Ep. 1218 - Why The Most Powerful Forces In Society Want You To Be Single, Childless, and Selfish
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, another female celebrity has come out to encourage women to get divorced by the age of 30. This is part of a campaign by powerful forces -- including the federal government and corporate America -- to encourage young people to be selfish, single, and materialistic. Today we'll see how deep this conspiracy goes, and what's really driving it. Also, Tucker Carlson interviews a man who claims he had sex and smoked crack with Barack Obama. And a new expose reveals the emotional trauma suffered by staff at the Tonight Show. It's another "toxic work environment." But is "toxic work environment" just a phrase used by whiney cry babies who don't want to work? We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1218
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Get 25% of your DailyWire+ membership: https://bit.ly/3VhjaTs
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Beam - Get 40% off for a limited time with promo code WALSH.
http://www.ShopBeam.com/Walsh
Helix - Get 25% OFF + 2 FREE Pillows with all mattress orders at http://www.HelixSleep.com/WALSH.
Ruff Greens - Get a FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag http://www.RuffGreens.com/Matt
Or call 844-RUFF-700
Provia - Exclusive discount for my listeners!
http://www.proviahair.com/Walsh
- - -
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
Today on The Matt Wall Show, another female celebrity has come out to encourage women to get divorced by the age of 30.
This is part of a campaign by powerful forces, including the federal government and corporate America, to encourage young people to be selfish, single, and materialistic.
Today we'll see how deep this conspiracy goes and what's really driving it.
Tucker Carlson interviews a man who claims he had sex and smoked crack with Barack Obama, and a new expose reveals the emotional trauma suffered by the staff at The Tonight Show.
It's another toxic work environment, but is toxic work environment just a phrase used by whiny crybabies who don't want to work?
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Are you ready to discover the incredible benefits It's time to awaken your senses and embrace the importance of restful slumber.
Dive into the world of sleep and introduce yourself to an amazing product that could revolutionize your nighttime routine.
Beam Dream is a game-changer.
Their Dream Powder, a hot cocoa designed specifically for sleep, could transform your nights with flavors like cinnamon cocoa and chocolate peanut butter that make it a treat to sip on before bedtime.
Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of ingredients including magnesium, L-theanine, Theanine?
Theanine, I think.
Anyway, whatever it is, it's good.
Helps you fall asleep, stay asleep, and help you wake up refreshed.
Just mix Beam Dream into hot water or milk, stir or froth, and enjoy before bedtime.
Your body and mind deserve the gift of restful nights.
Try Beam's best-selling Dream Powder.
Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash walsh and use code walsh to check out.
That's shopbeam.com slash walsh and use code walsh for up to 40% off.
In the midst of the Me Too hysteria, when everyone was fixating on Aziz Ansari's bad date and Brett Kavanaugh's phantom gang rape trains, researchers at Morgan Stanley had a very different focus.
They were concerned, as you might imagine, about the financial ramifications of the modern feminist movement.
So they sent an analysis to their corporate clients looking into the economic impact of this new wave of feminism that was overtaking the country.
And here was their top-line conclusion.
By 2030, Morgan Stanley wrote, More than 45% of working women aged 25 to 44 in the United States will be single.
And if that prediction holds, it would be the highest percentage of single working-age women in this country's history by a large margin.
The economic impacts Morgan Stanley predicted would be significant.
Morgan Stanley quoted one researcher as saying, "We find that single women outspend the average
household, shifting spending policies toward categories most poised to benefit from the
demographic growth in single women with rising incomes."
Those categories include apparel, automotive, entertainment, dining.
Like most research that consultants charge millions of dollars to produce, none of that is terribly surprising.
When women don't get married, they tend to climb the corporate ladder, they're invested more in their jobs, and they earn money that they don't spend on kids, they spend on themselves.
But there's one line of the Morgan Stanley Report that stands out.
It's the part where Morgan Stanley specifically urges its corporate clients to encourage women to pursue this unmarried, materialistic lifestyle because it'll make the corporations a lot of money.
"For corporations and investors that embrace these trends, there are numerous benefits,
from more nuanced corporate governance and performance to bottom-line growth."
The Morgan Stanley Report, and several others like it, put all the big brands on notice
that they should take a proactive role in ensuring that more women become career-driven
instead of getting married and having kids.
And predictably, over the past few years, we've seen various initiatives along those lines.
Facebook, Apple, other big tech companies have begun offering to freeze the eggs of female employees, which is not for any medical reason.
They're offering it purely so that women don't get pregnant and don't take maternity leave and can spend more time on the clock.
Many companies have also started paying for out-of-state abortions.
And all of that has been widely reported.
What hasn't been covered is the extent to which influencers and celebrities, most of them beholden to these larger corporations, are now openly campaigning all at once for women to remain single or to become single again if they made the mistake of getting married.
You could choose to believe this is all an accident or that it's coordinated.
Whatever the case, it's clearly happening.
There have never been more famous people telling young women to stop making commitments to men.
So, for example, you may have seen this recent video from the actress and model Emily Ratajkowski, and she has around 2.6 million followers on TikTok, where she posts videos telling random couples that their relationships won't last, encouraging women to dress like prostitutes on Halloween, you know, content like that.
In her latest video, she extols the benefits of getting divorced by the age of 30, so that women can party and have fun while they're still young and beautiful.
Watch.
So it seems that a lot of ladies are getting divorced before they turn 30.
And as someone who got married at 26, has been separated for a little over a year, 32, I have to tell you, I don't think there's anything better.
If being in your 20s is the trenches, there is nothing better than being in your 30s, still being hot, maybe having a little bit of your own money, figuring out what you want to do with your life, everything, and having tried that married fantasy and realizing that it's maybe not all it's cracked up to be, and then you've got your whole life still ahead of you.
So for all of those people who are stressed or feeling stressed, Congratulations.
Congratulations.
Congratulations for failing at something.
And not just failing at something, but failing at it so quickly.
You're divorced by 30, which means no matter when you got married, you failed at it very quickly.
So congratulations for failing.
Congratulations for abandoning your marriage vows, for not staying true to your commitments.
Congratulations.
It's an achievement, she says.
Now, the caption on that video reads, Personally, I find it chic to be divorced by the age of 30.
And it's extremely popular on the platform.
More than 130,000 people have liked that video.
Now, this video appears to be a message of support for Sophie Turner, who is a person I didn't know existed, but apparently she does.
Apparently, she's a famous actress who is now getting divorced from one of the Jonas Brothers because she felt trapped by marriage and by motherhood, and she wanted to go party instead, and so that's what she's doing.
What Emily and Sophie are doing, getting divorced in a very public fashion for avowedly selfish reasons, follows a pattern recently of famous women advising other women to either stay single and childless, or get divorced, tear their families apart, and then act like they're childless even if they have children.
Maya Khalifa was another one that we talked about on the show a little while ago.
