Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a New York Times writer provoked outrage among feminists when she published a piece saying that she’s happy about being a mother. Those kinds of shocking and outrageous statements simply cannot be tolerated, apparently. We’ll discuss. Also, Five Headlines, including Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci clashing once again. The CDC director warns about the unspecified dangers of summer camp for children. And another famous celebrity comes out against cancel culture. In our Daily Cancellation, we’ll talk about the media and Hollywood’s brave stand against the racism of the Golden Globes.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a New York Times writer provoked outrage among feminists when she published a piece saying that she's happy about being a mother.
Those kinds of shocking and outrageous statements simply cannot be tolerated, apparently.
We'll discuss also five headlines, including Rand Paul and Dr. Fauci clashing once again, the CDC director warns about the unspecified dangers of summer camp for children, and another famous celebrity comes out against cancel culture.
In our Daily Cancellation today, we'll talk about the media in Hollywood's brave stand against the racism of the Golden Globes.
How are the Golden Globes racist?
We'll try to figure that out today and much more on The Matt Wall Show.
[MUSIC]
You are of course already on thin ice in this culture if you make your own
decisions and live your life according to values that fall outside of the mainstream.
Even if you do this quietly, in an unobtrusive and unassuming way, it'll still be considered an affront to those who, for whatever reason, are personally offended by your personal choices.
But if you, God forbid, openly advocate for those values and express satisfaction with the choices that you've made, then you have really crossed the line.
Crossed the line, at least, in the minds of our leftist cultural overlords, who have gone to great lengths to tell us what our values should be and what kind of life we should lead, and they do not appreciate having their instructions so blatantly ignored.
New York Times opinion writer Elizabeth Brunig discovered this fact over the weekend in the lead-up to Mother's Day after writing a piece on the subject of motherhood that provoked great outrage on the left, especially among feminists.
Now, we should note that Brunig is no right-wing radical.
She's certainly on the left herself.
She's also no fan of mine, for the record.
She has a long-standing and rather passionate distaste for me and all of my opinions.
This is kind of surprising, as I'm usually beloved by liberal women.
In any case, None of that saved Brunig from the blowback for the piece she published with this shocking title.
Get ready for it.
The title is, I Became a Mother at 25 and I'm Not Sorry I Didn't Wait.
Provocative stuff.
At least provocative for those who believe that women should not say anything about motherhood unless they're saying that they regret being mothers or that they're happy they never became mothers.
Those are the two things that, as a woman, you're allowed to say publicly about motherhood.
The piece, as the title suggests, is simply all about Brunig's decision to become a mother at a comparatively young age and how and why she's happy that she did it.
Now, of course, 25 is not really a young age to have a child.
Back when your great-grandmother was having babies, 25 would have been considered downright geriatric to start the process.
But even today, in some circles, and even today in some circles, 25 is not really young.
My wife was around that age when we had our first child, or children, twins.
But broadly speaking, the average age for marriage and for having children has been rising dramatically in this country for years now.
So now, on average, women are waiting until 28 to get married and men until 30.
Of course, not everyone gets married before having kids, unfortunately, but this is generally the way things are trending.
In the circles that a liberal, cosmopolitan woman like Brudig runs in, the age for marriage and children is going to be probably considerably higher even than that.
So again, from a comparative standpoint, 25 is young.
As for the article, I have to admit, even though she hates my guts, she writes kind of beautifully.
Here's one part.
She says, quote, What I didn't understand, couldn't have at the time, was that deserting yourself for another person really is a relief.
My days began to unfold according to her schedule, that weird rhythm of newborns, and the worries I entertained were better than the ones that came before, more concrete, more vital, less tethered to the claustrophobic confines of my own skull.
For this member of a generation famously beset by anxiety, it was a welcome liberation."
Liberation.
She's talking about the liberation of motherhood.
Which, of course, is the opposite of what we so often hear, that women are liberated by leaving the home, leaving motherhood, liberated even by killing their own children.
But she's taking the opposite perspective, and it's very well said, and what she says is profoundly true.
But many on the left didn't feel that way.
Feminist writer and miserable cat lady Amanda Marcotte said that the piece was, quote, naked pandering to the fantasies of pathetic men, And further offering her thoughts, she wrote, quote, I would like to thank this headline slash byline combo for helping me set a record for the quickest gross pass I've ever uttered in my life.
Feminist author Jude Ellison Sadie Doyle, who looks exactly as you'd expect a feminist author with four names to look, tweeted this.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing this woman it was a tremendous personal achievement to be repeatedly knocked up by an internet troll that she met in high school.
Another, uh, imagine, imagine saying that in response to a woman writing something on Mother's Day about how she's happy to be a mother.
What, you think it's an achievement to be knocked up?
My God, these people are miserable.
Another blue check on Twitter, Jackie Shine, accused Brunig of claiming that her life decisions are superior to other people's, and another, Aura Bogato, somehow found in the piece evidence of, quote, white extinction anxiety.
And there was plenty more where all this came from, but you get the idea.
Brunig expressed a point of view that you're not supposed to express, and this was the reaction.
For an example of the point of view that you are supposed to express, the point of view that you are supposed to have, as a mother or a parent, here's feminist writer Jill Falopovich, also last week, around the same time it was the hullabaloo over the Brunig article, she tweeted this.
