All Episodes
Sept. 13, 2023 - The Matt Walsh Show
01:11:25
Ep. 1221 - Dem Candidate Claims It's A 'Sex Crime' To Talk About The Fact That She's A Porn Star

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a democratic political candidate is also a porn star who prostituted herself on the internet for money. But now she claims that anyone who shares those videos, or even talks about them, is committing a "sex crime" against her. We'll discuss. Also, a drag queen is arrested for exposing himself in public. We'll talk about why that's not surprising at all. Tim Scott claims he has a girlfriend but no one has ever seen her. Does that matter? A feminist complains that she is being violated and victimized by her toddler children. And in the biggest news of the day, scientists in Mexico have unveiled the corpses of actual aliens. I have the full story about these aliens. Ep.1221 - - - 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: Balance of Nature - Get $35 OFF your first order as a preferred customer. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/ EnviroKlenz - Save 10% off your EnviroKlenz home air purification unit. Promo code WALSH at http://www.EKPURE.com Good Ranchers - Get $25 off your order PLUS free ground beef for 2 years! Promo code Walsh at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/ - - - 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a Democratic political candidate is also a porn star who prostituted herself on the internet for money, but now she claims that anyone who shares those videos or even talks about them is committing a sex crime against her.
We'll discuss.
Also, a drag queen is arrested for exposing himself in public.
We'll talk about why that's not surprising at all.
Tim Scott claims he has a girlfriend, but no one has ever seen her.
Does that matter?
A feminist complains that she is being violated and victimized by her toddler children.
And in the biggest news of the day, scientists in New Mexico have unveiled the corpses of actual aliens.
I have the full story about these aliens.
We'll talk about all of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
September, as you probably already know, is National Fruits and Veggies Month.
Balance of Nature fruits and veggies are a great way to make sure that you're getting essential nutritional ingredients every single day.
Through Balance of Nature's advanced cold vacuum process, the vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients of the fruits and vegetables are preserved so that you can get that vital nutrition in each capsule.
Balance of Nature is a whole fruit supplement with no additives, fillers, extracts, synthetics, pesticides, or added sugar.
Pure fruits and veggies are the only thing they put in their capsules.
Balance of Nature sent a bunch of their products down to the studio for my team to try.
We all love them.
When you're disciplined enough to take care of your health, you reap all kinds of benefits and your body will thank you for it.
So, go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH for $30.50 off your first order as a preferred customer.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH for $35 off your first preferred order.
One of the hallmarks of this new era of wokeism that we're all living through is that we're constantly treated to new terminology for old concepts.
Race riots have gotten a makeover, of course.
There are now BLM protests, goth kids, crossdressers, and other miscellaneous groups now have all found new labels for themselves under the umbrella of gender identity.
Anti-white and anti-Asian racism, especially when enforced by the government, now goes by the name of equity.
Lots of examples like this, and maybe the farthest-reaching rebrand, the one that really goes back thousands of years.
Is that the modern left has managed to redefine the term prostitution and now instead of calling prostitutes prostitutes, we're supposed to call them sex workers.
The idea is to rebrand prostitution as something other than the morally depraved, reprehensible conduct that no civilized society should ever tolerate, much less embrace.
As you might expect, many media outlets, including the New York Times, are on board with this change in terminology.
They're pushing it, promoting it, actually.
The paper of record recently ran a whole op-ed about the importance of meeting the needs of sex workers.
According to the piece, we need to end the social stigma surrounding sex work.
CBS News, for its part, has run several sympathetic stories about policies that can, quote, legitimize the industry of sex work.
Now, given all that, it's with great interest that I checked out the websites of both the New York Times and CBS News last night to see how they were covering the story of a Virginia State House candidate named Susanna Gibson.
Gibson, as you may have heard, was just outed as a cyber prostitute, a porn star.
She live-streamed videos on a porn website of herself engaging in various sex acts with her husband in exchange for money from strangers, otherwise known as prostitution.
She even offered at one point to urinate for viewers if they paid up.
And to be clear, Gibson's husband was, of course, well aware that all this was happening.
In fact, he solicited donations at various points.
And these were not private videos.
They were not password protected.
They weren't videos that were just on their laptops and a hacker went in and stole them and put them online.
No, anyone could access them.
And without going into too much detail, people could obtain even more salacious footage if they threw money at Gibson in the form of what was called tokens on the website.
Gibson assured her audience that the money was going to a, quote, good cause.
Which perhaps was her political campaign.
We don't know.
