Ep. 1164 - Target Goes Into LGBT Indoctrination Overdrive For Pride Month
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, did Miller Light manage to put out an ad even more obnoxious than Bud Light's Dylan Mulvaney campaign? Maybe it's not quite that bad but close. Meanwhile, Target is celebrating Pride Month early with an elaborate array of LGBT-themed merchandise, with much of it aimed at children. Also, a three hundred page report confirms what those of us with brains already knew. That the "Russian collusion" narrative was a hoax all along. And the Atlantic interviews a late term abortionist who proudly admits to murdering developed and viable infants both inside and outside the womb. In our Daily Cancellation, a wife goes on TikTok to air her petty complaints about her husband publicly. The video goes viral.
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Pre-order your Jeremy's Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/3EQeVag
Shop all Jeremy’s Razors products here: https://bit.ly/3xuFD43
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "WALSH" to 989898, or go to https://bit.ly/3LjDxuA, for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE
Genucel - 70% off the Most Popular Package + FREE SHIPPING + Free Spa Essentials at https://bit.ly/428Hmtq
Good Ranchers - $30 off your first order!
Use code WALSH at
https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, did Miller Lite manage to put out an ad even more obnoxious than Bud Light's Dylan Mulvaney campaign?
Maybe it's not quite that bad, but it's close.
Meanwhile, Target is celebrating Pride Month early with an elaborate array of LGBT-themed merchandise, with much of it aimed directly at children.
Also, a 300-page report confirms what those of us with brains already knew, which is that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a hoax all along.
And The Atlantic interviews a late-term abortionist who proudly admits to murdering developed and viable infants both inside and outside the womb.
In our daily cancellation, a wife goes on TikTok to air her petty complaints about her husband publicly.
The video goes viral.
What can we learn from all of this?
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Street Show.
[MUSIC]
President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home, quote,
our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world standard,
which will be our greatest defeat in 200 years.
There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S.
dollar, inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt.
The fact is, there is one asset that has withstood famine, wars, and political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times, and that is gold.
I've bought gold from Birch Gold in preparation for uncertain economic times.
You can trust them too, and you can have your own gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account with the help of Birch Gold.
That's right, Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
The best part is you don't pay a penny out of pocket.
When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven.
How much more time does the dollar have?
You can protect your savings with gold.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers.
You can find out why if you text WALSH to 989898.
To get your free info kit on gold, again, text WALSH to 989898 today.
As Bud Light continues to suffer the repercussions of their experiment with wokeness, another ad campaign from a different beer company has gone viral.
Miller Light tried its own hand at woke virtue signaling in a commercial that was first released actually a few weeks before the now infamous Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light can.
In their case, Miller Light did not alienate the vast majority of their customers for the sake of appealing to a tiny fraction of trans people.
Instead, they alienated the vast majority of their customers for the sake of appealing to a tiny fraction of feminists who were offended by beer ads in the past.
And here's what they came up with.
Watch.
Here's a little known fact.
Women were among the very first to brew beer ever.
From Mesopotamia to the Middle Ages to colonial America, women were the ones doing the brewing.
Centuries later, how did the industry pay homage to the founding mothers of beer?
They put us in bikinis.
Wow.
Look at this sh*t. Wild!
It's time beer made it up to women.
So today, Miller Lite is on a mission to clean up not just their s**t, but the whole beer industry's s**t. Miller Lite has been scouring the internet for all this s**t and buying it back so that it can turn it into good s**t for women brewers.
Literally, good s**t. How, you ask?
Ladies, take it away.
First, we turn the bad s**t into compost.
Then we feed compost to worms.
We s**t out beautiful fertilizer.
That good sh** helps farmers grow quality hops.
Which is then donated to women brewers to make their own really good sh**.
Well, it's a good plan.
You know, if you're the kind of woman who's offended by ads with bikinis, but you love ads with lots of cuss words, then this Miller campaign is perfect for you.
And the three or four other people who fall into that demographic.
The rest of us, however, are left with some questions.
Questions like, what do you mean that beer companies put women in bikinis?
Were the women abducted out of their homes in the middle of the night at gunpoint and forced against their will to wear skimpy bathing suits for beer advertisements?
Is that how it worked?
Or did those women respond to casting calls knowing what they were getting into and choosing of their own free will and volition to participate in these ad campaigns?
And if the answer to the latter question is yes, Then why would feminists complain?
I'm a little confused here, because on the one hand, we're told that things like OnlyFans and the porn industry and quote-unquote sex work are empowering for women, allowing them to harness and wield their sexuality to their own benefit.
And on the other hand, we're told that bikini ads for beer companies are demeaning and dehumanizing.
So, which is it?
I mean, it certainly can't be both.
There's no way that only fans can be empowering while a bikini ad for a beer company is dehumanizing.
The answer seems to change depending on the situation.
Sometimes sexualization is good, and it's empowering, and sometimes it's degrading.
All told, feminism basically sells two options to modern women.
Either they can be empowered and independent by becoming sexual objects, glorified masturbatory aids for men, or they could be empowered and be independent by becoming cold and angry and resentful of wrongs supposedly done to them in the past.
These are the two paths that feminism presents.
Women are urged to, you know, choose one path and then jump to another one, someone at random, just as long as they never search for a third path, you know, a different option, where they are neither sexual objects nor resentful, bitter harpies.
There is that other path, it exists, but modern feminism does not want women to choose that path.
Of course, the question still remains as to how any of this will help Miller Lite sell its product.
The majority of their customers are men under the age of 45.
And just a little bit of a marketing insight I can give you, the reason why in the past beer companies used attractive women in bikinis to sell their products is because they're selling the product mostly to men.
It's men who want it, and men also enjoy looking at women in bikinis.
Attractive women, anyway.
So that was the idea behind it.
I mean, pretty simple, but that was the concept.
It was back in the days when companies had this idea that you should advertise to your audience and your customer base by giving them things that they want instead of lecturing them.
That's back in the old days.
That was kind of the most popular marketing strategy.
And all of their customers, Miller Lite, both men and women, are undiscerning beer drinkers simply looking for a cheap adult beverage option that they can buy in bulk.
These are people who willingly buy and consume what is essentially alcoholic goat urine.
It's unlikely that they're going to be able to significantly expand their customer base with this girl power routine.
But it's not about expanding their customer base, obviously.
It's about signaling their allegiance to the woke religion.
Which also explains the other woke corporate campaign that's getting a lot of attention this week, and that is from Target.
Target is once again getting Pride Month kicked off a few weeks early by unveiling their ever-expanding selection of LGBT-themed merchandise, with much of it specifically aimed at children.