I would really love to read more essays and op-eds from women, and men too, who regret having children as early as they did, regret having as many as they did, or regret having children at all.
There's not much about motherhood that remains publicly unexplored, but that does.
Yes, regret.
Resentment.
Misery.
That's what Jill Flopovich would like to hear from others.
Certainly not gratitude, love, happiness, or any other such repulsive emotion.
And she wrote a longer piece, by the way, explaining why she tweeted that and how this is a taboo.
This is one of the last taboos in our society for mothers to talk about their regret.
And we should deconstruct that taboo and mothers should be able to talk about this.
Of course, it's actually not a taboo.
You hear parents talk about their regrets all the time, far too often.
But also, by the way, one of the reasons Why you might not hear mothers saying that aloud very often is, first of all, most mothers don't regret having kids.
And second, if you do regret it, like, that's probably the kind of thing you shouldn't say publicly, because your kids are going to read that one day.
And maybe you don't want to announce to the whole world, hey, I regret having this human right here.
Now, I think there are two general points to be made about the overall issue here.
First of all, it is indeed a good idea to start a family while young.
That's a good idea.
I don't think that Elizabeth Bruning was necessarily pitching this as a strategy for everyone, but she was just talking about her own choices.
I will pitch it, though.
I do think it's a, generally speaking, a good idea.
Again, general statement.
It's not going to be true in every single case.
There are also many examples of people, both women and men, who very much wanted to have a family earlier in life, but were unable to, for one reason or another.
Nobody's suggesting that you're doomed to a life of pointless misery if you have kids at 34, or if you never have them at all.
We're simply talking about, or at least I'm talking about, general principles.
And as a general principle, it is better to have a society where young parenthood is the norm, rather than the exception.
That is better.
Why?
Well, for one, biology.
I know we don't care much for biology these days, but it does matter.
It's a reality.
The prime childbearing years for women are between around the age of 20 and up to about 34 or 35, give or take a year or two on either end.
Once a woman is out of those prime years, the chance of miscarriage, of health complications with the mother or child, etc., go way up.
A woman's body seems to have an opinion about when women should be having kids, and that opinion differs from the career-first priorities of modern society.
Also, it's good for marriage and family to be the foundation of adult life rather than the capstone.
See, these days we have this idea that we ought to get married and have kids once we have all of our other affairs in order, and all of our finances straightened out, and we've already bought the house, and we've done all that.
We've established our adult existence, and then we fit a family into that already pre-established mold.
Now, this can—it sounds maybe intuitively like it makes sense to do things this way, but it can cause major problems, especially in a marriage.
Because now there's a feeling that you're bringing someone into this thing that you have already built without them.
You've been an adult for a long time.
You lived your whole life without this person.
You've done all of this.
All of this was... you didn't need their help for it.
And now you're bringing them into it.
The children too.
You're bringing into this thing that has been long since established before they ever showed up.
They become, or they can seem like, intruders.
More so than partners in a journey.
Now in my case, getting married and starting a family younger, all that we have now and we've built, we've done together.
My wife and I, we walk the journey of young adulthood together as a team.
Moreover, there's something to be said, I think, for having kids when you still have the physical energy to keep up with them.
Boys especially need a dad who can run around, wrestle, pick them up, toss them in the air, climb into trees to rescue them when they've climbed too high, and so on.
The great thing is that when you have children young, you can do all that stuff with them, and you may even be able to do some of that, some of it, with your grandchildren.
If my kids have kids when I did, I'll be in my mid-50s when grandchildren arrive on the scene.
If those kids have kids at the same age, then I'll be around to see my great-grandchildren.
Though I'll probably be as mentally present and cognizant as Joe Biden by then, but still, I'll be there.
The point is, younger marriage and parenthood means multi-generational families.
It means kids who get to grow up with parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.
So having kids young pays dividends in the long run.
But you have to care about the long run.
You have to be able to look outside of the immediate.
You have to have priorities that go beyond comfort and convenience in this present fleeting moment.
Because it is certainly true While there's a lot of joy to be found in having a family, it is oftentimes not very comfortable and it's certainly not convenient.
It is never the most convenient thing.
Your life will become... No part of your life will become more convenient once you have kids.
That's for sure.
In fact, very many things that you didn't even think about before now become a thing.
They become an issue.
They become even a source potentially of conflict.
That's how it is to have kids.
But underneath all of that is the joy waiting to be found and felt and explored.
And that brings us to the second point.
You know, that's what makes left-wingers and feminists so upset, I think.
Because their operating principle, their priority, is to maximize surface-level pleasure in each moment.
As each moment passes, you say to yourself, how can I feel the most comfortable And feel the most immediate pleasure in this moment.
And then you do whatever you need to do for that.
The problem is that this strategy has rapidly diminishing returns.
Whereas the deeper joy of family life can increase with age.
I mean, just talk to someone who just recently became a grandparent and the joy that they experienced there.
And they'll tell you that it's not that it's better than being a parent, but it's a new kind of joy that they'd never experienced before.
So, the joys can increase with age, and also that decision to have a family while young reaps new rewards at each stage of life.
The pleasure of living a life consumed only by your own personal immediate satisfaction and material gain tends, on the other hand, to fade over time.