As shocking as it was to hear bad advice from a porn star, that's what we got.
Here's how Maya spoke to her 37 million followers about the importance of getting divorced multiple times, if possible.
Let's watch that again.
Oh, we're comparing stats.
Baby girl doesn't know that I am Tom Brady at this game.
Married at 18.
Divorced at 21.
Second marriage.
Married at 25.
Divorced at 28.
Third engagement.
Engaged at 29.
Ended it at 30, but I kept the ring.
I'm still keeping Tom Brady on his toes.
We should not be afraid to leave these men.
We are not stuck with these people.
Marriage is not a sanctimonious thing.
It is paperwork.
It's a commitment you make to someone but if you feel like You're not getting anything from that commitment and you're trying?
You gotta go.
You gotta go.
You have to go.
I know it's difficult to fill out paperwork and to make appointments and to do all of these things, but this is your f***ing life.
Do you want to be stuck with someone?
Period.
Some more great insight there.
Now, there are other examples of this kind of messaging recently.
Lots of examples.
Chelsea Handler publicly split from her boyfriend after about a year of dating.
At the time, Handler made a point to explain that quote, "There was just some behaviors that we couldn't agree on
and it felt to me like I would have to abandon myself, which maybe I would have been okay to do if I were 20 or 25,
but I wasn't willing to do that."
Abandon yourself.
Self-sacrifice, in other words.
Self-sacrifice is a bad thing, Handler says, and she lives by this motto.
We will give her that, encouraging others to do the same as well.
She did a whole Daily Show segment a little while ago extolling the virtues of being selfish and childless.
Now, at this point, you're probably noticing a theme, which is that none of these women display even a modicum of interest in sacrificing anything to make their relationships, their marriages, in many cases, work out.
Instead, they're adopting, without exception, what psychologists call an external locus of control.
Everything that happens to their relationship is somebody else's fault.
Can't possibly be related to them.
I mean, they can't conceivably do anything that might salvage their marriage, so they move on, and they focus on themselves.
Not to belabor the point, but this is the message that young people are seeing all over the place.
To give one more example, there was also the country star Kelsey Ballerini who talked about leaving her marriage because the glitter wore off and it would be a disservice to herself to stay in the marriage.
I showed this clip a few months ago on the show, but here it is.
Is this person right for me?
Like, am I good with this being forever?
Am I good with him never doing the dishes ever in my life, you know, for the rest of my life or whatever those stupid things are?
How did you know that it wasn't relationship anxiety or negative intrusive voices in your head and that it was actually, like, your heart speaking?
That's a good question.
I'm really like intuitive and in tune with myself and like my gut and my heart.
And I think for a while, you're right.
It was kind of like, OK, this is just a new phase of a relationship because relationships go through seasons, right?
And like, yeah, it's not always going to be rainbows and butterflies like that's just not it.
And I and I think for a long time, I I was like, oh, this is just The glitter wears off.
That's what happens, you know?
And then you just, you get into a phase where you just, you wait for, you wait for it to come back.
And then, you know, and then sometimes it doesn't.
But at the end of the day, it is such a disservice and a dishonoring of yourself if you know something is not right and you stay.
But your life is so loud.
You know, you have so much going on all the time.
I think when people hear about couples counseling, then they hear about a couple getting divorced, they're like, oh, it didn't work.
But oftentimes that is actually couples counseling working, you know, but like, because you realize that like, this wasn't, this isn't the relationship for both of you.
And I think what's so hard is having to break your own heart and someone else's in the process of saving yourself.
An important thing to keep in mind, you know, if you're wondering again why I'm so skeptical of therapy and counseling, well, you just heard it there.
You go to couples counseling, and then if you get divorced, it means that the couples counseling worked because they're counseling you towards divorce.
But, you know, if there's not enough glitter, then what are you supposed to do?
Just bail.
Go party.
Whatever you do, don't think about putting in any kind of effort.
Hollywood and the media have been pushing this message for a long time.
They're doing it with maximum intensity.
That's why I started the show yesterday talking about the insane levels of backlash I received for criticizing an influencer who promoted the child-free lifestyle as a path to happiness.
It was a relentless barrage of media coverage all over one tweet that I made on the subject.
And that's because, as we talked about yesterday, they're very invested in promoting this lifestyle, which means that anyone who criticizes it must be furiously dogpiled and shut down.
The point is that there's a large-scale effort underway to convince young people, especially young women, but not just young women, to be as shallow and selfish as possible, even if it means abandoning their marriages and wrecking their families.
Lots of wealthy people and powerful forces are invested in pushing this message.
In fact, the government is pursuing it as well.
The National Bureau of Economic Research crunched the numbers on this last year, and they looked at federal and state taxes, along with benefit programs, and they found that, in effect, There's a massive marriage tax in this country.
People who decide to get married, especially low-income people, end up sacrificing roughly two years of income to the government simply because they got married.
The researchers found that, quote, absent the tax, 13.7% more low-income single families, females rather, with children would marry annually, and 7.5% more would be married by age 35.
The researchers also found that the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, imposes a substantial marriage tax, quote-unquote, because people who get married stand to lose a lot of subsidies under that law.
Now, you never hear anyone talk about this, but it's true.
The government is punishing people who want to get married, especially low-income people.
It should be the opposite, incentivizing marriage, rewarding you for getting married and having families, but that's not what happens in our country today.
And that's a legacy of Barack Obama that's never mentioned.
And of course, the current administration is continuing what Obama started last year.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen testified in a hearing that abortion is good because it's good for the economy.
Because it means that more women are working for large corporations instead of getting married and raising kids.
They could just kill the kid and then get back to work, back into the arms of their corporate masters.
Here she is talking about that.
Secretary Yellen, if the draft of the court's majority holding in Roe v. Wade is the actual decision, what impact will the loss of abortion access mean economically for when?
Well, I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.
Roe v. Wade and access to reproductive health care, including abortion, helped lead to increased labor force participation.
So there it is.
Abortion leads to increased labor force participation.
Therefore, it's good.
Put aside the fact that aborting tens of millions of children certainly shrinks the labor force over time, not to mention amounts to a holocaust of human beings on a scale previously unknown to mankind.
So no matter how it affects the economy, it is evil on its face fundamentally.
Still, that's the Treasury Secretary of the United States saying that women should kill their children and pursue a career at some soulless Fortune 500 company because, in her estimation, it will boost the GDP.
There's no doubt that some of the videos we began the show with today are just women who are rationalizing their own self-destructive choices, but it's a mistake to dismiss what we're seeing as just the idle narcissism of a few famous ditzy women on TikTok.
There are forces that profit immensely by creating a society full of self-centered automotons who seek connection and fulfillment from pop culture and social media and all of that, rather than family life.
And these forces include Morgan Stanley's clients, as well as the federal government.