Now, if the New York Times and CBS News truly meant what they've been saying all these years about the legitimacy of sex work, about the fact that it's an admirable occupation that should not be stigmatized, you'd think that this would be the easiest imaginable story for them to cover.
Here you have a strong, independent woman engaging in consensual acts of prostitution with a willing partner.
What could be more liberating than that?
Truly, this is what decades of feminism have been leading to all along.
This is the ultimate feminist success story.
A sex worker becomes a politician, which is really more of a lateral move, I guess.
You're going from one form of prostitution to another.
But, you know, it's the new American dream.
Except, strangely enough, that's not how these outlets are covering this story.
Instead of defending Susanna Gibson's conduct, both the New York Times and CBS News are lying about it.
They're denying it.
And these are not subtle lies.
I mean, these are as obvious and lazy as they can possibly be.
The Times decided to ignore the facts of the whole situation and instead reported that Gibson's videos had been leaked.
So this was their headline, quote, State House candidate in Virginia condemns leak of sex tapes.
What they're doing is hiding the fact that Gibson uploaded the footage herself.
They're implying that someone else leaked these videos, that someone secretly went in and obtained them and then distributed them to the public, which is not what happened at all, and they know that.
For its part, CBS News ran this headline, quote, Virginia election candidate responds after leak of tapes shows her performing sex acts with husband.
Now below that headline, CBS News copy-pasted an accurate Associated Press article describing what actually happened.
So CBS News' only contribution to the story was adding an obviously false headline to mislead as many people as possible under the assumption that most people wouldn't actually read the article.
And of course, most people don't.
Now this is all more than a little strange.
I mean, here you have a perfect opportunity for both of these outlets, the New York Times and CBS News, to report honestly on the sex work that Susanna Gibson was engaging in.
That shouldn't be a big deal because, as these organizations have established, sex work is as noble as any other form of work.
Sex work is real work, they say.
But instead of doing that, they're lying about the basic facts of the story.
They're pretending that Gibson wasn't selling pornographic videos for money.
Instead, they're pushing the lie that she was hacked.
That her private videos somehow found their way on the internet.
When in fact, again, they found their way on the internet because Gibson put them there on purpose.
To make money off of them.
In case you're keeping track, these are the same outlets that went wall-to-wall on Donald Trump's so-called p-tape, which didn't exist, by the way.
Now they're telling you that you're not allowed to discuss a Democratic Party candidate's actual p-tape, which she uploaded on the internet.
I think the word brazen doesn't even begin to describe this.
But it gets even more brazen.
Susanna Gibson herself has gone even further than these outlets and she claims that she is now the victim of a sex crime because people are talking about videos that she put on the internet.
She is now a sex crime victim.
Watch.
A Virginia Democratic candidate is getting caught up in a porn scandal before her campaign can even begin.
Susanna Gibson is claiming the release of videos showing her and her husband performing sexual acts live on a streaming site is an invasion of privacy.
Gibson and her husband asked for tips while performing sex acts for a live audience on Shatterbait.
She was quote, raising money for a good cause.
It is unclear when the live streams occurred.
Gibson, who is running one of Virginia's seven highly contested house races, said in a statement the leaks of the online activity were quote, the worst gutter politics and an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.
Gibson's lawyer said the release of the videos is a violation of Virginia's revenge porn law.
Making it a Class 1 misdemeanor to maliciously distribute nude or sexual images with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate.
Gibson is facing Republican David Owen for the House seat in the state's 57th district, which is outside of Richmond and primarily in Henrico County.
It is one of the seven toss-up seats in the 100-member House.
Now, you notice, you know, I get in trouble all the time for things that I post on the Internet, which are not sex tapes, but, you know, like tweets.
I'll tweet something and then people get very upset about it.
And many times the tweets are being misconstrued deliberately.
And so I'll object to that.
But what I never do is claim that you're invading my privacy by talking about tweets that I have myself written and published on the Internet.
I never do that because it doesn't make any sense.
Now let's think about this for a second.
Susanna Gibson voluntarily uploads footage of herself having sex with her husband, with her husband's consent obviously, to a porn website.
She and her husband both solicit money from anonymous viewers on this website.
In return, they promise to engage in even more sex acts.
None of this is occurring on some private channel.
Anyone with a working internet connection can see it.
Some of these acts, by the way, were broadcast after Gibson announced her run for office in Virginia.
And now Gibson tells us it's a sex crime to share this footage.
It violates Virginia's revenge porn laws.
If that's true, ironically enough, if that's true, it would mean that Susanna Gibson and her husband are the ones guilty of sex crimes because they're the ones who shared the footage.
So they have committed sex crimes against themselves.