And I think this is why feminists only get more and more bitter as they age.
You look at someone like Amanda Marcotte or Jill Filopovich or any of these feminists that have been on the scene for a long time, and you look at their writing, they've just gotten angrier and angrier as they get older.
Because they're lonely and miserable and they realize that their approach to life has failed them.
And it is envy.
They look at someone like Elizabeth Brunig, made a different decision, is experiencing the joy of that, and it makes them envious and hateful.
If they can't have joy, then they don't want you to have it either.
It really is as simple as that for them.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
All right, so Rand Paul versus Dr. Fauci, once again.
Um, and.
Another hearing, Dr. Fauci was there, and we always get, you know,
Rand Paul throughout this entire, throughout the last year, you know,
he's been one of the few people in Congress, Republicans even, who've consistently taken the right,
taken the right approach here, and have held Dr. Fauci's feet to the fire.
And here he is again, over the issue of the National Institute of Health's funding
of the lab in Wuhan where COVID may have originated.
Fauci says that didn't happen.
Well, originally he says it didn't happen, he kind of backpedals, but here's how that exchange went.
-Dr. Fauci, do you still support funding of the NIH funding of the lab in Wuhan?
Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect.
That the NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research.
Dr. Barrett does not doing gain-of-function research, and if it is, it's according to the guidelines, and it is being conducted in North Carolina, not in China.
You don't think inserting a bat virus spike protein that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus is gain-of-function?
You would be in the minority because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group saying that it is gain-of-function.
Well, it is not.
And if you look at the grant, and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain-of-function, despite the fact that people tweet that.
So do you still support sending money to the Wuhan Virology Institute?
We do not send money now to do Wuhan virology.
Do you support sending money?
We did, under your tutelage.
We were sending it through EcoHealth.
It was a sub-agency and a sub-grant.
Do you support the money from NIH that was going to the Wuhan Institute?
Let me explain to you why that was done.
The SARS-CoV-1 originated in bats in China.
It would have been irresponsible of us if we did not investigate the bat viruses.
Such a... Dr. Fauci, such an incompetent, dishonest little weasel.
I'm at the point now I've been there for a while, actually, of feeling physical repulsion and even nausea when I look at him and I hear him.
Can you think of a single bureaucrat in the history of the American Republic that has done more damage to the country single-handedly?
This has been one of the most Catastrophically damaging bureaucrats, I think, government officials that we've ever had in government in this country.
And yet people still, there's still a lot of people, mostly on the left, who look to Dr. Fauci as this father figure.
He's their cult leader.
Beyond a father figure, he's a savior figure to them.
They love him and trust him implicitly.
They literally sing songs of praise and worship to him.
We've played some of them here.
You know what it is?
It's Stockholm Syndrome.
I think that's what it is.
Someone who's been... He was responsible, largely responsible, for pushing the lockdowns across the country, destroying so many lives.
But at the same time, he is trying to play the role of this kind old man on TV, saying reassuring words.
Sort of reassuring.
Reassuring, but at the same time spreading panic, playing both ends of the spectrum.
And it's generated this kind of Stockholm Syndrome thing from a lot of people on the left, who now love their captor.
In a way.
But there he says, well, we didn't fund the gain-of-function research.
That's interesting, because here's a Medium post from science writer Nicholas Wade.
Here's what he says.
From June 2014 to May 2019, Dr. Daszak's EcoHealth Alliance had a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health, to do gain-of-function research with coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
This again is Nicholas Wade, science writer in Medium.
Whether or not SARS-2 is the product of that research, it seems questionable policy to farm out high-risk research to unsafe foreign labs using minimal safety precautions.
And if the SARS-2 virus did indeed escape from the Wuhan Institute, then the NIH will find itself in a terrible position of having funded a disastrous experiment that led to the death of more than 3 million people worldwide, including more than half a million of its own citizens.
So that's what we get.
Ray and Paul, also Dr. Paul, says that there was funding here.
There's funding.
But Dr. Fauci says, no, no.
You're completely and totally wrong.
Don't trust the facts that are right in front of your face.
Trust me.
I'm Dr. Fauci.
You can trust me.
Meanwhile, the head of the CDC was also questioned.
In this case, questioned about the ever-changing CDC guidelines by Ms.
Questionings back and forth with Susan Collins, and here's how that went.
I used to have the utmost respect for the guidance from the CDC.
I always considered the CDC to be the gold standard.
I don't anymore.
It matters because it undermines public confidence In your recommendations.
In the recommendations that do make sense.
In the recommendations that Americans should be following.
With regard to the New York Times piece this morning, there's a meta-analysis from Journal of Infectious Diseases that was published in November, I believe, where the top-line result of all studies that were included in the systematic review said less than 10% of cases were transmitted outdoors.
With regard to camp, I have a 16-year-old.
Every day, every year, he comes home from camp and he writes the number of days until he returns to camp the next year.
This year, it got to zero and I told him he wasn't going.
I want our kids back in camp.
We now have 38,000 new infections on average per day.
Last May 11th, it was 24,000.
And we sent a lot of kids home and camps were closed.
The camp guidance is intended to get our kids to camp and allow them to stay there.
Yeah, we did it last May.
There's no reason to do it then.
But we had this stupid, pointless policy last May, so... And apparently it didn't do anything.