I mean, the most powerful forces in the country, literally.
What are the consequences for regular Americans?
Well, for women, it's not great.
And it used to be that, you could say this publicly, it used to be conventional wisdom that it's bad to encourage women to be single.
This is a Harvard Business Review analysis from 2002.
Quote, "At midlife, between a third and a half of all successful career women in the United States
do not have children. In fact, 33% of such women in the 41 to 55 age bracket are childless,
and that figure rises to 42% in corporate America. These women have not chosen to remain childless."
The vast majority, in fact, yearn for children.
Indeed, some have gone to extraordinary lengths to bring a baby into their lives.
They subject themselves to complex medical procedures, shell out tens of thousands of dollars, and derail their careers, mostly to no avail, because these efforts come too late.
In the words of one senior manager, the typical high-achieving woman childless at midlife has not made a choice, but a creeping non-choice.
Two decades later, that creeping non-choice has been rebranded as a positive.
You can never get any article remotely like that one published in the Harvard Business Review today.
As disastrous as this transformation has been for women's happiness and fulfillment, it's probably even worse for men.
As we've discussed on the show, men are now using more drugs, killing themselves more than they ever have in recorded history.
And these are rates also that far exceed what we find with women.
And we shouldn't be surprised by that.
When all of society reorients to promote girlbosses and to demean the institution of marriage, yes, women make more money in the short term, men also have fewer opportunities to start families and fewer opportunities to make a living.
Now, in polite company, you're not supposed to say any of this.
You're not supposed to think about the ramifications of the social engineering that's underway in this country.
But whether it's acceptable to point it out or not, none of this is an accident.
From every angle, women are being told that the key to happiness is being narcissistic, selfish, abandoning marriage, abandoning their families.
At the same time, men are being told that simply by virtue of their gender, they're members of a patriarchy that needs to be destroyed.
That is as destructive a combination as there possibly could be.
In both cases, for men and women, the power centers are saying, essentially, you're just a passive observer.
Women are being told that if their marriage isn't appealing, then they don't have to do anything about it.
They should just leave.
Men are being told that no matter what they do, they're sexist bigots.
This passive approach, this total denial of personal responsibility, is unsustainable.
As we're seeing again and again, no marriage can survive it.
And that's now abundantly clear.
And what we'll soon find out, if this continues, is that no civilization can survive it either.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Everyone knows I love my Helix mattress, but did you know that they just launched their
newest, most high-end collection, Helix Elite?
Helix has harnessed years of extensive mattress expertise to bring their customers a truly elevated sleep experience.
The Helix Elite collection includes six different mattress models, each tailored for specific sleep positions and firmness preferences.
I've had my Helix for years, and I love it.
It's the best mattress I've ever had.
If you're nervous about buying a mattress online, you don't have to be.
Helix has a sleep quiz that matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress, because why would you buy a mattress made for someone else?
Go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and find the perfect mattress for your body and sleep type.
Your mattress will come right to the door For free.
Plus, Helix has a 10-year warranty, and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
Their financing options and flexible payment plans make it so that a great night's sleep is never far away.
In honor of Labor Day, Helix is offering 25% off all mattress orders and two free pillows.
For my listeners, go to helixsleep.com slash Walsh and use code HELIXPARTNER25.
This is their best offer yet, and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
All right, so we'll talk about this.
I didn't get to it yesterday, and you've probably seen it or heard about it by now, but the Daily Wire reports former Fox News host Tucker Carlson interviewed a man on his show this week who claims that he used drugs and had sexual relations with Barack Obama before Obama was president.
Carlson's interview of Larry Sinclair, who has been convicted and served significant time in jail for crimes involving deceit and who reportedly did not pass a polygraph test administered in response to his allegations involving Obama, It comes after recent reports highlighted that Obama wrote in letters to an ex-girlfriend that he sexually fantasized about men.
The interview was featured on X, formerly known as Twitter.
And we have, now the full interview is now available.
Here's the preview of the interview that Tucker posted before the full interview was posted.
And this is just a quick clip that gives you an idea of the content of the interview, but let's watch this.
You're just a guy who's in town for the night and it sounds like you're looking to party.
Yeah.
Pulled up in a bar outside and there's this guy that's introduced to me as Barack Obama.
I had given Barack $250 to pay for Coke.
I start putting a line on a CD tray to snort and next thing I know he's got a little pipe and he's smoking.
So I just started rubbing my hand along his thigh to see where it was going and it went the direction I had intended it to go.
Even though you had sex with him twice, you did cocaine with him, watched him smoke crack twice, you had no idea who he was.
I had no idea who he was.
You just asked the obvious question, what was Obama like on crack?
Is it your sense that that's who Obama is, just transactional, or that he's bisexual, or like, what is this?
It definitely wasn't Barack's first time, and I would almost be willing to bet you it wasn't as long.
The guy's running for president and credible information comes out that he's smoking crack and having sex with dudes.
That seems like a story.
Well, it would be a story if the media really cared about telling people the truth.
Okay, so I have two thoughts about this.
And my first thought, in fact, the very first thought that I had when I saw this was, oh man.
I don't know about this one.
I don't find this guy terribly credible, I must admit.
It's hard to look at this toothless drug addict and say, wow, you know, I believe that guy.
That guy, you know, that guy wouldn't lie.
That guy wouldn't tell a lie.
I mean, the claim itself on the face of it is partially believable.
The idea that Obama had a sexual experience with a man, I mean, that's very easy to believe.
That was easy to believe before those letters came out.
Now we have the letters where he talks about sexually fantasizing about men.
And so, sure, that part of it doesn't really throw you for a loop.
Smoking crack, on the other hand, I have a little bit of trouble with that.
You know, I don't have much experience with smoking crack, I admit.
Actually, I have no experience with it.
Much to my shame, I've never smoked crack in my life.
But as far as I know, you know, I admit this is based mostly on sort of stereotypes.
Well, the stereotypes of crackheads.
But as far as I know, smoking crack is not the kind of thing that you do casually.
Like, if you smoke crack, Then you smoke crack.
You're a crack smoker.
You're a crackhead.
There's not a lot of moderation, okay?
So that's why you don't say, well, as long as you smoke crack in moderation, it'll be okay.
That doesn't exist.
I've never heard of anyone saying, oh, I only smoke crack socially.
Only for social events, that sort of thing.
Dinner parties, that kind of thing.
It's the only time I really say it.
Otherwise, I don't.
So the idea that Barack Obama was a full-blown crackhead less than a decade before becoming president Well, that would be impressive in a weird way.
In a weird way, that would be impressive.
Certainly, that would be an inspiration for other crackheads, that you can become the President of the United States.
Doesn't speak well for this country or the voting base, but at least it would be that.
It would be an inspiration to other crackheads.
I just don't know about that.
There are other little details, too.
That make this less than credible.
