Unilever, the company that makes Dove soap and other beauty and personal care products, announced this week that it would stop using the word normal on its packaging because it's not inclusive enough.
Reuters reported that the London-based company will also stop digital alterations of body shapes and skin color of models used in its advertising.
But then it goes on to say, there doesn't appear to be any backlash that caused the current move by Unilever to remove the word normal from its packaging.
But a poll conducted by the company that surveyed 10,000 people found global support for removing the word.
So they're just anticipating it.
This is what companies are going to do now.
They're gonna drive the woke insanity by trying to get out in front of it, but setting the precedent.
So the woke mob hasn't quite yet gotten around to actually being offended by the word normal, but Unilever is saying, they'll get around to it soon, so we're gonna get rid of the word now.
And the woke mob looks at that and they say, yeah, you know what?
That is offensive.
Good point.
Wokeness will eventually make it impossible to advertise anything.
Because advertising is all about advancing some ideal, you know, some notion of how things should be.
And that's not inclusive.
You can't really advertise your message or advertise your product if your message is that everyone is perfect and fine just the way they are.
That's the problem.
Even with a lot of, you know, Dove, a lot of women's products and toiletries and cosmetics, stuff in that vein.
You know, for years now, they've been trying to walk this tightrope where the message is, everyone is beautiful.
Everyone is wonderful just how they are.
You're all princesses and goddesses.
But by the way, you'd be a lot better if you had our product.
Wait a second.
I thought you just said I'm perfect how I am.
So it's going to become impossible eventually for these companies to advertise.
Which maybe isn't such a bad thing.
That might be the one good thing that comes of the woke mob.
Less advertising from these kinds of companies.
All right, we're gonna move on now to read the YouTube comments.
And remember, speaking of YouTube, if you're watching on YouTube to smash the like button, as the kids say, comment, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
And I decided, I think we're almost at 200,000 subscribers on YouTube.
And once we get to half a million, we're a long way off.
But once we get there, there's going to be a special treat.
I don't know exactly what it is yet.
Maybe I will perform slam poetry.
That's it.
I will have an original work of slam poetry that I will perform on this show when we get to half a million.
That's your incentive.
It might be more of like a de-incentive than anything else.
Okay, this is MileyZTV says, My daily routine has become watching this damn show.
I'm addicted.
Well, a little aggressive, a little negative in the way you put it, but thanks for watching.
Milton Sanchez says, Are you rolling around town in a super dope sports car or are you living the dad life cruising in a minivan?
None of the above.
We go the SUV route.
I'm fine with the minivan.
My wife's still... Eventually every parent breaks down.
I got there a couple of years ago where I said, fine, let's just do the damn minivan, whatever.
It's a lot easier.
We've had the experience with the minivan a couple of times when our car's been in the shop.
We've had to rent a car.
And yeah, the minivan, it's not a looker.
It's not going to win any style points, but it is so much easier and more convenient than any other kind of car for hauling a bunch of kids around.
So eventually every parent breaks down.
I got there.
My wife is not, she's not ready yet for that, to be a minivan mom quite yet.
And so, she'll be there soon.
But as it happens right now, we're not doing that.
Levin says, we're on the way to Jesus being canceled.
Well, we're already there.
In fact, one viral video that I was planning to talk about on the show this week, maybe we'll still get around to it, but a viral video, been making the rounds online, I think originates on TikTok, of course, is, and I believe this guy calls himself a pastor, but he's talking about how Jesus was a racist.
So, yeah, we're already there.
I mean, in a way, you know, we've been there for 2,000 years.
But eventually, a more concerted effort.
Now, will we get to a point, I guess the question is, where, because of the Bible's, quote, hate speech, it can't be sold on Amazon.
Will we get to that point?
That's the question.
I would say probably eventually, yeah.
Daniel Stevens says, Do you Shapiro, Knowles, and Klavan share a trauma bond over all the insults y'all get online?
Is there any caressing and crying in each other's arms off screen?
Asking for a friend, don't cancel me.
Yeah, that's what we need because we know Taylor Lorenz and other female journalists have been talking about this a lot this week, how they get mean comments and there's a lot of trauma.
And you do need a support system.
And so at least we have each other for that.
It can be very upsetting, the mean comments.
And finally, have you noticed that you can freely fulfill any of your wretched desires by simply calling yourself anti-wretched desire?
If you want to be racist, call yourself anti-racist.
If you want to practice fascist tactics, boom, call yourself anti-fascist.
On the flip side, if you want to follow the science, you'll be labeled anti-science.
You have cracked the code.
That is indeed exactly how it works.
I really believe the world would be a much better place if people spent at least as much time reading books as they do scrolling through social media.
Probably more.
A lot more time reading books, even.
But let's start small.
Let's try to do a 50-50 split here.
If you agree with me and have been looking for a new title to check out, look no further.