It didn't achieve anything.
The fact that these people are still using, are justifying the continuance of these policies by saying, well, it's what we were doing early on.
Apparently that didn't work, did it?
Summer camp was never a problem.
It was never an issue.
It was never going to be a vector for transmission.
Neither were schools.
We shut schools down in May.
Why should we open them now?
I don't know.
If you give a damn at all about the kids, if you care about facts, if you care about the science, maybe that's why.
Maybe that's why you let them go to summer camp.
And I just love it when these people use their own kids and their own experience as parents, you know, in a way to give them sort of emotional credibility.
And she says, well, I've got a kid.
My own son wants to go to camp and I can't let him go.
All you're proving is that you don't give a damn about your own child.
That's all.
That doesn't help your case at all.
Because as a CDC director, if you've looked at the data, which I'm going to assume you have, then you know that there is no reason, zero reason, to keep kids out of summer camp, or to have them wear masks when they're at summer camp.
No reason to do it.
There's never been a reason.
You have no data.
They never present it.
They never bother.
Show us the data, show us the statistics, show us the facts.
Give us the numbers that actually prove why kids can't go to summer camp, kids need to wear masks.
Vaccinated people have to wear masks, you know, anywhere.
Like, show us, give us information.
Show us a bar graph or something.
They never ever do.
Because they have none of the facts on their side, and they know it.
But the CDC director, who is that, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, she has a lot of power now, just like Fauci, getting a lot of airtime, on camera, on the news.
You have to understand, it probably wouldn't come as any surprise to you, but to be in front of cameras all the time, to have people talking about you in the news, To have people hanging on your every word, asking for permission to, you know, send their kid to summer camp or something like that?
That is, the power is immense.
And it can become addicting for people.
It's kind of hard to let that go.
That's what I've been saying all along.
You're someone of great personal integrity and self-control.
It can still be very, very difficult when you're given that kind of attention, that kind of power, that kind of prestige, all of a sudden.
Now, yeah, these leeches and parasites have been in government forever, wasting taxpayer dollars, but nobody cared.
Dr. Fauci's household name now across the country, how many people knew the guy's name last January?
I mean, nobody did.
Nobody cared.
So they've been kind of, yeah, making a lot of money as parasites on the system, but doing it in relative obscurity.
And Dr. Fauci is, whatever, 70 plus years old, and that's how he's lived most of his life.
And now, all of a sudden, over the last year, rock star status.
Getting the attention and the power that they believe they've always been entitled to.
That's why they're in these positions in the first place.
And now they're saying, after all these years, finally!
Dr. Rochelle Walensky is saying, you know what?
Finally!
You people, you should be asking me permission before you do anything with your kids.
I know better than you.
I've always known.
Now you're finally recognizing it.
So to have that happen, to suddenly be elevated in that way, as we have taken all of these useless bureaucrats and put them in these positions, that's intoxicating.
Again, even for an honest, virtuous person, they could be corrupted.
But then, what do you do when the people to begin with are not honest and virtuous at all?
What do you do when they're already scumbags?
And then you give them that kind of power.
They're just, they're not gonna let it go.
They will never, ever let it go.
There will never be a time when Rochelle Walensky gets in front of cameras and said, everything's fine, go live your lives.
She will never, ever say that.
Mark my words, she will never say it.
Five years from now, she won't be saying it.
All right, moving on.
Stacey Abrams, for some reason, was interviewed about the economic recovery.
I really have no idea.
I've never been able to figure out.
Speaking of useless people, Stacey Abrams, what does she do?
Why does anyone care about her at all?
I mean, it's one thing if she's a failed candidate and she's useless and doesn't do anything, but she's got charisma, and so people like her for that reason.
But she doesn't have any charisma.
She's just this kind of blah, lump-on-a-log figure, does nothing, has achieved nothing.
But the media, they love her anyway, and they always want to get her opinion.
She was being interviewed about the economic recovery, the alleged economic recovery, and she, of course, approached it the only way that she can approach the issue, which is by making herself into a victim.
Let's listen.
The U.S.
economy only added 266,000 jobs last month, which was far less than the more than 1 million that was expected.
It was so bad that there were reporters on air that had to double-check the number to make sure they had actually read it correctly, not to mention that the fact that all of the jobs went to men.
Is this a clear indication that throwing money at this problem isn't working?
Actually, I would see it a different way.
We know this is a complicated challenge, a pandemic that's affected the economy for women in devastating ways.
And the notion that recovery would happen overnight is just, it's unfounded.
Instead, what we're seeing are the combination of being able to survive the pandemic and start to build towards recovery.
And I think that's why the American Jobs Plan and the American Families Plan are both so
incredibly important, because it recognizes that the economy of care, which employs so
many women, has got to be seen as an essential part of how we rebuild our economy, and that
it is insufficient for us to simply focus on the more traditional masculine areas of
the economy, recognizing that we have to have women in every area, but that in particular,
women have been hardest hit, and therefore we need intentional engagement and intervention
to rebuild it back more solidly.
Traditional masculine areas of the account.
What even are you babbling about?
What are you talking about?
Why are you talking?
Who are you?
These are all questions that I have.
By the way, Meghan McCain says that we added 266,000 jobs.
She says all of them went to men, really?
100%?