One of them, you know, it seems like a small thing, but it's actually not.
He claims that Barack Obama was introduced to him as Barack Obama, but Barack Obama didn't start calling himself Barack Obama until he ran for president, or at least until he got into politics.
Before that, he was Barry.
Now, it's always been one of the stories about Barack Obama, is that the kind of fundamental fraudulence of this guy.
He starts using this name once he gets into politics, but before that he was Barry.
So, little details and big details about this that make it less than credible.
Second thought, though, is, well, I agree with what Ben said yesterday, which is that this guy's story isn't any less credible Then the claims, for example, made against Kavanaugh or many of the claims, many of the claims that have been made against Trump and have been, you know, and not just the claims of sexual assault and all of that, the claims that he assaulted someone in a dressing room, at a department store, those sorts of things, you know, have at a minimum
Or really at a maximum, as much credibility as this story from Larry Sinclair.
And then, you know, other claims too about Trump.
How about the fact that he's a Russian secret double agent, which is what we heard in 2016.
And going back to Kavanaugh, keep in mind, during the Kavanaugh hearings, the media sincerely advanced the notion that Kavanaugh, not just that he raped a woman, And that was, for a lot of reasons, already an incredible claim, with no credibility, and there was no evidence for it, no proof.
There was as much evidence for that as there is for the claim that Barack Obama smoked crack and had sex with a dude back in 1999.
But they went farther than that, I remember.
They also said that he was the actual ringleader Of like a gang rape mafia that prowled around town systematically victimizing and assaulting women.
And they took that claim and they amplified it.
No scrutiny whatsoever.
And we talked yesterday for a while, a theme that comes up a lot on the show, is holding the left to their own standards.
And so ultimately I see that that's really what's happening here.
And I think that's what Tucker's up to.
You guys have set the standard here.
You know, when it's someone on our side, if anyone makes any claim at all, it doesn't matter, there could be zero evidence, it could be a claim that is just on its face, totally ludicrous.
But if the claim exists, then we will take it, and we will amplify it, and we will take it seriously, and we'll bring somebody on, and we'll interview them, and then we'll hide behind, hey, we're just asking, we don't know, we're just asking them questions about it.
We're pursuing a lead is all.
So, this is once again an area where the left has set up the rules for itself, or set up two sets of rules, and they've said, you know, you guys over here, here are your rules that you're expected to follow, and then here are our rules, and our rules are that there aren't any rules.
And what we're finding more and more is that people on the right Justifiably so, are not willing to play that game anymore.
They're saying, okay, these are your standards you've set up, then here it is.
Okay, let's talk to someone who says that Brett Kavanaugh was the ringleader of a gang-rape mafia.
That's what you're saying.
Okay, well then let's bring in this guy who says that Barack Obama smoked crack and had sex with him in a car in 1999.
If that's the way you guys want to play it, that's how we're going to play it.
All right, Daily Wire has this report.
Democrat state lawmakers are more unified and committed to a leftist ideology than Republican lawmakers are to conservatism.
Shocking report.
Shocking.
This is according to the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC.
Of course, the irony to keep in mind as we read this report from CPAC is that CPAC itself is very much guilty of this, of not being at all committed to conservatism.
Putting that aside, Republicans voted for conservative policies 77% of the time, while Democrats voted for liberal policies 87% of the time, according to the analysis of all 7,400 lawmakers in the 50 statehouses during last year's legislative sessions.
The study by CPAC's Affiliated Center for Legislative Accountability concluded that Democrats were more likely to stick together on issues important to the party's base, while Republicans broke apart.
Republicans run on conservative promises, but after they win, more of them abandon the tough votes on key conservative policies when compared to Democrats whose first rule is to stick together, according to the group.
Our analysis shows how moderate Republicans broke apart on key issues like parental choice in education, securing strong voter ID, or putting a stop to COVID mandates.
The analysis found a mismatch between the desires of the populace and how state representatives acted.
Ranking among the 10 states with the most liberal Republican lawmakers were Mississippi, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Idaho.
That's despite Republicans holding strong majorities in those legislators and the state's population overwhelmingly voting for Republicans in election after election.
As a group, Mississippi Republican lawmakers had an average conservative score of 58%, making them less conservative than Republicans in New Jersey, Maryland, and Oregon.
The state where Republicans voted most conservative was a swing state of Wisconsin.
You know, I was being sarcastic earlier about how this is a shocking report.
It's actually not shocking.
That part is somewhat surprising, I will admit.
That according to this report anyway, the most liberal Republican lawmakers are in Mississippi, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Idaho.
Whereas you would expect New Jersey, Maryland, those sorts of states to have the most liberal Republican lawmakers.
According to this report, that's not the case.
But the overall theme here is one that is, of course, not a shock at all.
That Republicans get into office, and we know that this is the case.
Republicans get into office, and they make a lot of promises on the way in.
And they say a lot of things, especially in the primaries.
And then when it's time to actually use that power to advance that agenda, they get squeamish.
And the argument always is, for as long as I can remember, the argument has always been That, well, we can't do that.
We can't advance this agenda.
We can't, you know, we can't actually enact a conservative policy because that'll make the other side angry at us.
And then when they get into power, think about all the things that they'll do in retaliation.
And so we'll just head them off at the pass by abandoning our promises ahead of time.
And so then they won't be mad at us.
And then when they're in power, they'll take it easy on us.
A little bit of sports.
There'll be good sports about it.
A little bit of sportsmanship.
Yeah, well, how well has that worked?
And the only question now is, we know this is the case with Republicans.
It's been the case again for as long as I've been alive.
Is there any chance that it's getting better?
We learned our lesson.
We learned our lesson that, you know, if you're a conservative lawmaker, a conservative politician, you get elected.
That's automatically a mandate.
That's the voters elected you.
They want what you ran on.
That's what they want.
That's why they elected you.
So use the power at your disposal to push the agenda through.
Have we learned that lesson?
I think that all indications are that we haven't.
More specifically, that Republicans haven't.
I mean, in fact, look at one of the One of the criticisms of, let's take someone like DeSantis.
One of the criticisms, one of the big criticisms, in fact, I just saw some people tweeting about this yesterday.
One of the big criticisms of DeSantis, for example, from people on the right, is that he signed an abortion ban into law.
And that was a big miscalculation to sign the abortion ban into law.
In fact, you hear alleged conservatives, not just when it comes to DeSantis, but you hear alleged conservatives all the time lamenting the fact that Roe v. Wade was overturned, that some Republican legislatures are actually passing laws banning abortion at a certain stage of development.
Anyway.
And some Republican governors are signing these bills into law.
And you hear conservatives complaining about that.
We're going to pay a price for that in the election.
The liberals are going to be mad at us.
Well, you know, the liberals, you know how much they enjoy killing babies.
So if we stop them, think of how mad they're going to be if we stop them from killing babies.