The Daily Wire reports, quote, Target unveiled a number of clothing items and accessories, including apparel and books, meant for babies and young children as part of the retail behemoth's latest Pride collection.
In addition to the adult collection, which included a t-shirt emblazoned with the words, queer, queer, queer, queer, a short-sleeved bright green boiler suit, and a hoodie which declares, not a phase, the company offered several items meant for kids and babies.
The store is selling onesies and small shirts with phrases like, being proud, and just be you and feel the love, as well as rainbow colored leggings, tutu skirts, and jumpers.
Target likewise offers bibs that say, I am proud of you always.
Rainbow sandals and swimwear, and socks with various LGBTQ related themes.
Shoppers with pets can purchase rainbow backpacks, chew toys, treats, leashes, collars, and cat scratchers.
The retailer has garnered controversy for several years with pride collections meant to commemorate the June LGBTQ festivals.
Items sold last year included breast binders, packing underwear, and other offerings meant for self-identified transgender individuals, drawing backlash against the company.
I should also mention that they're along with, you know, these products for kids.
They're also selling LGBT children's books and all the rest of it.
And if you go into a Target right now, you're going to see all that.
As soon as you walk in the store, you're going to see all of that front and center proudly on display.
The chest binders and the packing underwear, those are items that are still on offer this year.
Here's a video posted by somebody who seems to be trying to defend Target against claims that it's selling these kinds of things for children.
So this is someone who, she's not upset about this, it seems.
She's trying to defend Target.
But in the process of trying to defend Target, she actually exposes what Target is doing, accidentally.
Let's watch.
I'm sorry I chose you again.
I just needed to do the bathing suit, the last bit.
I found the Tuck Bathing Suits.
The Tuck Friendly Bathing Suits.
So if you need a women's bathing suit and you have a little extra meat down there that you gotta hide, you have one option.
That is the only bathing suit that I found in the entire store and it's in the pride section.
It's not in the kids section, women's section, boys section, baby section.
It is in the pride section.
It was the only one I could find.
And I did have another adult with me checking all the tags so that I didn't have to stay in the store for nine hours.
Okay, so tuck-friendly bathing suits, if you have, as she says, a little extra meat down there.
But they aren't in the kids' section, she hastens to add.
They're in the pride section.
Not in the kids' section.
It's just the pride section that they've set up, right in the front of the store.
Which may be true, but we can also clearly see that the bathing suits, though not in the kids' section, are available in kids' sizes.
Either those are sizes for kids or for very, very, very small adults.
Which I guess is the excuse they're going to go with.
No, this is not.
This is just for extremely undersized adults.
I mean, you could buy it for your kid, but that's not what it's meant for.
That's obviously what it's meant for.
Which means that if you're a parent who wants to dress your son up like a girl and put him in a girl's bathing suit, Target has items especially tailored to those, quote, needs.
Now, I should go without saying that this is far, far worse than anything Bud Light did.
Target is specifically marketing products for children and putting them on display right in the front of their stores for all to see.
Target is actively trying to recruit kids into the LGBT camp.
And Target feels safe doing this, even after the Bud Light fiasco, because they assume that they can, for one thing, rely on the ubiquity of their brand to cover them.
There are Targets everywhere.
Of course, Target, it's not just one product in the refrigerated section of the grocery store that you can walk past and get another product.
No, they sell all kinds of items, from clothing to groceries and everything in between.
So to cut them out, to boycott Target, Would require a level of discipline and sacrifice on the part of consumers.
Now, it's only a very small amount of discipline, and only the meagerest sacrifice, but still it's more than what was required to ditch Bud Light.
That's the problem Bud Light ran into, is that they discovered that they are incredibly expendable, and we can ditch them, and you can buy a different beer, and there's really no sacrifice at all.
It requires no extra effort.
It's just opening the refrigerator at the gas station, and rather than reaching here, reaching over there for a different beer.
That's all.
That's all.
That's the only effort.
And lots of people were willing to do that.
But for Target, what they're counting on is that it's not quite so easy.
Because if you have a Target right down the street, and it's got everything that you need, and you're a busy parent or something, if you decide I'm not going to go to Target, that might mean that rather than driving 12 minutes down the street, now you've got to drive 17 minutes down the street to go to a different store.
And that's at least more of a sacrifice than is required to not drink Bud Light anymore.
But still, Target needs our business.
It needs the business of the people that it is angering intentionally with its LGBT indoctrination.
And now it's essentially calling our bluff.
The company is making the assumption that we will be satisfied with our victory over Bud Light and kind of, you know, leave it there.
We have that one trophy on the wall, and they're assuming, and just like many other corporations come Pride Month, they're going to assume that we're going to be satisfied with that.
It's not an unreasonable assumption.
Even with Bud Light, there was a sizable contingent of conservatives who said that we should ignore that issue.
They said that they were tired of hearing about it.
It's just a culture war distraction, they complained.
Let's focus on the economy and taxes instead.
If multi-billion dollar corporations are actively trying to brainwash and recruit our children as the LGBT cult, why should that matter?
What difference does the culture make anyway?
The answer is that it makes all the difference.
As I've tried to explain recently on this show and many other times, the culture is the stuff that our country is made of.
It's what we are all living in.
It's what our children are inheriting from us.
And now they are inheriting a society where major corporations celebrate LGBT pride by selling chest binders and tucking bathing suits.
We do have the power to put a stop to it.
It only takes a little bit of discipline and the tiniest amount of sacrifice.
Corporations who cross the line to this egregious extent should be made to pay for it.
And that is a penalty that we can extract.
Because there are millions and millions and millions of Americans in this country who are disgusted by this.
They don't want to have the rainbow stuff vomited all over them the moment that they walk into a store.
They especially don't want that to happen when they're bringing their kids with them into the store, as so many parents do.
And if even a sizable minority of those millions said, you know what?
I'm not shopping at Target anymore.
I'm done with it.
That would be a major blow to that company because they need our business.
This is a punishment that we can impose.
We just have to put in the effort and understand why it's important.
We did it with Bud Light.
Now I think it's Target's turn.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Did you know that our friends at GenuCell have upgraded their most popular
package to feature their top selling deep firming vitamin C serum plus
ultra retinol moisturizer with natural retinol alternative.
I bet you didn't know that, but now you do.
Right now, you can take advantage of this limited-time package for 70% off.
Why waste time and money to go get work done on your face when you can get GenuCell Skincare shipped right to your door?
GenuCell's secret is a family recipe for over 20 years that makes it safe for all skin types, And perfect for both men and women.
Made by a compounding pharmacist in small batches and is always safe, cruelty-free, and natural.
You know, my hair and makeup artist Cherokee is a lot like a lizard.
Any chance she gets, she'll be out laying on a rock, sunbathing in the middle of a desert somewhere.