266?
266,000 jobs out of 266,000.
All of it?
100%?
266,000 jobs out of 266,000.
All of it?
Not one woman earned a job in that time frame?
Is that?
I mean, I don't have the information right in front of me.
I kind of doubt that.
But yes, the problem, this is really about women.
We got to make this a problem of women.
And somehow we throw sexism into it and all of that and playing the same victim card as always.
This is this is actually similar to what the GOP tweeted yesterday.
We talked about the GOP.
They were they were they were they were hitting Joe Biden.
For not doing enough to get mothers back to work.
Got all these women that came out of the workforce, we gotta get them back in there.
Get that name tag back on, I'm having a punch and a clock because that's what we need women doing.
What I would say to Stacey Abrams, Meghan McCain, and the GOP, everybody, is, uh, yes.
A lot of people lost jobs, that's a bad thing.
A lot of women lost jobs, people lose jobs, bad thing.
Especially when the job is taken away from you by tyrants in government, makes it even worse.
But can we also consider the possibility that some of the women who left the workforce and decided to stay home with their kids over the last year, if we're not regaining those female jobs, could it be, if we're not regaining them as quickly as you thought we would or would like for that to happen, Could it be that there are some women who have reassessed their priorities, and now they want to stay home with their kids?
Can we leave open a possibility of personal choice here?
In fact, I know that that is happening.
Of all the women who lost jobs, and then the number that have not regained a job, I don't know how many of them, have decided, have reassessed their priorities and decided
that they want to embrace this new lifestyle of staying home with their kids and so on, being
a homemaker and stay-at-home mom.
I'm not sure how many of them, but I do know that that exists. I've talked to women,
I've gotten emails, plenty of women, people who decided many times during the lockdown
for the first time that they're going to become homeschool parents because they had to.
They didn't have a choice because all the schools shut down because the teachers, of course, decided to prioritize their own safety over the children and their education.
But even though their safety was really never at risk in any significant way.
And there are a lot of people who started homeschooling because they had to, and I'm sure many of them will, as soon as they can, send those kids back into school buildings.
But a certain portion, I think a not small portion, are now saying, you know what?
This is good.
It's tough to be a homeschool parent, but it's worth it.
My kids are thriving.
I want to continue this.
I think that explains a certain not small portion of the women who remain quote-unquote unemployed.
And I would consider that a positive development, actually.
If now there are more families homeschooling, by choice, more mothers that want to stay home and take care of their kids' education and their children, rather than farming that out to the school system or daycare center, by choice, I'd consider both of those to be positive developments.
We should celebrate that.
All right, from the New York Post, it says Donald Glover, Well-known, of course, actor, rapper.
He tweeted over the weekend, and this has gotten a lot of reaction and a lot of people are upset about it, for whatever reason.
He tweeted, quote, saw people on here having a discussion about how tired they were of reviewing boring stuff, TV and film.
We're getting boring stuff and not even experimental mistakes because people are afraid of getting cancelled.
So they feel like they can only experiment with aesthetic.
Um, also because some of them know they're not that good.
And then it goes on with the reaction to that, and of course people on the left, they don't like it when, they don't like it when you acknowledge cancel culture, and when someone that they thought is on their side, and really any famous celebrity they assume is on their side, and most of them are, when they come out and start talking about cancel culture, it feels like a betrayal.
And so that's the reaction that Donald Glover has gotten.
But he's exactly right.
Artists are afraid to experiment, afraid to try new things.
And that's true.
That goes beyond art, though.
I think one consequence of cancel culture is that everything is boring.
Our discussion about issues, the debate on Twitter and on social media, It's getting more and more boring.
It's not as fun as it used to be.
And a big reason for that is that people are, yeah, they're afraid of saying something that they know is going to upset people, obviously because of cancel culture.
But people are also afraid of experimenting.
Yeah, artists are afraid to experiment artistically.
But I think people are afraid to experiment with ideas, which is something that we should encourage.
We should encourage it, especially in an educational environment.
In particular, in the so-called higher education, in academia, we should encourage people to kind of, you have an idea, you're thinking through something, you haven't thought it all the way through, you're not exactly sure if you believe this or not, but it seems like an interesting thought on this or that subject, and so you say it out loud, and you kind of start a conversation.
And ideally, through that conversation, maybe you'll, you know, your ideas start to firm up a little bit more.
And maybe ultimately you decide, oh, you know what, actually, I'm not sure I really believe that, or maybe I'm wrong about that.
Or you'll say, yeah, you know, and the more I talk about this, the more we talk about it, the more I realize I'm right about what I said.
That's the kind of thing that should be encouraged.
It also makes conversation a lot more interesting.
But you certainly get almost none of that in the school system and in academia.
That is very much frowned upon.
And you don't get it out in society either.
You don't get much of it on social media.
You don't get much of people just saying, hey, I'm throwing this idea out there.
I'm not even sure how much I feel about it, but it's an interesting thought that I had.
Because isn't that a normal thing?
Don't we all have, you know, sometimes you're thinking about something and an interesting thought pops into your head, and you think to yourself, hmm, I'm not actually sure.
You know, I don't know if that's right exactly, but it seems like an interesting perspective on this issue.
And I assume, I have those thoughts all the time, I assume most people do.
But then you're afraid to say it.