So we just shouldn't.
As I've always said about that, I do not buy the argument.
That protecting babies from being murdered is so unpopular in this country that if you do it, you have signed your political death certificate, death warrant, and you'll never be elected again.
I don't buy that.
And you know what?
If that is the case, then we're just done as a country anyway.
Okay?
If we're at the point as a country where if you come out as being against the mass slaughter of infants, You're automatically dead in the eyes of the electorate if that's what we are as a country that we're just we're done.
But I don't believe that's the case politically.
I'm not convinced of it.
But whether it's the case or not.
Protecting babies from being killed is worth doing on its own terms.
It's just the kind of thing you have to do if you can.
It's like if you were watching and you were in the room as someone was about to murder a child, Would you stop and say, well, if I intervene here, how is that going to work in the polls?
How are people going to feel about that?
I don't know.
I don't know if I should intervene.
No, you intervene.
You protect the child's life.
And you do it not because you're a Republican, but because you're a human being, for God's sake.
So there are some things that you just have to do, because it's the right thing to do.
And And if that makes you unpopular, then so be it.
But if it does make you unpopular, again, that's a failure of communication.
If people are really that confused about why we should protect babies from being murdered, then we need to be able to explain that and make that case.
But the point is that the fact that people, that even conservatives still today, Lamenting Roe v. Wade being overturned, lamenting when pro-life laws are put on the books.
It only shows that, you know, what this study is showing here, it's just going to continue.
It hasn't gotten any better, unfortunately.
All right, here's an article in Yahoo that I think is A perfect example of how left-wing propagandists use misdirection and red herrings in order to advance their agenda, especially when it comes to the trans issue.
So this is a long article, we'll read a little bit of it, just so you get a sense of it.
From Yahoo, it says, The debate over gender-affirming care is tearing our country apart as an unprecedented wave of anti-trans legislation banning healthcare for transgender children, in some cases altogether, sweeps the nation.
Caught in the crossfire are scores of people who aren't trans, but whose lives are also saved by, quote, gender-affirming care, and their access to the healthcare they need is being threatened too.
Activist and author Alicia Rothweigel knows firsthand that gender-affirming care bans harm far more than just trans people.
This is an intersex person, activist and author, knows this firsthand.
I'm skipping ahead a little bit.
In a TikTok video by the Washington Post, Rothweigel, an activist and author of the memoir Inverse Cowgirl, which details her experiences living as an intersex woman in one of the nexuses of the anti-trans movement, Texas, She described precisely why gender-affirming care bans harm more people than many realize.
Intersex is a natural variation in humans in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't conform to the usual definitions of male and female.
Some intersex people, like Rothweig, will also have chromosomes that fall outside of the usual male or female arrangements or that don't accord with their anatomy.
As she explained in the video, despite having XY chromosomes, despite being born with internal testes, I developed looking very female.
As frequently happens with intersex babies, Rothweigel was operated upon in infancy to remove her testes, despite the fact that, had my testes remained intact, my body would have taken the testosterone that they produced and automatically converted it to estrogen.
Instead, the procedure, quote, forced my body into hormone withdrawal, and I'm now required to take external hormone replacement therapy, similarly to what transgender individuals take.
Without these treatments, Rothweigel would die.
And then there's another example, Justin T. Brown, a man who wrote candidly in 2022 of his teenage struggle with gynecomastia, a disorder in which men develop breasts.
Thankfully, he came of age in an era before today's politicians began their anti-trans crusade.
He was able to obtain breast reduction surgery, a procedure he would now be legally barred from obtaining in several states in the country.
Okay.
As I said, misdirection, red herring, bringing up things that are totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
So we have a claim here, this last claim, just taking this, zeroing in on this for a second.
So this is, they're telling us, a man, an actual biological male, who had an actual medical disorder where he developed breasts.
And so he got a surgery to deal with that, to deal with that medical disorder.
A medical disorder that has a name, we know what it is, it can be diagnosed, and then you can treat it.
And the claim that they're making, and this is what they love to do, they say, well, with these bans on, quote, trans healthcare, that means that we're not going to be able to help people like this.
That is totally false.
I mean, to begin with, it's just a false claim.
You know, these laws, most of these laws, certainly the law I can say in Tennessee, they have specific carve-outs for situations like this.
That, you know, we're not going to.
So, for example, a double mastectomy, a cosmetic double mastectomy on, you know, a minor in the name of gender affirmation is not legal.
But there's an actual medical disorder, let's say breast cancer or something, well then obviously in that case it's okay.
And it's very easy to carve that out and to specify that.
You have disorders like precocious puberty, for example, a real disorder, where a kid might need to take medicine because puberty has, the onset of puberty comes much, much earlier than it's supposed to, naturally, because of this disorder.
It's very easy to take those kinds of situations and carve them out and say, well, that's not what we're talking about here.
The whole category, intersex, men that have disorders where they develop breasts, that whole category has nothing to do with trans whatsoever.
It's an entirely separate thing.
And they want to conflate these things Because people over in the trans camp, they know they have no argument.
And they know that there's no actual medical need for any of this, it's entirely cosmetic.
So they want to rope in these cases over here and make a comparison where the comparison is just not legitimate.
That's the whole reason, the whole reason why intersex Is included now in the LGBTQI whatever acronym.
There's an I in there somewhere.
And it's for intersex.
They include it in there.
They have a symbol for intersex people on the newest version of the pride flag.
I think it's the little circle on the pride flag.
It's supposed to be intersex.
The whole reason why they have been kind of lassoed and pulled into this Is because their existence is convenient for trans.
It's useful to the trans, to the T. The I is in there because the T can make use of it by conflating themselves with the I. When these things are not related at all, they have nothing to do with each other.
Intersex, once again, is a genetic anomaly.
It's a deformity.
It's a disorder.
It doesn't mean that a person is a third sex.
It doesn't mean that they don't have a sex.
It doesn't mean that there are sex other than male or female.
All it means, in this very small minority of cases, is that it can be difficult to determine the sex just by looking.
Almost everyone on the planet, that's not the case.
Almost everyone on the planet, it's very easy to determine, male or female, you can tell just by looking.
When the baby is born, the doctor can make that declaration, and it's going to be correct 99.9% of the time, because there's nothing ambiguous about it.
Very small number of cases, there is some ambiguity to it, because of a physical deformity that can be diagnosed, and there might be certain treatments that you have to You know, that you have to avail yourself of because of that disorder, which again has nothing to do with trans whatsoever.
Other than that, though, I guess they raise a good point.
Let's get to, uh, was Walsh wrong?
Before getting our dog Rough Greens, he was so sad and lazy.
Well, now he actually enjoys his squeaky toys and playing fetch with his frisbee.
Our pup's days are filled with laughter, exercise, and endless fun.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is focused on improving the health of every dog in America.