But to make sure she doesn't have skin that looks as cracked and dusty as the desert ground, she uses GenuCell's wide range of products to keep her skin looking young.
Go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh and try GenuCell's most popular package for 70% off, featuring GenuCell's Ultra Retinol and GenuCell's Firming Serum as well.
You get a complimentary spa essentials box with every package order, plus a free upgrade to priority shipping.
You can get all of that, you can get it now, but you gotta go to GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
That's GenuCell.com slash Walsh.
Well, I just saw this as we were going to the five headlines, so I'll mention it here at the top, related to the Miller Lite's campaign.
And they put out a statement in reaction to the backlash against this commercial.
The statement says, this video was about two things.
Worm poop and saying that women shouldn't be forced to mud wrestle in order to sell beer.
Neither of those things should be remotely controversial, and we hope beer drinkers can appreciate the humor and ridiculousness of this video from back in March.
Oh, it was just a joke.
We were just, we were just kidding.
Now, they're nervous now.
Miller Lite is nervous.
That's why they put a statement out.
You know, if this was, if not for the Bud Light thing, If Bud Light had never happened, and they put out this commercial and conservatives were making fun of it, Miller Lite would ignore the backlash.
They wouldn't say anything about it, they'd just ignore it.
The fact that they're addressing it means that they're nervous, because they don't want to be the next Bud Light.
And they're also now falling back on, oh, it's just a joke, we're kidding around.
First of all, nothing that is tailored to feminists Has ever been funny, intentionally.
I mean, it's funny unintentionally sometimes.
But there's no such thing as a, as I have proven in videos we've done, some of our Try to Laugh videos where I've listened, I have endured feminist comedy.
I've endured more of it than most people have.
And I can say from experience, from walking down that dark path, that there is nothing funny happening there at all.
So, and also, yeah, we can agree that women should not be forced to mud wrestle in order to sell beer.
I totally agree with that.
Women should not be forced to put on bikinis and mud wrestle for any reason.
I cannot think of a reason, a justification for forcing women to do that.
So we can agree on that.
But women were not forced to do it.
See, this is the issue.
They were not forced to do it.
They chose.
They were paid, and they chose to participate in these kinds of ads.
So again, the question is, isn't that empowering?
Don't you people tell us that that is empowering?
No, I don't think it's empowering.
That's not my position.
But my position is consistent.
You know, I don't think running around a bikini to sell beer, I don't consider that empowerment.
But I also don't consider empowering to be on OnlyFans or in the porn industry or doing quote-unquote sex work.
I would say that none of that is empowering.
But on the left, they as always try to have it both ways and it doesn't make any sense.
All right.
I'll read this report from the Daily Wire and I'm going to read a little, a pretty good chunk of it because I think that this explains it better than I would if I was Just going off the top of my head on it, but Special Counsel John Durham, who was tasked by former Attorney General Bill Barr to examine the propriety of the FBI's investigation of President Trump, released a 320-page report on Monday that found that the FBI had no evidence to support a Trump-Russia scandal when it began its investigation and found, quote, sobering differences in how it approached the Trump probe compared to other politically sensitive investigations.
So this report, in other words, tells us what any sensible person knew all along.
There was no reason, there was no actual evidence-based reason to investigate Trump for being somehow tied to Russia, or some kind of secret Russian double agent.
Most of us knew that from the beginning, and we also knew that they, the intelligence community, was treating Trump very differently from how they treat Other politicians and powerful people who are caught up in scandals far worse than this fake one that Trump was accused of.
Reading some more, it said, the FBI immediately opened a full investigation based on a brief note from an Australian diplomat recounting that he had met with George Papadopoulos, a volunteer with the Trump campaign, in which he mentioned that Russia might have information negative to Hillary Clinton.
Quote, at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI did not possess any intelligence showing that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was in contact with Russian intelligence officers at any point during the campaign.
So, they launched this entire investigation, but there was no intelligence, there was no, not a single shred of evidence that would justify the investigation to begin with.
Because that's the whole point.
You know, investigation is not supposed to be, hey, let's just at random look into this person to see if we can find any crimes.
There's supposed to be an evidence-based reason to open the investigation to begin with, and in this case, there was not.
The probe later relied on the Steele dossier, which came from a circular loop of people with little insight into Russia, except that some of them had been on the FBI's radar for possible misconduct or ties to Russian intelligence in their own right, it said.
The FBI knew it was nothing but rumor and speculation, according to the report.
Quote, upon receipt of unevaluated intelligence information from Australia, the FBI swiftly opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, in particular at the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened Crossfire Hurricane immediately.
Strzok, at a minimum, had pronounced hostile feelings towards Trump.
And so here we're told that Not only did they open this investigation with no evidence, but the people that were involved at the highest levels in this investigation had a partisan bias against Trump.
Again, not new information.
Anyone with the two eyes and ears and a brain could see this from the beginning.
The matter was opened as a full investigation without ever having spoken to the persons who provided the information.
Further, the FBI did so without, one, any significant review of its own intelligence databases, two, collection and examination of any relevant intelligence from other U.S.
intelligence entities, three, interviews of witnesses essential to understand the raw information that it had received, or four, using any of the standard analytical tools typically employed by the FBI in evaluating raw intelligence.
None of that was done before they launched this investigation.
Had it done so, the FBI would have learned that their own experienced Russian analysts had no information about Trump being involved with Russian leadership officials, nor were others in sensitive positions at the CIA, the NSA, Department of State aware of such evidence concerning the subject.
In addition, FBI records prepared by Strzok in February and March of 2017 Show that at the time of the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI had no information in its holdings indicating that at any time during the campaign had anyone in the Trump campaign had been in contact with any Russian intelligence officials.
In the 18 months leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI was required to deal with a number of proposed investigations that had the potential of affecting the election.
In each of those instances, the FBI moved with considerable caution.
In one such matter, FBI headquarters and department officials required defensive briefings to be provided to Clinton and other officials or candidates who appeared to be targets of foreign interference.
It's a 300-page report, thereabouts.
In another, the FBI elected to end an investigation after one of its long time and valuable CHS's
went beyond what was authorized and made an improper and possibly illegal financial contribution
to the Clinton campaign on behalf of a foreign entity as a precursor to a much larger donation
being contemplated.
All right, it's a 300 page report thereabouts.
You can read, you know, much of it yourself if you want to.
Although we'll tell you what we already know, which again is that there was no evidence
to justify this investigation, there was never any reason to even entertain the notion that
Trump was in cahoots with Russia.
And also that this is not how they've treated other people like Hillary Clinton, for example.
And it's, you know.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
It's good that this report after all these years is now being published and we can see it, I guess.