Most people are afraid to say it, because they know...
If they don't have it exactly figured out and fully formed and they're ready to launch an aggressive defense, they're going to get eaten alive.
And the consequences, one of the consequences, is that everything is just kind of boring.
People stick to, you know, on every issue there are sort of assigned opinions that you're supposed to have, whether you're on the right or the left.
And you know that if you're on the right, even if you articulate one of your assigned opinions, there's still gonna be a blowback in many cases.
But still, you wanna, most people, they stick within that kind of pre-approved framework.
And I think even conservatives will say, okay, well here's the issue, gun rights, gender, whatever it is, these are kind of the opinions that most people on this side seem to be expressing.
And so if I express that point of view, I know what kind of blowback I'll get.
It's already calculated.
It's already baked into the cake.
But you're afraid to go beyond that.
And to say, oh, you know what?
Add another thing.
Here's another thought that I had.
Really, it's a tragedy.
Because it makes not only everything dull, but it makes people into dull thinkers.
All right, what else do we have here?
Okay, one other thing I wanted to show you.
This is very important.
This is from the account Breaking911 on Twitter.
They have this.
They say it's a new 25-foot tall statue unveiled in New York City Rockefeller Center.
And you can see it here.
We have it up on the screen.
This is a statue to honor African culture.
And here it is.
Here's the statue.
It's this giant, large-headed monstrosity in Rockefeller Center.
The ugliest statue I've ever seen in my life.
And then we have other angles.
Some of the other angles on this statue are evil.
Okay, there's another angle.
Look at that thing.
It's absurd.
It's like a cartoon.
And it's to honor African culture.
I don't even know what African culture is exactly.
Africa is a continent.
There are many, many different cultures.
It's kind of like talking about Asian culture, which people do talk about Asian culture, but there's a big difference between, you know, India and China.
So even that doesn't make a lot of sense.
Someone said that the statue, it looks like the face you make when your alarm goes off at 5 a.m., which I can kind of see.
I kind of think it looks like a self-portrait that a three-year-old might draw.
A three-year-old with gigantism anyway?
But mostly it looks like, you know what it looks like?
It looks like crap.
It looks like crap.
That's just, that's a terrible sculpture.
Well done to all involved.
Alright, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
Evan says, setting aside the fact that gratitude is a virtue, it's just a lot easier to be happy in life when you're grateful.
That's absolutely true.
And yesterday we draw the contrast between Tim Tebow and Colin Kaepernick, as Tebow is maybe getting back into the league at a different position.
Colin Kaepernick is still out of the league.
A lot of reasons for that.
I went through it yesterday.
But people also like Tim Tebow a lot more.
He's easy to root for.
And because he's got gratitude, he's got humility, and he seems like a happy person, whereas Colin Kaepernick is just miserable and spoiled and complaining all the time and very, very ungrateful for the many blessings in his life.
Alexis says, does anyone click the thumbs up button before watching the video because you know you'll agree with it and like it based on our love for Walsh?
Well, I would certainly hope that everyone does that.
And those who don't, obviously, are banned from the show.
If you're waiting to hear what I have to say and to see how good the show is before you hit the like button, I'm not a monkey dancing for your amusement, okay?
I don't have to prove anything to you.
Hit the damn like button, right now!
And thanks for watching.
Tim says, I've always been amused by the phrase, sleep like a baby.
What I remember and all I ever hear about caring for infants is that you don't get much sleep.
If sleeping like a baby is such a desirable thing, why are the parents complaining so much?
Yeah, I've never understood that phrase either.
Babies do sleep a lot.
They sleep like 20 hours a day, but almost none of that is at night, unfortunately, and it comes in fits.
They'll sleep for 30 minutes, they're up screaming, and then they go down for two hours and they're up some more.
Yeah, so I guess when someone says sleep like a baby, they mean the quantity, the amount of sleeping.
But in terms of the way that you get that sleep, no, I wouldn't recommend it.
Scott says, Day 66 of begging Matt to play the banjo for us.
We'll get to Day 100 and then we'll talk, all right?
And finally, okay, I wanted to get this.
Jade says, hey Matt, what's your take on stay-at-home dads?
My soon-to-be wife will be making a lot more money than me, and I would like one of us at home when it comes time to have children.
I'm okay with being a stay-at-home dad someday, and she says she'd be okay working full-time.
Just want your thoughts.
And as I read that comment, now I'm actually thinking maybe I shouldn't have read it because there's not a lot I could say here that won't get me in trouble.
All I will say is that first of all, first of all, every family has its own system that works for them.
So you gotta figure out a system that works for you.
I'm a big believer in that.
It's not a cookie cutter thing.
But at the same time, just two notes, okay, on the stay-at-home dad thing.
Number one, especially at the youngest ages, like newborn phase, the child really needs that maternal presence and needs it, in fact, a lot more than the child needs the dad there.
That isn't to say that a newborn doesn't need a dad, or that children don't.
Obviously they do, and I'm always preaching that, but young babies really, really need a mom.
And mom can provide things, not just breast milk, but that too.
But other things, maternal love and soothing and comfort, in a way that a man can't.
A man can, but it's not going to be quite the same.
So the idea of having the man home, rather than the woman, seems like it could be kind of What's the word?
Backwards?