Little did I know before I got Rough Greens that dog food is dead food.
Everybody knows that nutrition isn't brown, it's green.
Well, let Rough Greens boost your dog's food back to life.
Rough Greens is a supplement that contains all the necessary vitamins, minerals, probiotics, omega oils, digestive enzymes, and antioxidants that your dog needs.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
You just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
Dog owners everywhere are raving about Rough Greens.
It supports healthy joints, improves bad breath, Boost energy levels, and so much more.
We are what we eat, and that goes for dogs, too.
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is so confident Rough Greens will improve your dog's health, he's offering my listeners a free Jumpstart Trial Bag, so your dog can try it.
A free Jumpstart Trial Bag can be at your door in just a few business days.
Go to roughgreens.com slash Matt, or call 844-ROUGH-700.
That's R-U-F-F greens.com slash Matt, or call 844-ROUGH-700 today.
Jay Fiza says, "Have political pundits ever talked to a homeless person?
Homelessness isn't caused by normal middle-class people taking drugs.
Homelessness is primarily caused by broken families, generational poverty, childhood
trauma, lack of support, etc.
If you talk to people who are homeless, oftentimes they will tell themselves that they started
off very disadvantaged.
They had drug-addicted parents, so they were always around drugs and could get hooked when
they were kids."
their kids.
They've always had a sense of hopelessness and despair in their lives.
It's unfortunately why so many homeless people are actually comfortable being homeless.
I think that almost everyone recognizes that.
I think that most political pundits recognize that.
I assume you're referring to me when you're talking about political pundits.
I recognize that.
Nothing I said about homelessness yesterday contradicts what you said.
I mean, these two things work together.
I never claimed that most homeless people, you know, were living in the suburbs and living kind of normal middle-class functional lives, and then randomly decided to start, you know, doing drugs, heroin, meth or something, and then ended up on the street.
Now, there are cases like that, I'm sure, but those are not most of the cases.
Yes, I'm quite certain that most of the cases are kind of what you're talking about.
Like, if you were to go to any random homeless person who's laying on the street on a cardboard box, and you were to ask them about their childhood, you're probably going to find out that they did not have a very good childhood.
And it's highly likely that you're going to find out that they came from poverty and the broken homes, as you say.
Dad wasn't in the picture.
In fact, we know.
We know that there are plenty of statistics and research on this.
That just simply having a fatherless home increases the chances of homelessness for the child later in life exponentially.
So we know all that.
That is making my point, not debunking it.
Because all this speaks to the fact that, once again, the fundamental problem for the homeless person is not simply that they don't have a home.
It's not simply that they don't have a roof over their head.
That is a symptom.
It's a serious symptom.
And it is a problem in its own right, obviously.
But it is ultimately, it's not the cause of the problem.
And if you solve that, if you just put a roof over their head, what you're going to find out most of the time is that it won't be long before they are once again roofless.
Because all these other things, drug abuse, mental illness, childhood trauma, all of this stuff is still there.
And the homelessness is a manifestation of all of that.
Which means that if we want to do something about the homeless epidemic, it's not as simple as just throwing money at it, giving them a place to stay.
That's not going to solve the problem.
So I think actually we agree, which is good.
Banks Peninsula says, Matt, you would have sounded more credible if you'd said, I like to judge people and tell them how to live because freedom is evil.
That way at least you wouldn't have sounded like a garden variety right wing misogynist just saying.
This is one of my favorite kind of comments when we talk about, you know, lifestyle choices people make.
And yesterday it was about women promoting childlessness.
And I give my opinion about it.
And I say, you know, I don't think that's the best way to live, actually.
And then I'm told that I'm somehow infringing.
Well, let them live how they want.
Stop taking away their freedom.
Just by sharing my opinion, I'm, what, removing someone's freedom to live how they want?
Yeah, you do have the freedom to basically live how you want.
Within the bounds of the law, you have the freedom to live how you want.
And if you want to live a selfish, narcissistic life, and you want to not have kids, and you want to devote yourself entirely to materialistic pursuits, and amusing yourself, and all of that, and you want to die alone, I mean, you're free to do that.
No one is saying that you're not.
But the rest of us are free to share our views on the right way to actually live.
And the thing is, we all have views on that.
We all have views on what is the actual right way?
How do we best find happiness and joy?
What is the best path towards human flourishing?
That is the actual fundamental question here that we are debating.
And we all have our view on that.
For some people, their view is, well, the path to human flourishing is to live for yourself.
As Chelsea Handler said, don't abandon yourself.
Don't engage in self-sacrifice.
Live for yourself.
That is a view.
That's a point of view that I happen to think is wrong.
MT says, What an extremely lucky man you are, Matt.
You've never been depressed or suicidal.
You've never suffered through an addiction.
I'm glad you're so strong, but not all of us are, and telling people they can just stop doing something will never give them the courage to try.
A much better way to help someone you care about fight their addictions is to encourage them, make them accountable, walk through the baby steps with them little by little, making tiny efforts every day that will lead to freedom from their addiction.
With this approach, they won't feel helpless at the beginning.
It'll seem manageable, And with you to guide and encourage them, they will get through it.
Because guess what?
It is an addiction and you can't just stop.
But you can.
I mean, you're talking about pornography here.
I'm not denying the existence of addictions.
Addictions do exist.
You can be addicted to heroin.
That's for sure.
You can be addicted to hard drugs.
You can be chemically dependent on them.
You can be so dependent that if you stop taking them all at once, you might die.
And even if you don't die, you're going to be in severe physical pain, suffering the pains of withdrawal.
So that does exist.
Porn is not one of those things.
And simply just reasserting, restating your assertion is not an argument.
I laid out my whole argument.
For why addiction is one category and the compulsion to watch porn is in a different category.
It's a different kind of thing.
And all I've seen are comments like this that are just... They're not arguments.
It's not a counter-argument.
You're just restating your assertion.
You're saying, no, but it is.
Nuh-uh.
That's not an argument.
Are you actually telling me that... Let's put the words aside for a moment, okay?
On one hand, you have Someone hooked on heroin, who if they stop taking it all at once, they'll die.
Now, on the other hand, you have someone who very much likes watching pornography.
You're telling me that those are the same category?
You don't see any substantive difference between those two things?
Really?
It's just, it's absurd.
And I think you can tell the difference.
So whatever word you want to use, there's a category over here, there's a category over here, and I think that we need different words to describe those categories because they are different kinds of things.
And when it comes to pornography, in fact, you can just stop.
As I said, if I offered you, I said a million I think, but let's say, what if I offered you Let's bring the offer down.
I'll give you $1,000.
I'll give you $1,000 to not watch porn for a week.
Could you do it?
You definitely could.
You absolutely could.
For $1,000, you could do it.
Anyone could.
You're not going to say, nah, I don't want the $1,000.
I'll just die because I want to watch porn.