It is good.
It's good that we can see it.
But it's also deeply frustrating because we also know that this is it.
Like, this is all that's going to happen.
The report is published.
It's 300 plus pages long.
Most people won't read it.
Especially the people, the only people who will pay attention to this And actually look into it, are the ones who were already smart enough to know that the whole Trump and Russia thing was bogus.
Those are like the only people that are going to pay attention to this.
Everyone else, you know, they rely on the mainstream media to get their information.
The mainstream media is going to gloss over this very quickly.
And so it's almost certainly not going to convince any of the people who in the past were convinced that Trump was a Russian secret double agent.
And then, and nothing will, there won't be any penalties.
No one's gonna pay a price for this.
We'll get all this information in this report about what happened and this effort to derail the Trump campaign with these completely bogus accusations.
And no one is going to pay a price for it.
That's the most frustrating thing.
But if you're looking for where the attacks on our democracy are coming from, this is it.
This actually is an attack on our democracy.
It's an attack on our system.
And not just because we had these These government agencies that were weaponized against Trump and weaponized against their political enemies, that's part of the attack on our democracy.
But the other part is the effect of that, which is the total collapse of faith in our institutions and in the government.
Nobody trusts these people anymore, and nor should we.
But how do you have a democratic system when nobody trusts it?
Trust is the faith, trust, you know, this is the fuel that keeps everything going.
And once people get to the point where they just have no faith in any of this anymore, and they see it all as a giant facade, which is what so much of it is, that's when things really start to fall apart, which is what we're experiencing right now.
Okay, The Atlantic has an article about a late-term abortionist named Warren Hearn, who has been in business for half a century.
And I want to just read for you, if I can pull it up, a few choice excerpts from this article and interview.
The article is written by Elaine Godfrey in The Atlantic.
Again, Warren Hearn has been practicing abortions, been performing late-term abortions, infanticide, in other words, for 50 years.
And I just want to read a couple of excerpts from this article.
And these are excerpts that were posted originally by John McCormick of the National Review.
Okay, Hearn is now nearing his fifth decade of practice at his Boulder Clinic in Colorado.
He has persisted through the entire arc of Roe v. Wade, its nearly 50-year rise and fall.
He specializes in abortions late in pregnancy, the rarest and most controversial form of abortion.
This means that Hearn ends pregnancies of women who are 22, 25, even 30 weeks along.
Although 14 states now ban abortion in most or all circumstances, Colorado has no gestational limits on the procedure.
Patients come to him from all over the country because he is one of only a handful of physicians who can and will perform an abortion so late.
During the conversation and the ones following it, I prodded for cracks in Hern's certainty.
At one point, I thought I'd found one.
Hern had told me about a woman who'd sought an abortion because she didn't want to have a baby girl.
I thought he had refused.
But when I followed up to ask him why, I learned that I had misunderstood.
Hearn said he had done abortions for sex selection twice.
Once for this woman, and once for someone who desperately wanted a girl.
It was their choice to make, he explained.
Quote, so if a pregnant woman with no health issues comes to the clinic, say, at 30 weeks, what would you do?
I asked Hearn once.
The question irked him.
Every pregnancy is a health issue, he said.
There's a certifiable risk of death from being pregnant, period.
You see there, so when you hear about the life-saving abortions, which are totally mythological, okay?
Abortion does not, there's never a time when you need to actually do an abortion to save a woman's life.
But when you hear about the life-saving abortions, this is what they mean.
What they mean is that, theoretically, you know, a woman can die in childbirth, can die in labor.
There's a certain, as he says, a certain risk of death when you're pregnant, in theory, And so for that reason, every abortion is a life-saving procedure.
Not to mention, you know, which, of course, I guess we're disregarding all of the many risks of death and injury that come from getting an abortion in the first place.
It continues, in the 1970s, physicians did not induce fetal demise during abortion.
And once or twice during a procedure at 15 or 16 weeks, he used forceps to remove a fetus with a still beating heart.
The heart thumped for only a few seconds before stopping, but for a long while after, a vision of that fetus would wake Hearn from his sleep.
So there he's saying that's infanticide.
Extracting a baby who is still alive and then watching the baby die.
Abortions that come after devastating medical diagnoses can be easier for some people to understand, but Hearn estimates that at least half, and sometimes more, of the women who come to the clinic do not have these diagnoses.
He and his staff are just as sympathetic to other circumstances.
Okay, so this is coming right from the horse's mouth.
This is someone who clearly does not have a pro-life bias.
This is a late-term abortionist.
And he is saying that at least half of the women who come to him for late-term abortions, okay, these are babies that are, and I hate using this term, but that are viable, okay?
These are babies who could survive outside the womb.
You could deliver a baby at 30 weeks, and that child is almost certainly going to survive.
With modern technology and modern medicine, delivering a baby at 30 weeks is like, that's no big deal.
That happens all the time.
And it's really standard.
And these babies can easily survive.
They'd go to a NICU, but won't even have to go to the NICU for that long.
Our own twins, our most recent set of twins, were born early.
Several weeks early.
And they went to the NICU, I think, for one day.
And that was it.
The miracle of modern medicine.
So, according to him, women who come in for abortions that late in pregnancy, at least half of them, it's not because of some medical diagnosis, it's not because they're going to die if they don't get an abortion, which again is totally mythological in the first place, it's not because the babies Are gonna die anyway because of some severe fetal defect, which would not justify abortion even in those cases, but that's not what it is.
So these are just women who come in and they want to get an abortion.
And he doesn't care the reason.
If a woman comes to him 28 weeks pregnant and says, you know what, it's a boy and I wanted a girl, so I'll go ahead and kill it.
He'll do it.
And he has done it.
And this guy is still operating.
These are the kinds of stories that We need to be putting front and center.
We know that on the pro-abortion side, they want to make the entire conversation always revolve around the hardest cases, the rarest cases.
That's all they want to talk about.
They don't want to talk about this, even though this is happening all the time.
I mean, thousands and thousands and thousands of viable, developed infants who could have survived outside of the womb are killed.
Have been killed.
Thousands of them.
And it's still going on even now.
And this also shows why this issue of abortion, we cannot abandon it, okay?
And I know that there are some Republicans who, as far as they're concerned, they want to throw up the white flag and say, OK, we're done with this.
We're done fighting against this.
It's not popular.
It's not popular at the ballot box.
And I'm not convinced by that in the first place, OK?
I'm certainly not convinced by that.
In fact, I reject it.
I reject the idea that abortion is a losing political issue.
I reject that.
And if it is a losing political issue, it's not because of the issue itself fundamentally.
It's just because of the way that Republicans tend to approach the issue.
That they're too stupid in how they address this issue.