That's probably the wrong word I should have chosen.
But media matters, we'll have fun with that one.
But no, that is what I mean, actually.
I think if you have to choose between one or the other, it makes sense for that reason to have the woman, especially home with the baby at the very young ages.
And also, number two, what you could run into is your wife says, sure, stay home.
That's great.
But then finds, and I've heard of many cases like this, but then she finds over time that she struggles to have respect for a man who isn't bringing home the bacon.
I'm not saying that's right.
Or that she should feel that way, but I am saying that many women, you know, they want their man to be out there earning a living and so on, contributing to the family in that way, even if they initially say otherwise.
And so there could be conflict that can arise from that.
So those are my two, those are my two warnings.
That's all.
But at the end of the day, make your own choice for your family.
Now a word from Allform.
You know, the star of any living room, as we all know, is the couch, the sofa.
And you want the sofa to be... A lot of times, I know in my family, we've had a debate, my wife and I, is when we're getting furniture, what's more important?
Does it look nice or is it the comfort that matters most?
I'm firmly in the comfort.
I don't care what it looks like.
I just want it to be comfortable.
My wife is on the other side of it, but with Allform sofas, we kind of get both.
It threads that needle.
If you've been listening to the show for a while, you've probably heard me talk about my Helix mattress.
Well, Helix has gone beyond the bedroom and they've started making sofas.
They just launched a new company called Allform and they're already making the best sofas we've ever seen or sat in.
So what makes an Allform sofa really cool?
For starters, it's the easiest way you can customize a sofa using premium materials and at a fraction of the cost of traditional stores.
You can pick your fabric, the sofa color, the color of the legs, sofa size, and shape to make sure it's perfect for you and your home.
They've got armchairs and left seats all the way up to an eight-seat sectional, so there's something for everyone.
All-form sofas are also delivered directly to your home with fast, free shipping.
And if getting a sofa without trying it in-store sounds a little risky, you don't need to worry.
You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it.
And what I love about it, again, with our sofa, looks great and it's extremely comfortable.
And Allform is offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash Walsh.
Again, allform.com slash Walsh.
Well, if you've noticed the country feeling extra authoritarian lately, you're not alone.
And no, it's not because I finally come to power myself as the theocratic dictator.
That's the good kind of authoritarianism.
Right now, we've got the bad kind we're experiencing.
The country certainly is feeling less and less free.
In fact, Ben Shapiro wrote an entire book about that very subject.
The book is called The Authoritarian Moment, and in it, you'll find some solid tips for fighting back against the left's weaponization of everything we do and consume, from the colleges we attend to the shoes we wear on our feet and everything in between.
So, if you want to preserve your individual rights and protect the ones you love from mob rule, The Authoritarian Moment is now available for pre-order at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or any other major bookseller.
Again, The Authoritarian Moment.
Go to Amazon.
Get that book.
Pre-ordered now.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
I hope you're sitting down for this news.
It is now appearing increasingly likely that we will be deprived of the Golden Globe Awards next year.
It may not air at all.
Now this, needless to say, is shocking.
I, for one, cannot imagine what life will be like without an awards ceremony that I've never watched.
Well, come to think of it, life will probably be exactly as it was before with no change at all, but even so, this is startling stuff.
The reason that the Golden Globes has fallen into such jeopardy is not that it's an utterly pointless, excruciating, dull, and indulgent display of self-congratulation by a drunken gaggle of narcissists and drug addicts.
It's not as though all those involved in this display finally said to themselves, you know what, this is dumb, and decided to go shut it down.
No, rather, what threatens the Golden Globes is a lack of diversity.
The New York Post explains, quote, The Golden Globes was on the verge of collapse Monday after stars turned on the event and NBC dropped the telecast for 2022.
NBC abruptly pulled the plug on airing the awards next year, citing the need for meaningful reform by the embattled Hollywood Foreign Press Association.
We continue to believe that HFPA is committed to meaningful reform.
However, change of this magnitude takes time and work, and we feel strongly that HFPA needs time to do it right.
The network said in a statement Monday, according to the Hollywood Reporter, as such, NBC will not air the 2022 Golden Globes.
Assuming the organization executes on its plan, we are hopeful we will be in a position to air the show in January 2023.
Meanwhile, the organization responded to the cancellation with a statement pledging to implement changes quickly, even with a broadcast platform up in the air.
Quote, regardless of the next air date of the Golden Globes, implementing transformational changes as quickly and as thoughtfully as possible remains the top priority.
We invite our partners in the industry to the table to work with us on the systemic reform that is long overdue, both in our organization as well as within the industry at large.
Okay, so the Hollywood Foreign Press Association needs reform.
But what kind of reform do they need?
After all, their only job is to get together and just decide what movies they personally liked.
How do you reform an organization with that kind of meaningless and subjective purpose?
And why bother reforming it?
Well, here are the details on the how and the why.
Back to the article, it says, the HFPA has faced heavy scrutiny for months over alleged diversity and ethical failings within its membership, most notably a lack of black members within the 37, or rather the 87 member organization made up of international journalists based in Los Angeles.
After a bombshell LA Times report in February detailed the group's lack of inclusion.
Bombshell!
It has a lack of inclusion.
If you tell me bombshell, and then you tell me that the revelation is that there's a lack of inclusion, I'm gonna be disappointed.