You'll take the $1,000, won't you?
Which, in and of itself, proves that you can stop if you feel you're incentivized enough.
But you do have the ability.
And if anyone, if there's any hope of someone changing their behavior Adopting better behavior.
It has to begin with them acknowledging that they do have the power to change.
And that's the point here.
You have to get people to acknowledge that they can change.
They're not going to change without first acknowledging that change is possible.
That they do have power over their own behavior and the choices that they make.
How are you?
I mean, it's very nice what you're talking about.
Oh, you want to guide them step by step on the road to recovery.
How are you going to get them on that road if they don't even believe that they have any power over their own behavior and their own choices?
It's got to start with acknowledging that, and then they can get on that road.
There's no other way to do it, as far as I can tell.
Are you one of the millions of American men and women dealing with premature hair thinning and hair loss?
Or maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in the family?
Well, finally, there's a real solution that delivers on its promise without the harsh side effects, unwanted chemicals, and unpleasant smells.
Provia Hair Care uses a safe, natural ingredient called Procapil to effectively target the three main causes of premature hair thinning and loss.
Provia supports healthy scalp circulation and delivers nourishing nutrients to strengthen hair follicles and anchor them to your scalp.
Provia guarantees more hair on your head than in the shower drain, which is what you want.
Provia is effective for men and women of any age, and it's safe on colored, treated, and styled hair.
Provia works guaranteed.
We're 100% of your money back.
It's that easy.
Right now, new customers save over 50% off Provia's introductory package at ProviaHair.com slash Walsh.
See results for yourself right now.
Don't wait.
That's ProviaHair.com slash Walsh.
And now for some of the biggest news in Daily Wire history.
We're just hours away from the X event of Candace Owen's new 10-part docuseries, Convicting a Murderer.
If you haven't heard, we're showcasing episode one tonight on X, formerly known as Twitter, at 9 p.m.
Eastern.
Candace is about to bring you the truth that will challenge every preconceived notion you have regarding the Stephen Avery case.
From the highly publicized series Making a Murderer, Stephen Avery's murder trial was made famous by Hollywood, which portrayed him as an innocent victim of corrupt law enforcement.
Let me just tell you, Candace Owens blows that narrative wide open, and there's no one better to advocate for the truth and against media manipulation Then Candace Owens.
She did what she does best, which is get to the bottom of things.
You'll see all the evidence that was omitted from the case that was presented to the public by the filmmakers of Making a Murderer.
All the evidence you'll see revealed in Convicting a Murderer suggests a very different story.
If you haven't seen it yet, here's another peek at the season teaser for Convicting a Murderer.
Watch.
Coming up on Convicting a Murderer.
Part of me don't want to believe that he did this.
The blood that was on that back area was indicative of a head wound.
My brother likes to push a lot of people around.
I don't give a f*** about anything.
I ain't gotta listen to nobody.
How were these filmmakers able to convince so many people that a man like Stephen Avery is innocent?
How many times did he stab her?
Once.
They gave him power.
It's not good for an Avery to have power.
I told you all along, keep your f*** mouth shut.
That can hurt, Steven.
I'm not gonna lie for him no more. I can't do it.
Watch Convicting a Murderer, a new 10-part series on Daily Wire+.
Before the X showcase of Convicting a Murderer, Candace will be chatting with special guests at a special X event
at 5pm.
So make sure you head over to the X space to join in the conversation.
After you've watched Episode 1 on X, you'll be hooked.
Trust me, especially all you true crime junkies.
You don't want to miss this.
True crime episodes are like cookies.
You can't have just one, I'm told.
Luckily, we made Episodes 2 and 3 available on DailyWirePlus this evening, so you can enjoy those as well.
Episode 2 is free, but Episode 3 is only available for DailyWirePlus members, so head over.
Go to dailywireplus.com slash subscribe and sign up today.
It's time people get the full story about the Steven Avery case.
Don't wait.
Sign up now so you can view the full series with new episodes releasing every Thursday exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
I personally can't wait to see it.
I've already seen little snippets.
I'm blown away by everything that was missed in the first documentary.
You don't want to miss this explosive show.
Everybody's going to be talking about it.
go to dailywireplus.com/subscribe and sign up today.
(upbeat music)
All of the late night talk shows have been on hiatus for several months now because of the writer's strike.
This comes as news to most Americans who had forgotten that those shows existed.
Late-night talk shows, of course, haven't been relevant, least of all funny, since approximately maybe the year 2003.
In fact, I was surprised to learn that they weren't impacted by the writer's strike at all, as I assume that they didn't have writers, but they do.
And in spite of the strike and the general lack of relevance, one late-night show has managed to make the news this week for all the wrong reasons.
Rolling Stone has the big expose on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.
Here's the headline.
Chaos, comedy, and crying rooms inside Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show.
16 current and former staffers say Fallon's erratic behavior spoiled their dream of working on The Tonight Show.
Now, as you can tell from the title, this is yet another shocking report about a so-called toxic work environment.
We're seeing these kinds of things with increasing frequency.
You might even say that the toxic work environments are having their Me Too moment.
First it was Ellen DeGeneres, then earlier this year, thanks to another Rolling Stone expose, we heard that the Kelly Clarkson Show is a toxic environment where employees feel stressed out and they get yelled at sometimes and they start crying and their mental health is severely impacted.
Then a few weeks ago, the American Psychological Association released a new study claiming that 20% of all workers in America, which is about 30 million people, give or take, are in workplaces that are toxic.
And half of them say that their mental health has been harmed by all the toxicity in the workplace.
And now we have this revelation about Jimmy Fallon.
Toxic work environments are an epidemic, it seems.
Which raises the question, what exactly is a toxic work environment and how does it significantly differ from a regular work environment?
Let's read a little bit of this Rolling Stone report to see if it might help illuminate the issue for us.
Quote, According to two current and 14 former employees, The Tonight Show has been a toxic workplace for years, far outside the boundaries of what's considered normal in the high-pressure world of late-night TV.
They say the ugly environment behind the scenes starts at the top, with Fallon's erratic behavior and has trickled down to its ever-changing leadership teams, nine showrunners in the past nine years, who seemingly don't know how to say no to Jimmy.
Former employees described the Tonight Show as a tense and pretty glum atmosphere, with some alleging that they were belittled and intimidated by their bosses, including Fallon himself.
Employees described being afraid of Fallon's outbursts and unexpected, inconsistent behavior.
Seven former employees say that their mental health was impacted by their alleged experiences working at the Tonight Show.
These staffers say it was commonplace to hear people joking about wanting to kill themselves and that they would refer to guest dressing rooms in the office as crying rooms because that's where they would go to let out their emotions.
When they are upset with their alleged mistreatment.
Well, this sounds potentially bad so far.
Employees are breaking down in tears at work.
They're talking about killing themselves.
What exactly is happening to these people?