And they're too stupid to realize that stories like this should be plastered everywhere.
Okay, we have an abortionist currently in operation right now who is admitting proudly to killing developed infants that could survive outside the womb for no reason other than the fact that this woman just wants them dead.
So why are we not taking a story like this and plastering it everywhere, shouting about it from the rooftops?
If this is a losing political issue, it's for that reason.
Because many Republicans and Conservatives are too freaking stupid to realize how we should approach issues like this.
Like, strategically stupid.
Strategic stupidity is the bane of Conservatism and the Republican Party.
But if it was a losing political issue, Even if I accepted that, well, that doesn't mean that we can just accept this.
I mean, if we get to the point where we say, okay, you know what, they're just slaughtering infants by the thousands, and we're not gonna talk about it anymore because we're afraid they're gonna vote against us.
If we get to that point, then there's nothing left to fight for.
Pack it in, forget about it, like, just give up, okay?
There's nothing left.
What are we going to say?
Oh yeah, you know what, kill all the babies you want.
Instead, let's talk about gun rights and immigration.
Those are important issues.
Are they more important than defending babies from being dismembered in the womb and thrown into garbage?
Into dumpsters?
Are they more important than that?
How could they be?
In fact, something like gun rights, the only reason that gun rights really matter is because human life matters.
All of these things, okay?
All of these other issues that you as a conservative, you might want to say these other issues are more important.
Those other issues don't mean anything.
Unless we all agree that human life has intrinsic value and worth.
If human life has no intrinsic value or worth, then who cares about your gun rights?
You have your gun to defend your life, but your life is meaningless.
Who cares?
What difference do the borders make if all of our lives are meaningless?
What different taxes?
Who cares about any of that?
None of that matters unless human life has inherent worth.
But if we accept something like this, if we accept abortion, then we're making a statement that human life has no inherent worth.
And once we accept that, everything else comes crumbling down.
So this is not an issue that we can give up on.
And it's pathetic that I even have to say that.
Only on the right.
You know, the left, this would never... On the right, we have this massive victory.
Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Massive.
Something we've been fighting for.
Some of us have been fighting for it for decades.
And we finally get it.
And the moment that it happens, you get a bunch of conservatives who become scared.
It's, I don't know, do we go too far?
They're mad at us now!
Oh, the voters are mad at us!
Retreat!
Retreat!
The left never does that.
They get a victory and they double down.
They say, you know what, we won that, you're damn right, and here's what we're doing next.
It's never enough.
They're never satisfied.
We get a victory and we're terrified.
We're frozen with fear if we actually get a victory.
We're afraid people will be mad, mad at us because of our victory.
It's pathetic.
And I have no interest in any Republican candidate who has that attitude about it.
I'll tell you that right now.
No interest.
Alright, here's something, a little bit of a Of a lighter note.
Maybe not so much lighter.
Back in 1963, some daily wire, Elizabeth Taylor, then the hottest actress in the world, starred as Cleopatra in an over-the-top, star-studded blockbuster with a $31 million budget, equal to $327 million in today's dollars.
Taylor likely didn't look much like the Egyptian queen, what with her lily white skin and dark blue eyes with purple irises.
But back then, everything wasn't so politically correct and people didn't take offense at meaningless things.
Skip ahead 60 years.
Netflix's new documentary, Queen Cleopatra, has drawn controversy and blackwashing claims after Adele James, a black actress, was cast in a lead role as Cleopatra.
And yes, in fact, historic records show that Cleopatra was not black, but Macedonian Greek.
The documentary part of the African Queen series explores the rise and fall of the last pharaoh of Egypt and was released on May 10th, but it's the dismal ratings that are making headlines.
The documentary currently has a 2% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which Forbes says is the lowest in history.
The average tomato meter score, which calculates how many critics rate it favorably, stands at 10%.
So it is a 10% rating among the critics and a 2% rating among the actual, you know, regular audience.
Here's how bad it is.
The worst film on the movie rating site, Ballistic X vs. Sever, in 2002, has a 0% rating on the Tomatometer, but a 20% favorable rating by the audience.
Another stinker, One Missed Call, from 2008, also has a 0% Tomatometer, but a 20% audience score.
And the Nicolas Cage bomb, Left Behind, from 2014, got 0% from the critics, but 22% from the audience.
Whereas this only has 2% from the audience.
Forbes notes that the creator of the series, Tina Garvey, has defended the casting choice.
She said, "Why shouldn't Cleopatra be a melanated sister?
Why do some people need Cleopatra to be white?
Her proximity to whiteness seems to give her value, and for some Egyptians, it seems to really matter.
After much hand-wringing and countless auditions, we found in Adele James an actor
who could convey not only Cleopatra's beauty, but also her strength.
What the historians can confirm is that it is more likely that Cleopatra looked like Adele
than Elizabeth Taylor ever did."
You know, here's the thing about this.
I'm, um...
I could be perfectly fine with the race swapping of, certainly race swapping of fictional characters.
I could be completely fine with that.
And even with historical figures, I could be fine with that too.
You know, a different take, a different interpretation on a historical figure.
Any biopic, even something that builds itself as a documentary as this does.
But all these films, they all fictionalize the lives of these historical figures to some degree.
And so, I could be okay with a version of a story where they swap the race out and they take a white historical figure and have a black actor or actress portray them.
I could be totally fine with that.
If, We had a consistent standard for these sorts of things.
If we just took the approach across the board that, hey, whichever actor seems to nail the role the best, just cast them.
It doesn't really matter what their race is.
And there's a little bit of suspension of disbelief.
But again, all these stories are either fictional stories, or at a minimum, they are fictionalized accounts of historical events.
And so the race doesn't matter.
If that was our attitude across the board, then I'd be fine with that.
I'd be on board with that.
But we know that's not the case.
We know that this would never go the other way.
It never could go the other way.
You certainly would not find Netflix putting out a documentary about an actual black historical figure being portrayed by a white person.
That would never happen.
But if there is any hope of compromise, if this is one issue we can compromise on, I'd take that compromise.
Race swapping, have fun with it.
Do everything you want.
You want to put out a biopic about Martin Luther King Jr.
and actually have someone like Ryan Gosling portray him?
Go ahead and do it.
That would, you know, it would make for some interesting films at least.
But they want to take one standard and apply it, you know, inconsistently to one group of people, and that just doesn't work.
You can't do that.
We're going to hold you by your own standards, but that's the point.
There is, on the left, this is your standard.
It's not that we really care that much about race swapping.
It's not our issue.
You care about it, and so we are holding you to your own standard.
You know, we can't depend on you to do that.
This can't be an honor system sort of thing, so we have to force you to stand by your own standards.
All right, let's get to the comment section.