The New York Times bestselling author and renowned podcast host, None other than our very own Andrew Klavan just released the third and final installment of his Another Kingdom series.
The Emperor's Sword finds Austin lively on the run between two realities as his enemies close on all sides.
Despite wild success in life, he begins to realize that a recurring vision is actually a nightmare in disguise.
He's caught in the coils of a terrible magic, and the only way he can save his soul is to give up his success, re-enter the Eleven Lands, and find the Emperor Anastasius.
So he can restore Queen Elinda to her throne.
The first two books in the series didn't disappoint, so I will personally be sitting down to find how this whole adventure concludes.
The Emperor's Sword is now available for purchase online.
Go to Amazon.com and search The Emperor's Sword.
Also, I gotta tell you about, of course, the Candace Owens show.
I just mentioned earlier in the show, on election night, we announced that Candace Owens would be joining The Daily Wire, and it's finally happening.
Candace's new show, Candace, will premiere next Friday, March 19th, and this is gonna be exclusive to Daily Wire members.
If you're not a member, go to dailywire.com/subscribe and use code Candice to get 25% off.
Also, as I mentioned, you can go to my YouTube channel.
I got an interview with her.
She's got a lot of content, all the different channels as we start to bring Candice into
the fold.
Again, that's dailywire.com/subscribe.
Use code Candice to get 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
So today we have a few cancellations to dole out, and it all begins with this question
sent into Slate's advice column.
Now, anybody who sends a question to Slate's advice column deserves to be cancelled on that basis alone.
I cannot imagine ever facing a quandary in my life where I think to myself, man, you know, Slate might know what to do here.
I have never been in a situation where I wondered what Slate might say about it.
And that's mostly because I know what Slate would say.
They'd say that the cause of the problem is racism, sexism, and transphobia.
Literally, no matter what the problem actually is.
The problem could be, like, a flat tire, or arthritis, or anything, and that would be Slate's answer.
But this guy, who uses the pseudonym, Suddenly the Breadwinner, Thought that slate would be the best place to go with his issue, and here's what he wrote.
It's a little bit long, but let's read the whole thing.
Bear with me.
He says, I am a new father to a beautiful 10-month-old girl.
My wife's company has a generous maternity leave policy, and she has been at home with our daughter since the birth, and is scheduled to go back to work just after her first birthday in January.
She recently told me she doesn't want to go back to her job and would like to be a stay-at-home parent instead.
I asked her why, and she said she enjoys being a mother too much to leave our daughter to go back to work when she doesn't need to.
It's such a departure from our plans before the baby was born.
She had a good job that she enjoyed before going on leave and had always been adamant that she wanted to continue working even after becoming a mom.
We met when we worked at the same company many years ago, and one of the things I was most attracted to about her was her ambition and tenacity.
It's really surprising to hear that her career isn't that important to her anymore.
Honestly, I don't want her to quit her job.
She earns about the same as I do, and while we could make ends meet on my income alone, it would impact our daily ability or our ability to save, and we need to give up one of our cars and cut back on extras that make life more enjoyable.
I also just don't want a stay-at-home mom wife.
I really admired my wife for her work ethic and I want her to set a good example for our daughter too.
Seeing her give up like this is really disappointing.
I gently asked her if she thought her change in attitude could be related to a possible mental health issue or postpartum depression.
But she didn't take that well.
She says she only cares about our daughter, and that's where all her energy needs to go right now, and that if I love her, I will let her do this.
I do love my wife, and I'm not interested in divorce, but I'm seeing a whole side of her that I just don't like or admire.
What should I do?
Okay.
Well, I mean, as long as he gently asked.
He gently asked whether his wife wants to stay home and raise their daughter due to a mental illness.
Hey honey, listen, I know you said you love being a mother and you want to be home with our child full time.
I'm just wondering, I'm just wondering, are you having a psychotic break?
Is that what this is?
I'm only asking.
What?
I'm just asking.
I can't believe that didn't go over well.
Now, I admit that I might be judging this man extra harshly because I am also the breadwinner in my family, and we have four little mouths to feed instead of one, and I personally really like supporting my family.
I feel honored to do it, fulfilled by it, and I love that my kids have their mom home with them.
The idea of being disappointed about being the breadwinner as a man is completely foreign to me.
The idea of respecting and admiring your wife less because she loves being a mom too much is also utterly foreign to me.
But we'll respond more to these ideas in a second.
First, let's loop in our dear friend Jill Falopovic.
She's a feminist writer who always has exactly the sort of take you would expect on these kinds of issues.
In a series of tweets, she responded Empathizing with the man, and empathizing with men is usually not one of her strong suits, and she said in part, quote, I realize this is like the third rail of the mommy wars, but yeah, lots of super ambitious people marry other super ambitious people because they're attracted to ambition.
I would have a really, really hard time being married to a spouse who chose not to work.
And now I'm really gonna get myself yelled at, but I also think the issue of example setting for a kid is totally fair.