Like, what is Jimmy Fallon doing to them?
Like, what specifically is he doing?
What terrible atrocities are being inflicted upon the Tonight Show staff?
Well, let's keep reading and we'll find out.
Quote, it's a bummer because it was my dream job, one former employee says.
Writing for Late Night is a lot of people's dream jobs and they're coming into this and it becomes a nightmare very quickly.
It's sad that it's like that, especially knowing that it doesn't have to be this way.
But behind the scenes, there was a surprising, dramatic and ugly shift in the working environment, according to three employees who originally worked for Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and then followed the team to The Tonight Show.
Of course, there was the added pressure when the program transitioned.
The Tonight Show is one of the television's most storied franchises.
Quote, the producers felt this pressure, and that translated down to all their employees, people that worked under them, and then felt this pressure that if you made one mistake, you were gone and would be easily replaced, one former employee says.
Quote, you have all these NBC pages in the building who are ready, willing, and waiting to take your job.
Okay, at this point, we've learned that some of the employees expected the job to be a dream, and it wasn't.
And they also felt a lot of pressure, and they were afraid that they might be fired and replaced.
So far, it sounds like this toxic work environment is just literally every work environment.
But maybe we haven't gotten to the really horrific stuff yet, so let's continue.
Quote, nobody told Jimmy no.
Everybody walked on eggshells, especially showrunners, another former employee says.
You never knew which Jimmy you were going to get and when he was going to throw a hissy fit.
Look how many showrunners went so quickly.
We know they didn't last long.
With an ever-changing cast at the top, employees say that they had nightmares related to work and were in a constant state of fear.
One former employee says that they had their first anxiety attack while working at the show and were put on anti-anxiety medication for the first time.
Another employee says that they felt physical ramifications of their declining mental health, like their hair thinning and weakened nail beds.
Four other employees say that they're in therapy because of their experiences.
Three say they experienced suicidal ideation as a result of the working environment.
One employee says that they lost nearly 20 pounds during their time working under showrunner Granite Biederman and felt like they were on edge all the time and cried themselves to sleep every night.
So...
We're still hearing about the emotional devastation all these employees experience, crying themselves to sleep every night, crying at work, crying everywhere all the time, in therapy, losing weight.
But we haven't heard what exactly happened to them to justify this kind of reaction.
From the sound of it, these people are having the emotional reaction you'd expect from someone whose, I don't know, whose house just burned down with their entire family inside.
I mean, they are describing deep, profound emotional trauma.
Crying yourself to sleep every night.
That's like grieving the loss of a loved one, okay?
So what could possibly have happened to them at the office to cause this kind of reaction?
We still haven't heard, so let's continue.
According to most employees who spoke to Rolling Stone, it's common knowledge that behind the scenes, Fallon's temperament, mood, and treatment of staffers is erratic.
These employees say that they've witnessed Fallon snap at crew members, express irritation over the smallest of things, berate and belittle staffers out of frustration.
Three former employees say that he berated them in front of other colleagues and grew in crew members.
One employee says that depending on Fallon's mood, they felt like his notes and feedback could be passive-aggressive, personal insults as opposed to constructive criticisms.
They say that he would write comments like, Are you okay?
Seriously?
Do you need help?
Rolling Stone reviewed photos of the employees' alleged notes from Fallon that read, Ugh, lame.
What is going on with you?
You've outdone yourself.
The same employees say that Fallon would also send combative emails.
One of which was reviewed by Rolling Stone to certain staffers if he was dissatisfied with their work.
Two employees remember witnessing Fallon scold the crew member who was in charge of his cue cards in the middle of a taping with comedian Jerry Seinfeld.
They say it was an uncomfortable moment.
Okay, I can just stop this here and spoil the ending, because this is it.
There is no shocking revelation about horrific abuse being inflicted upon Tonight Show staffers.
Like, it's just this.
The boss gets angry sometimes and yells.
He criticizes employees who dissatisfy him on occasion.
There's some passive aggressiveness.
Sometimes people get fired.
The closest thing they get to an actual shocker is that two employees claim that Fallon seemed potentially inebriated at work once six years ago.
Which, if true, of course, is bad.
But there is nothing here that could even remotely justify crying fits, and panic attacks, and employees running around threatening suicide.
Okay, this is not a toxic work environment.
It's a fragile work environment, staffed by a collection of emotionally stunted crybabies who break down in tears if they experience a little bit of pressure, or if the boss gets a little bit mad sometimes.
Look, I'm no Jimmy Fallon fan.
I have no dog in this fight.
I have no instinct to defend him or any real interest in defending him.
But my general ambivalence towards Jimmy Fallon is overridden in this case by the intense revulsion I feel towards this generation of overgrown children masquerading as adults who can't handle even the smallest amount of stress.
And that's where this idea of the toxic work environment comes from.
Now, there might be some workplaces that really are toxic in a more significant sense.
But for the most part, when someone complains about their workplace being toxic, what they really mean is that their workplace is a workplace.
That they have to deal with other people.
They have responsibilities they have to perform.
You know, they have to justify their existence and their job.
There's pressure.
There's stress.
Tempers flare sometimes.
People disagree.
Coworkers and bosses have eccentricities that can be annoying and frustrating.
It's a workplace.
It's life as an adult.
This is how it goes.
Now, just to drive the point home here, recently Forbes published a list of the 10 signs that you're in a toxic workplace.
And here are some of the signs.
It says that your workplace is toxic, says Forbes, if you are physically and mentally exhausted at the end of each workday, if your manager asks you to be available to answer emails in the evenings, if your colleagues complain about work, Or if your co-workers sometimes make offensive jokes.
That is a toxic work environment.
So again, a toxic workplace is just a workplace.
It's any workplace.
Now, that's not to say that people should make offensive jokes, or even that your boss should expect you to be available off hours, but these things happen, and when they happen, it just means that your workplace isn't perfect.
It isn't flawless.
Indeed, as Jimmy Fallon's staff discovered, it isn't a dream.
There's no dream job.
Because life is not happening in a dream.
It's reality.
Stuff happens sometimes that you don't like.
That doesn't make it toxic, you emotional infants.
And it certainly doesn't justify crying fits or acting like you have PTSD.
You didn't get your legs blown off on the battlefield.
You answered a work email at 7pm.
You'll be fine.
Stop whining.
See, this is the real story with the epidemic of toxic work environments.
Once again, the problem isn't the problem itself, but the total inability of grown adults to deal with the problem.
You know, there are always going to be workplace pressures and angry bosses and annoying co-workers.
Encountering these challenges, it doesn't make you an abuse victim.
It makes you a normal adult existing in a reality that won't always, or in fact will never, comport entirely with your dreams.
You either learn how to cope with that and succeed in spite of it, or you can cry like a toddler and look for pity and a pat on the head.
Unfortunately, many people these days choose the latter.