[MUSIC]
Summer is here and Good Ranchers wants to give you what you've been craving,
which is a nice summer steak on the grill.
Can you hear the sizzle already?
I know that I can.
I'm not sure what your favorite steak is, but mine is every steak I get from Good Ranchers.
They're all great.
Every cut is sourced from local American farms and hand-cut, trimmed, and aged to perfection.
They have ribeyes, New York strips, all-natural burgers, and all the most delicious chicken you could ever want.
Plus, It's $30 off with my code Walsh at GoodRanchers.com.
Good Ranchers is committed to giving you inflation-proof meat that you can count on.
Right now, they're offering a price lock guarantee for the next two years, and there's never been a better time to take advantage of an offer like that.
Imagine if you could have locked in your price two years ago, you would have saved hundreds.
Well, don't wait any longer.
Gear up for an unforgettable summer of barbecues and everything else, all the delicious food that you want, great company, and the perfect ambiance thanks to our friends at Good Ranchers.
Head to GoodRanchers.com and use my code WALSH for $30 off any box, delicious American meat, and $30 off your order.
You can't beat that.
That's promo code WALSH at GoodRanchers.com.
GoodRanchers.com.
American meat delivered.
Cindy Lou says, totally disagree with your comment that having a pet rather than a child is selfish.
Can't actually believe that came out of your mouth.
Really, you can't?
You can't believe that I said that?
I assume that was the first episode you've ever watched of the show, if it surprised you to hear me say that.
I highly doubt that people actually get animals in place of children.
Did you ever think that some people feel it is more selfish to bring a child into a world that is so screwed up?
It's also selfish to bring children into poverty, yet the Catholic religion espouses having child after child.
Having children is a privilege, it's not a right.
Okay, first of all, why is that selfish?
Is life not worth living if you're poor?
Do poor people not deserve to have a legacy and descendants that they leave behind?
Are you saying that if you're a poor person, you should just embrace the death of your own bloodline because you're poor?
I mean, is that your claim here?
And people absolutely do have pets instead of children.
Many pet owners will admit that.
And even if they won't admit it, People talk about their pets as if the pets are actual children of theirs.
So, this is not something that I'm making up.
I think if you talk to pet owners, they will tell you that.
There are plenty of pet owners who will also, and I know this because I've been told this many times, who will quite openly say that they value the lives of their pets over the lives of other human beings.
This is an actual mentality that, it's disturbing, but it's a very real mentality that people have.
Dara says, Lonesome Dove is by far the greatest Western ever made.
You know, I think I would certainly put it in the top three.
And it's also one of the greatest, it's certainly one of the greatest television miniseries, it's probably the best television miniseries of all time.
I would put it like, well, that's a tough call.
Because I would probably say Lonesome Dove, Chernobyl, and then Band of Brothers is how
I would rate them.
But Lonesome Dove, of all the things that have ever been put on film, whether it's a
show, miniseries, a movie, I'd put it in the top 15, 10, 15 in that category, of all things
ever put on screen.
Qatari says, "So much of this show is going to be clipped by Media Matters in an attempt
to cancel Matt."
Yeah, there were a couple of moments from the show yesterday that I figured Media Matters would grab, but they didn't.
The only thing they clipped was the part about single moms.
Where I said that we shouldn't celebrate single motherhood, and one of the reasons we shouldn't celebrate it is because many single moms choose to be single moms.
That was the only thing.
Oftentimes, I'm disappointed by the editorial decisions that Media Matters makes.
In many cases, I'll do a show, and at the end of the show, I'll think to myself, okay, well, there's like three things Media Matters could pull, try to make a controversy out of it.
But then they go and grab something else.
They take something that was one of the least controversial things I said in that episode, and that's what they run with?
I mean, they could always—you know what?
And maybe this would help Media Matters out a little bit.
You could always ask me.
I think I have a better grasp on what things are controversial that I'm saying and what aren't.
So, you could always just shoot me an email at the end of every show and just say, hey, what do you think your most controversial clips are?
They're gonna make people mad at you, and I'll let you know.
I'll tell you where to look.
I'm happy to help, and I wouldn't even charge for it.
Rational Bacon says, it's weird, maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I've always just left crappy workplaces.
I never needed a cry session about it.
J.R.
says, as a very emotional woman, I have definitely hidden somewhere and cried at work at least once.
That doesn't mean work was traumatic, though.
It just means I cry easily.
Well, that's okay.
I can accept that.
Well, you shouldn't be crying at work at all, whether you're male or female.
But I can come close to accepting it for women.
On occasion, as long as you acknowledge that what you're crying about is not actually a traumatic event.
It's just you being emotional.
Tom says, see the term trauma dumping.
It's what we've evolved to expect.
Everyone is traumatized, and it's a race to the bottom of the brainstem.
Everyone both has and needs a trauma story.
The more privileged, the more ridiculous.
You must escalate your trauma experience.
It's what Millennials, Gen Zs, and all the traumatized people behind them must mobilize.
We've taught them to do it.
They know they need to have a trauma story or they get nothing.
So trauma it is, and they're all narcissists.
Yeah, and this is another way to figure out if you've experienced actual trauma or not.
A very good litmus test is if you like talking about the experience, if you talk about this traumatic experience, allegedly traumatic experience, any chance you get, then there's a very good chance that it was not really traumatic.
Because if you go through a truly traumatic experience, in my life, I've maybe had one or two experiences that I think would probably qualify as legitimately traumatizing.
But I've never talked about them in any detail at all publicly and never would because it's not the kind of, it's something like that.
It's not the kind of thing that you want to present to the public as content.
It's not the kind of thing that you think, oh, I can use this to get sympathy.
Because if you're thinking that way about it, then it's pretty clear that you're not traumatized.
If you're using it to manipulate people's emotions, to draw pity out of people, then it's not traumatic to you.
It's just, it's all a game.
My dearest Sweet Babies, in spite of the whirlwind of attacks I've recently had to fend off, I've still managed to deliver you with new, ever-increasing ways to reaffirm your identities as members of the Sweet Baby Gang.
That's right, you can head over to my swag shack at dailywire.com slash shop for loads of SBG merchandise, including the all-new Sweet Baby Crew Neck and Sweet Baby Socks.
You can adorn your bodies from head to toe in the most bigoted, transphobic threads available on the internet anywhere.
You, too, can be transphobe of the year just well.
You could be a runner-up anyway just by wearing this stuff.
Go to dailywire.com slash shop today to get yours before it sells out.
Also, if you're looking for something interesting to watch, check out our series What We Saw, hosted by storyteller Bill Whittle.
Season one is focused on Apollo 11, and now season two of What We Saw is in full swing.