Throw them in prison then, I guess.
So it's not just a facile argument that we're talking about here, it's completely and totally absurd.
It's the kind of argument you make when you're ashamed of what you've done, and you know there's no defense for it, so you blurt out the first thing that comes to mind.
I mean, saying that it's a sex crime for people to share a sex tape that you published on the internet, it's like selling your car to someone, and then as soon as they're driving away, calling the police and claiming that you're a victim of Grand Theft Auto.
Or perhaps you remember when Anthony Weiner claimed that he was hacked because he had no defense for why he was sending pictures of his crotch to random women on the internet.
It's a bit like that as well.
The level of desperation is really something to behold.
They're so desperate that they're co-opting the same terminology they told us was sacred.
The language of the Me Too movement as a political cover for behavior that they know is repulsive.
They're saying we're all sex criminals for noticing what they're uploading on the internet.
Which is not simply hypocrisy.
These are the panicked cries of feminists who are afraid to confront the logical endpoint of their entire movement, which is that feminism doesn't actually liberate women from anything.
Instead, it encourages them to become slaves to their most degenerate, base sexual desires.
A great illustration of this hypocrisy comes to us from the feminist blog Jezebel.
Jezebel, like the New York Times and CBS News, is currently claiming that Republicans are demonizing Gibson for the crime of having sex with her husband.
That's the straw man they're running with, as unsurprising and predictable as it may be.
And Jezebel, of course, repeats the line that even talking about Gibson's videos might amount to a sex crime.
What's especially interesting about Jezebel's coverage, though, is that they just ran a long post about the personal life of presidential candidate Tim Scott, saying that he needs to be more open about why he doesn't have a girlfriend at the age of 57.
Or, I guess he claims he does have a girlfriend, so why isn't he married at the age of 57?
The piece mocks Scott for allegedly being a virgin until he was middle-aged.
It also suggests that he's suffering from marriage-related trauma from his upbringing after his father, a Vietnam War veteran, Developed a drinking problem.
So, the progressive feminists at Jezebel are allowed to mock Tim Scott for all of these personal issues, which are actually personal, and they haven't even remotely verified.
But at the same time, Jezebel also says you can't talk about multiple sex tapes that a woman running for office in the Democrat Party published for public consumption.
And there's a lot of this on the internet right now.
The same media outlet saying that we should respect Susanna Gibson's privacy, Even though she didn't respect her own privacy, they're also reporting incessantly about their speculations about Tim Scott's private life.
Now, to be clear, Some questions about Scott's personal life are legitimate.
He seems very much to be lying about having a girlfriend, who he refuses to identify in any way.
It does sound a bit like he's pulling the old, my girlfriend goes to another school move.
And if we're being honest, it's weird to have a 57-year-old bachelor running for president.
But at the same time, there's an obvious double standard in the way the media treats questions about a politician's private life, depending on their political party.
Another example is the incessant reporting on the whereabouts of Melania Trump, who's been absent from the campaign trail.
I mean, we really haven't seen her at all at Donald Trump's side, whether it's at rallies or, you know, when he's showing up for these court appearances.
And again, I think, objectively, those are perfectly valid questions.
But by the same token, once we allow for all that, that it's clear that a political candidate's history as a porn star is also very relevant.
Now there's a reason the left is denying this, and it has nothing to do with one state-level candidate in Virginia.
They're lying about what Susanna Gibson did because her behavior highlights a very uncomfortable truth about the great experiment the left has conducted for so many years.
The truth is this.
After multiple waves and generations of feminism, which supposedly were all about treating women like people instead of objects, that's how it was sold anyway, pornography has now become so normalized and mainstreamed in our society that we have a bunch of soccer moms whoring themselves out on the internet for a few extra bucks.
These are not young girls getting sex trafficked or turning to street prostitution out of desperation.
These are bored, middle-class women with loose morals looking for validation and a little extra spending cash.
You know, I've talked many times about what I call the trajectory of leftism, and with any item on their agenda, anything they promote, It always starts and ends the same way.
So first they deny that they're doing the thing.
Then they admit they're doing it, but they insist that it's good.
And then they say that since it's good, it should actually be celebrated.
And finally, they invite or demand that we participate.
So we go from denial to promotion to celebration to participation.
And now we see that pornography has followed this same path.
And we've finally arrived at the participation stage, where the problem becomes terminal.
First, they denied that they wanted to make hardcore porn mainstream and accessible to everyone, including children.
And then they said that, well, actually, porn is good and it should be mainstream.
And then they demanded that we celebrate these porn stars and cyber prostitutes and their free expression.