What example are you setting when dad works for pay and mom does the care work at home?
Lots of reasons not to want to set that kind of example for a child.
At-home work is incredibly isolating.
It also occupies a pretty unique space where it's centered on one of the most fundamental familial relationships, parent slash child.
No other job is like that, which is where the claim that staying at home is a job doesn't quite tell the whole story.
Okay, now, there's a lot to be said on this topic.
We don't have time to say most of it.
Instead, I just want to focus on two things.
Maybe not even the two most important things, but these two things.
First, the idea that you have to choose between being ambitious or raising your children full-time is asinine.
Ambition, in the positive sense of the word, is simply a strong desire to achieve some kind of worthwhile goal, coupled with the determination to see it through.
That's what we mean when we speak positively about an ambitious person.
Raising children and tending to your family and your home requires a lot of ambition.
Or to put it another way, there's a big difference between children who are raised ambitiously and children who are not.
So to have ambition as a parent is to be active, to be present, not complacent.
Here's a very simple example of ambitious parenting.
And this again is by far not the most profound example, but as I said, a simple everyday example.
An ambitious parent.
Turns the TV off, says to the kids, hey, let's go outside and play a game.
Let's have a scavenger hunt.
Let's do some activity that I have planned.
Some edifying and educational and fun activity that I have planned that we're going to go do, rather than just having you sit here and watch TV all day.
Now, this is not necessarily the parent's idea of a good time, but it's good for the kids in the long run.
And you're putting the work and effort in, in pursuit of that long-term benefit, rather than simply letting them watch TV and play video games all day.
At the end of the day, as a parent, you know if you parented ambitiously or not.
And you may be more worn out after the day of ambitious parenting, but there's also a deep fulfillment that you feel from it.
And I would submit that in many cases, parenting provides more chances to have that kind of feeling That sort of satisfied, tired feeling of knowing you put a hard day's work in and you were ambitious and proactive?
Parenting provides more opportunities to feel that way than a 9-to-5 job does.
In many 9-to-5 jobs, the structure is already laid out.
Your function is limited.
Ambition doesn't even come into play most of the time.
There isn't much room to set your own path.
As a parent, there is no structure but what you put in place.
There is no plan but what you devise.
And if you don't put a structure in place, if you have no plan, if you don't do anything, if you just let the days flow by, counting on the glowing screens to keep your kids distracted, sure, you're going to feel totally empty, alone, bored, and miserable.
But that's where ambition comes into play.
Second point.
No.
Being a stay-at-home mom is not a job.
It's not.
A job is something you get specifically paid to do.
Many jobs require you to punch in and punch out.
You might even get a name tag.
Parenting involves none of that.
It's not a job, but it is work.
Okay, that's the distinction here.
A job is just a type of work.
Being a stay-at-home mom is not a job, but it is a type of work.
Running a self-sustaining farm is also not a job, but it's definitely work.
The real question is whether a job is a more noble, more worthwhile, more important kind of work than parenting.
And the answer to that is obviously no.
Not all jobs are created equal.
Some jobs are more important than others.
Just as not all parents are created equal, some parents are better than others.
But speaking in broad strokes here, working for a wage at the behest of a large company under the supervision of bosses and managers is not some kind of noble, romantic thing.
It's also not liberating.
The idea that a woman is liberated from the servile bonds of motherhood by becoming a wage slave for a corporation is frankly ridiculous.
Nothing wrong with working a job.
I do it.
Somebody in the family's got to do it.
But let's not delude ourselves about the nature of what we're doing at our jobs.
Here's the other tough reality.
You are replaceable at your job.
Totally replaceable.
We all are.
Your value to your employer is entirely based on how well you perform.
If they can find someone who performs better than you, you go from limited value to no value.
And either way, once you exit one way or another, whether you leave on your own or are fired, the hole you leave behind will be filled and you'll be quickly forgotten.
That's what it means to work at a job.
It means that your worth is quantified in dollars and cents.
It means that whatever you do, you're only doing it because, and so long as, you're given money in return.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with any of this.
As I said, someone's got to do it.
But it's hard to see this as somehow more admirable than full-time parenting.
Jobs are mercenary.
Jobs are temporal.
Jobs are revolving doors.
Parenting is none of that.
Or at least it shouldn't be.
Which is why, even though I have a job, I find my real worth and value at home with my family.
That's what really matters.
And even if you don't have a family, well, you still better find your worth and value somewhere else.
You better find some deeper, more meaningful thing to find your worth and value in than your job.
That's the case for everybody.
And so parents who do this full-time, incredibly worthwhile and valuable thing.
People who can't see that, Like our friend Jill and the guy who wrote that letter are, of course, cancelled.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, 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 Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, President Biden celebrates passage of the largest pork bill in American history.
The White House continues to deny a crisis on the border while incentivizing a crisis on the border.
And the New York Times finally finds an employee they will defend.