This time, Bill paints a bleak picture of the growing existential threat to America due to Soviet Russia and Cuba.
In episode 10, we're transported to Vietnam, where North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack the USS Maddox, plunging us further into the Cold War.
How big a price will we pay in our efforts to prevent communism from spreading outside of Vietnam?
Bill, makes you feel like you're there, witnessing history firsthand.
Nothing like it anywhere.
New episodes of The Cold War come out every week, but you have to be a member to see it, so go to dailywire.com slash coldwar to start watching.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
A shocking and tragic video went viral on TikTok last week.
It was originally posted by a woman named Haley, who deleted the video shortly after posting it, but then posted it again later for some reason.
And the reposted video got 750,000 views, but it was then shared on another TikTok channel, including one run by an educator and advocate named Laura.
And on her page, it garnered 2.5 million views, along with many thousands of shares and comments.
Haley's story apparently resonates deeply with many TikTok users, especially the young women who are on TikTok.
It also spawned a whole bunch of videos from other women who were inspired by Haley to tell their own stories.
And they truly are, speaking of trauma, these are stories of incredible suffering and hardship.
Gut-wrenching tales of unimaginable horrors.
Apparently, lots of women feel that their husbands don't do enough to celebrate Mother's Day.
And now their only recourse is to complain about it online to millions of strangers.
And here's Haley getting the wine festival kicked off.
Listen.
So Mother's Day is coming up on Sunday, and I'm a mom of one-year-old twin girls, my older sister is a mom, my mother is the mother of us two and our two other siblings, and I was FaceTiming my mom and sisters last night, and we are planning Mother's Day dinner.
So we're deciding what we're gonna eat, what time it's going to be, I'm bringing a food assignment, my sister's bringing a food assignment, my mom's preparing the main meal.
Why is it this way?
Why can men not be better than this?
And yes, I love my husband.
He's a great guy.
He's really trying.
I actually think he's trying.
And we're, like, progressive.
We're, like, working on this.
But yet, still, like, this is how it is.
And my husband's on a work trip right now.
My mom's husband, my stepdad, like, tore his ACL, whatever.
There's, like, maybe reasons.
But if I was on a work trip or my mom tore her ACL, We would still probably be planning it, especially if it was Father's Day.
And I just feel so frustrated right now because I feel like not only do women bear so much more of the emotional labor, Women also have to bear the emotional labor on behalf of other women when their men in their lives don't show up for them, right?
So, like, I know if my stepdad doesn't do something for my mom for Mother's Day, I have to step in and do something even more because he's not, like, taking care of her.
And my mom knows if my husband's gonna drop the ball on Mother's Day, then she wants to, like, take care of me because we want to take care of each other and we want each other to be happy.
And it's so frustrating to me, like, I know that men, I'm not saying they're bad or like, not trying, but like, it just upsets me that it's this way.
And I just, like, don't know.
I'm sorry, I'm crying.
I have the worst crying voice.
And also, if you're gonna be like, why do people film themselves crying?
Like, go away.
I know, like, I know it can be better than this.
It's just, I don't think, like, I can emphasize enough how much of this emotional labor women carry.
And trying to, like, work to, like, get my husband to understand this and the other men in my life, like, that's labor in and of itself.
And sure, we could just ask him to do it, but that's also labor.
Yeah, God forbid you just have to communicate directly with your husband and say what you want and what you're upset about, you know.
God forbid you do that.
Yeah, much better to play games, manipulative games, where you won't speak directly to him.
But you can still make a TikTok video.
See, you'll tell everybody else what you're upset about, but you won't just say to your husband, hey, here's what I would like, or here's what I would like for Mother's Day, or whatever.
So there it is.
The women planned their own Mother's Day dinner because they decided several days ahead of time that the men weren't doing enough for Mother's Day.
Notice she never said that the men weren't going to do anything for Mother's Day.
There's no indication that they would or had in the past completely ignored the day, but it wasn't enough or wasn't going to be enough, they decided.
The men in their lives were selfishly distracted with things like work and providing for their families and medical emergencies.
The stepdad, it seems, had his Mother's Day planning maybe interrupted by a crippling leg injury.
What a selfish bastard.
Now, I'd like to submit a few points for consideration here, and the first point is very important, and it's this.
Whatever the reason for your marital spat, you are automatically the bad guy when you decide to go on the internet and throw your spouse under the bus.
Haley already has her mom, her sister to commiserate with, and it sounds like the three of them have done plenty of commiserating about this.
A woman like this also almost certainly has at least a few friends that she keeps in her back pocket so that they can act as sounding boards for her complaints, but that's not enough.
After whining to her mom, to her sisters, her friends, she still has enough complaint energy saved up to go on the internet and whine to the entire world.
And what this tells me is, first of all, she has no respect for her husband.
The fact that she would scold him publicly like this only reveals her own flaws as a wife, and those flaws are deep and serious.
Now maybe she does go out of her way to plan elaborate Father's Day events for him, though I doubt that's the case.
But that doesn't mean much, because for one thing, she's doing it with strings attached.
She's doing it because, well, I'm doing all this for you, so you better do something that I feel is equal to this for Mother's Day.
And the moment you have that attitude about a gift or about something special you're doing for a loved one, it doesn't mean anything, actually.
It is the thought that counts at the end of the day.
And if you're doing something with the expectation that you are going to get the exact same sort of thing in return, it means nothing.
That's just mercenary.
That's all that is.
It's self-centered.
You're not actually worried about doing something special for this person.
And for another thing, whatever she gives him on Father's Day, she's not giving him what he needs the other 364 days of the year, which is at a basic level of respect, including respecting his privacy as an individual and their privacy as a couple.
The other thing this video shows is that she wants to have something to complain about.
She wants to be the victim.
She has a murder complex.
You don't share things on the internet unless you want lots of people to know about it.
And why would you want lots of people to know about your squabbles with your spouse?
Well, because you believe that it makes you look like a persecuted saint.
Your spouse's shortcomings are a pedestal for you to step on to elevate yourself in the eyes of the world.
This is the only reason why you would complain about your spouse on the internet.
And Haley basically confirmed this point herself in a follow-up video that she posted a few days after this, reacting to some of the feedback that she got.
Here it is.
I'm just coming up for air and have a few more things to say about the Mother's Day video heard around the world.
I'm really, really grateful to be so seen and heard and validated by so many of you and I'm super sad that this is such a common experience.
It really bums me out, but I don't think it serves any of us to suffer in silence and to feel isolated in this, and that's why I chose to share, and I'm glad it could open up a dialogue and a space to talk about it.
I was worried people would make really large assumptions about myself and my husband and my marriage, and that has definitely been the case.