And now porn has been opened up for all to actively participate in it.
Which is an invitation that many attention-starved women, like Susanna Gibson, have responded to.
The problem, one of the many, many problems, is that selling your body to random creeps online is depressing and despair-inducing and soul-crushing.
Eventually, these women all get sick of it, and they want to move on.
And understandably so, but there is no moving on in the internet age.
Everything you've done there, you do forever.
It lives on whether you like it or not.
And that does not make you a victim, or give you the right to cry about invasions of privacy.
It just means you need to make better choices.
as Susanna Gibson and many women like her have now discovered the hard way.
Now let's get to our final segment.
[MUSIC]
Most people only think about poor air quality when we have fires like the ones that just happened in Canada,
causing New York to be a strange orange color that made the air quality absolutely terrible.
But have you stopped to think about the polluted air in your day-to-day life?
You and your family's health may be affected by the air quality in your home.
allergens and germs floating in the air can make you sick.
But the good news is that there's technology out there that helps you purify your living space easily
and affordable with EnviroCleanse.
You'll never have to worry again.
EnviroCleanse is an in-home air purifying unit designed to destroy cold and flu viruses,
allergy, inflaming toxins, mold, and even more.
EnviroCleanse promises far fewer colds, allergies, and also better sleep.
Their air purifiers come in all sizes, colors, and prices to fit every budget.
And they offer additional products like surface cleaner and laundry detergent as well.
EnviroCleanse is the air purifier we use in our home.
Works great.
Gives me the peace of mind that I'm breathing in healthy air.
And the last thing our family needs is to get sick.
EnviroCleanse offers a simple solution for keeping me healthy.
And all the family healthy and in tip-top shape.
Breathe in pure air and live a healthier life.
Visit ekpure.com.
Use code WALSH for 10% off your EnviroCleanse home air purification unit.
Right now you'll also get their free air quality monitor plus fast free shipping.
That's $150 savings.
ekpure.com.
Code WALSH.
That's ekpure.com.
Promo code WALSH.
We begin, obviously, with this history-shaping, history-changing story from The Independent.
Reports alleged non-human alien corpses have been displayed to Mexican politicians at the country's Congress.
The two small alleged alien corpses retrieved from Peru were presented in windowed boxes in Mexico City on Wednesday, starting excitement within the UFO conspiracy theorist community.
The event was spearheaded by journalist and ufologist Jamie Masson, who testified under oath that the mummified specimens are not part of our terrestrial evolution, with almost a third of their DNA remaining unknown, reported Mexican media.
The claims by the self-claimed ufologist have not been proved, and Mr. Masson has previously been associated with claims of discoveries that have later been debunked.
Okay, first of all, That's a very rude paragraph, I have to say.
So you're telling me, if this guy makes one claim about aliens that's debunked, allegedly, suddenly he's not allowed to present evidence of actual aliens that he finds?
Like, okay, so he made a claim about aliens that was debunked, and then he happened to find real aliens, what do you want him to do?
You want him to not tell us about it?
Because he said, well, I've been debunked once, so now I'm disqualified.
You know, I understand the boy who cried wolf, but if the boy cries wolf and he lies, and then the next day he brings the wolf to you and says, here's a wolf, Like, are you going to say, no, this is a PSYOP, right?
I mean, think about it.
So, continuing.
At the public hearing, Mr. Maussan showed U.S.
officials and members of the Mexican government several videos of UFOs and unidentified anomalous phenomena before unveiling the alleged alien corpses.
He said, quote, these specimens are not part of our terrestrial evolution.
These aren't beings that were found after a UFO wreckage.
They were found in algae mines and were later fossilized.
Mr. Mosan told attendees the specimens had been studied by scientists at the Autonomous National University of Mexico, who were able to draw DNA evidence using radiocarbon dating.
After comparisons were made to other DNA samples, it was found that over 30% of specimens' DNA was unknown.
And then he also showed x-rays, and he said that bodies have eggs inside, while both were said to have implants made of very rare metals.
Okay, and also these were a thousand years old. They were able to date them to a thousand years old now
So this is tremendous. So we have actual so now we have the final piece everyone said
You that UFO sightings that's not enough. I'm not convinced.
Where are the actual alien bodies?
Well, here you go. Here. They are What do you have to say now? We have the actual video of
him unveiling the alien corpses So let's put that up on the screen
pollution terrestrial he K
Despois de desaparecer no I Abolish it you can see him there in the boxes
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Laying very comfortably.
There they are.
And if you don't speak Spanish, what he's saying, he's saying these are real aliens.
These are 100% real.