Anyway, it says, the Time's Up organization was joined by Hollywood notables, including Shonda Rhimes, Kerry Washington, Judd Apatow, Alyssa Milano, Amy Schumer.
I think, like, none of them are actually notable in my mind.
And more came in slamming the group for its shortfalls, reiterating that a cosmetic fix isn't enough.
Last week when HFPA revealed a draft plan for reform which included a specific focus on recruiting black members, Time's Up dismissed its contents as window dressing platitudes.
Yes, this is important.
The group of random whoever's deciding which crappy movies were the best in the past calendar year needs to include some black people.
Diversity and inclusion and representation is the name of the game.
Of course, the people who advocate representation never seem to consider what representation actually means or looks like from a statistical perspective.
The fact is that only 13% of the population is black.
That's a very small number.
Which means you're going to find a very small number of black people in many fields and areas of life.
It's not racism, it's just a numbers game.
Even if there are zero black people in a given area, that's still pretty statistically consistent as 13% of the population obviously isn't going to translate into exactly 13% in every area and field.
You have to allow for things like personal choice.
The point is that when you hear that there are no black members of HFPA, that isn't surprising.
It's a small population pool.
It also, again, doesn't matter because the HFPA doesn't matter.
A lot of people listening to this right now probably didn't know the HFPA even existed until they heard me say it.
In this segment.
But the real target of my cancellation today isn't the Golden Globes, which is already on the cancellation chopping block without my help.
It's all of the shameless, opportunistic frauds in media and Hollywood just now pretending to care about this issue.
It cannot be a coincidence that NBC is boycotting the Golden Globes over diversity concerns immediately after the Golden Globes pulled the worst ratings in history.
I mean, this is much like Colin Kaepernick deciding that he cares about social justice directly after he got benched in a losing season for the 49ers.
It's always amazing how people are willing to sacrifice things once those things that they're sacrificing have proven less profitable or desirable.
So it's the old, you know, giving up broccoli for Lent tactic.
A strategy as old as time.
Various celebrities have gotten the memo Tom Cruise is returning his Golden Globes.
He was courageously inspired to take this stand precisely when taking this stand would cost him nothing and earn only applause.
Also, returning the actual physical trophies doesn't achieve much.
I mean, he still won the award.
So what is that?
I guess he won't be able to sell the trophies at a pawn shop now.
But something tells me that he's not that hard up for cash.
I don't know.
Meanwhile, Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo have come out swinging against the HFPA.
Johansson condemned them for many things, including their association with Harvey Weinstein.
Very brave and bold stuff for Scarlett Johansson here.
I mean, Weinstein was known to be an abuser in Hollywood for decades.
And Johansson waited until he was safely behind bars, half dead, and a national pariah before she spoke out against him.
This is what heroes are made of, folks.
Speaking of heroes, Mark Ruffalo says that he's ashamed of the Golden Globes that he has won.
Quote, Now is the time to step up and right the wrongs of the past.
Honestly, as a recent winner of a Golden Globe, I cannot feel proud or happy about being a recipient of this award.
Really?
He can't feel happy or proud?
Well, that's definitely not how it seemed three months ago when he won his latest award.
Let's go back and watch that moment again.
I love you guys.
Oh, gosh, okay.
First of all, this group of actors, these are my peers.
These are the people I admire and love and look up to, so I'm so honored to be here with you guys.
Thank you, Hollywood Foreign Press.
Thank you, HBO.
Thank you, our production team.
Thank my family, who lets me go off and bring these crazy people home, and they have to live with all these years.
Thank you, guys.
I don't know.
He certainly seems both happy and proud there.
He can barely contain himself.
He's almost speechless.
He even specifically thanks the racist Hollywood Foreign Press Association.
This was just past February.
This was three months ago.
Did he not care about diversity and inclusion in February?
What changed?
Well, I know what changed.
The tide changed.
That's why Netflix and Amazon also both denounced the HFPA.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with these actors taking this line, by the way.
They've all happened to denounce the HFPA at exactly the time when two of the most powerful corporations in the movie business did the same.
You're crazy when these coincidences line up this way.
This is what makes it especially frustrating to argue over these kinds of issues.
Because I can sit here all day and explain why diversity is not a virtue, why it doesn't make logical or moral sense to make racial inclusion your primary operating principle, why the whole notion of representation being advanced right now is off-base and nonsensical, etc.
I can explain all of that and I can argue my case and I can make my point.
But I'll be talking to a brick wall because the people I'm arguing against don't really believe what they're saying or care about the issue at all.
It's a game.
It's a show.
It's a charade.
It's all hollow.
It's all virtue signaling.
Only what they're signaling is not a virtue at all.
They're signaling, at the end of the day, their own emptiness and cowardice.
And that is why the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is cancelled, but so is NBC.
So is Mark Ruffalo.
So is Scarlett Johansson.
So is Netflix.
So is Amazon.
Did I miss anyone?
I probably did.
All cancelled.
For now and forever.
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 Wall 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 Sasha Tolmachev.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is done by Mika Geneva.
And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Hamas continues to fire hundreds of rockets into civilian centers in Israel.
Inflation numbers come out and they are frightening.
And the Biden administration continues to lie about COVID statistics.