There are people telling me my marriage is a sham, my husband's a terrible person, I'm delusional and stupid, and I enable this Bad behavior.
I should get a divorce.
It's not fun, but I think the really sad thing to me about that is those comments are why women feel the need to maintain a facade of perfection around their relationships.
Because if they do open up about these really significant issues and major points of dysfunction, that is what a lot of people are going to say to them.
My husband is very actively working on this.
If he wasn't, I would leave him.
But he is very willing to put in the work.
We are going to couples therapy together.
He's doing his own therapy.
He knows that I do not accept his behavior.
I do not justify it.
I do not accept it.
I deserve better.
I know that.
He knows that.
This is a very important video.
It actually is very important for men.
Because, man, you need to watch this video and take note of all the red flags if you're a single man.
And know what those red flags are because if you meet a woman like this kind of woman, run the other direction.
This is not the kind of woman you want to end up with.
Talking about her husband like he's some kind of dog that she has to train.
She says, I deserve better.
No, you don't deserve better, sweetheart.
You don't actually deserve over-the-top celebrations when this is how you treat your husband.
You don't deserve any of that.
Notice how she says that lots of people are dumping on her husband, calling him a terrible person, and so on.
And the only reason this upsets her is that it makes her look bad, okay?
But she assures us that she has forced her husband into therapy to work on his major points of dysfunction, like not planning Mother's Day dinner with the- That's a major point of dysfunction that is causing her to suffer.
She also tells us that if he wasn't doing as he was told, she would leave him.
And why did she decide to share all this with us?
Well, as she says, it makes her feel seen and validated.
She's the kind of woman who cannot get enough validation, which is why she seeks it on social media.
This also shows us that most likely, no matter what her husband did for her on Mother's Day, it's almost certainly not going to be enough.
She needs extreme amounts of validation.
She needs validation wholesale.
She's shopping at Costco for her validation.
She's buying it in the largest possible quantities, and she can't get enough of it.
And it seems likely that her husband has certainly noticed this by now, is aware that no matter what he does, it won't be good enough.
And so maybe at this point he stopped trying.
That's another thing to keep in mind.
When you're in a marriage and nothing that your spouse does is ever good enough, eventually they will stop trying, because they're going to figure it doesn't matter.
I can't do anything for you without you having a problem with it.
Now, I don't know if that's the case here, but it is quite often the case, and all signs are pointing in that direction.
And at any rate, this is a possibility that I think she should consider.
It's a rule of thumb for everyone in a marriage to keep in mind.
Whenever you have a dispute with your spouse, if the story that you tell yourself, and tell your mom and your sister and your friends and the internet, is one where you are 100% the good guy, and your spouse is 100% the bad guy, a story where you have done everything the right way, and they've done everything the wrong way, and it's all their fault, that's a pretty good indication that your perception is flawed.
Because disputes between people, especially people in close relationships, are rarely so simple or one-sided.
And I'm guessing that if we could hear from her husband, and he was willing to share, he would have a great many details to share with us that would make his alleged lack of effort on Mother's Day seem petty by comparison.
It already seems petty, even without that additional context.
But we aren't hearing from her husband because, unlike Haley, he is not unloading all of his complaints publicly on the internets as content for strangers to consume.
And that brings us to our last point.
Emotional labor is one of the most toxic inventions of modern society.
It is poison.
And here's another red flag.
If you're a man and you meet a woman who uses this phrase unironically, again, run the other way immediately.
Get out while you still can.
I can't even imagine my wife talking about emotional labor.
I don't think she'd be able to say it without laughing.
And that's the kind of attitude you want in a woman.
It tells you that she's a serious person, she's not a frivolous drama queen with a martyr complex, and she has a sense of humor.
And the problem with the emotional labor idea is twofold.
First of all, it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't exist.
Labor is, by definition, physical work.
It's something that you actively do.
It's an activity that you participate in.
Labor is effort.
Labor is activity.
Emotions, on the other hand, they're just things that you feel.
You aren't doing anything by simply experiencing emotions.
There's no labor involved.
But people who take this emotional labor idea seriously will tell themselves that simply by feeling things, by sitting around and having feelings, they've accomplished something.
And this means that somebody like Haley can do very little, can contribute almost nothing to the family, and still tell herself that she has in fact done the most because of all the feelings that she has.
Emotional labor is a concept invented by lazy non-contributors meant to give them the right to act exhausted and put upon even when they've done basically nothing at all.
The other problem is that there is no way to measure emotional labor.
If emotional labor exists, there's no way to know how much of this kind of labor a person is doing.
The only way to know about a person's emotional labor is if they tell you about it, if they complain, if they suffer their emotions loudly and publicly.
And this is why women like Haley assume that their husbands aren't doing the same amount of this kind of quote-unquote labor.
Her husband doesn't whine about it, he doesn't constantly dump his feelings in her lap for her to sort through, and so she assumes that this means that he has no feelings.
Haley doesn't experience more emotions than her husband, she just experiences them louder and more publicly.
And this is a point that even women who are not like Haley still need to understand, and I think sometimes struggle to understand.
It's that men tend to be more stoic.
We tend to carry our emotional burdens, our anxieties and fears and frustrations internally and quietly.
That doesn't mean that we don't experience them.
It doesn't mean that we don't have anxiety or fear or frustration.
It doesn't mean we don't have it to the same degree that you do.
It just means that we don't want to turn it into your problem.
And this may cause you a certain amount of distress, and you may wish that we'd open up more, and maybe we should open up a little bit more.
But what I can assure you is this.
If you married a man who was as open with his emotions as you are, you would not like it.
In fact, you would struggle to respect a man who doesn't know how to bear his burdens with quiet dignity.
That's the kind of thing, it's like, that's the kind of thing, it sometimes can be difficult for women to appreciate men in their lives who do that until they experience a man who doesn't.
It's very difficult to appreciate men who carry their emotional burdens quietly until you are inflicted by the kind of man who will not do that, will not carry them quietly, and will tell you all about it.
And then you start, now you have the comparison, you start to say, oh, you know, I think I prefer this other, this other strategy.
You may not appreciate the fact that your husband does this, that he keeps many of his feelings to himself, but if he stopped doing it again, you would notice, and you would not be happy.
If he gave you too much evidence of his own emotional labor, it would be a major problem.
And that's because, as it turns out, men and women are different.
And even though those differences can cause tension in a marriage, it's much better than the alternative.
If Hayley and her husband were exactly the same, You know, he might be much better at planning Mother's Day brunch or whatever, but then she would just be married to a version of herself.
And she would discover that there was already enough of her in the relationship and she didn't need a second one.
Hopefully she comes to understand this before it's too late.
But until then, she is today, I'm afraid to say, cancelled.