It's been proven.
It's a fact.
It's been proven. It's a fact. Ben Shapiro is wrong.
Look at this Ben Shapiro. What do you have to say now?
Apologize to Matt Walsh.
Apologize to him, he says.
And he continues along that way.
Sorry, I'm bilingual, so a little bit of a translation there.
So I'll tell you, OK, so put the picture back on the screen.
We have images of actual aliens, and we take them off the screen?
Put it on the screen the entire time.
Can we see the images again of the aliens?
OK, right there.
So what else do you need to see?
That's the alien.
And I want to tell you exactly what happened.
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
So, first of all...
We have to admit, I think, for 1,000-year-old corpses, you know, they're pretty cute little guys.
You know, and, I mean, they look like an elf on the shelf or something.
Like they could be, you know, like they're your friends who come to watch over you.
And I can tell you just from my own analysis that, and, you know, after having studied this and read the articles, I've looked at these aliens, I've looked at the DNA sequences, and what I can tell from my own research and studies Is that these were definitely friendly aliens, 100%, 100% guaranteed.
And that's, again, based on my own research.
So these were friendly little guys who came to Earth and, you know, I'm betting they had fun little names like, you know, like Beep and Bop or something were probably their names, I'm guessing.
And so Beep and Bop came all this way and they were just looking to make friends and they were just, you know, they wanted to hang out and have a good time.
And I'll tell you exactly what happened.
So they landed in pre-Columbian South America.
And that is just, that's bad luck, man.
That is not where you want to be.
That's not the time you want to be.
They're off by a few thousand miles and a few hundred years.
And they really got the wrong side of that coin flip.
Now, this was, in fairness to Peru a thousand years ago, this was a thousand years ago.
So, if it's a thousand years ago and you're a tiny, friendly alien from an advanced civilization, there's not going to be anywhere on Earth that's Great to land.
There's not gonna be any great options for you.
There's no ideal spot on the planet at that time, but you probably would have been better off with medieval Europe.
I mean, you know, medieval Europe, you probably still would have been captured and burned at the stake under the assumption that you're a demon.
But you might be able to reason with them.
There's a chance.
But landing in Peru, now you're dealing with, I guess, at that point, like the Inca, I think, or maybe whatever the pre-Inca tribe was.
And now you've got human sacrifices going on.
So I guarantee, I guarantee they landed, and it was a whole group of them, these adorable little Ewoks, they landed, and most of them were immediately captured and scalped and butchered.
And you could just imagine them strolling up to the Incan death temple, and just naively, and they're like, hey folks, just stopping by from planet Neptune or whatever, just wanted to say hi.
And then, boom, one of them is hit in the face with a spear, and it's a bloodbath, and the two survivors, they run into a cave and they hide, and they're just looking at each other like, holy crap, man, what the hell kind of planet is this?
This is the wrong solar system.
We need to get out of here.
And you can actually see them cringing.
He died cringing.
They're just cringing.
They're like, jeez, this place is rough.
And they died of starvation or whatever, you know, or of exposure.
They died of the cold and maybe they got bit by a rattlesnake or something.
That's my theory.
And that's it.
And that's what happened.
And that's my analysis.
And I'm happy to provide this testimony to the Mexican government.
That's the whole story of Beep and Bop that I've spent seven minutes on during what's supposed to be a news segment.
Anyway, moving on.
If we can even move on from that.
I don't know.
How do you move on from, oh, we proved aliens.
Let's talk about something else.
All right.
Daily Wire has this report.
An active member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of predominantly gay men who openly mock Catholics, were arrested in California last month for indecent exposure after witnesses say he masturbated in public for an hour, according to a sheriff's office report obtained by the Daily Wire.
The man, 53-year-old Clinton Monroe Ellis Gilmore, was arrested by police at a, you think that's enough names for this guy?
Clinton Monroe Ellis Gilmore, a lot of names and he's still just a freak, was arrested by police at a beachside park after they received a report of a male exposing himself in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle.
According to numerous witnesses, Ellis Gilmore had been at the location for approximately one hour, sitting in his truck with the door open, masturbating.
According to a sheriff's report on the incident, which took place on August 12th at around 6.41 p.m., the conduct does not appear to have been directed at anyone in particular.
That's an odd phrase.
Okay, his public masturbation was not directed at anyone in particular.
How would it, what do you mean direct?
What would it be to direct it at someone?
Anyway, he was publicly masturbating at this point.
The arrest took place at Table Bluff County Park in Loleta, California with over an hour of daylight still left.
Google lists the park as good for kids and home to kid-friendly hikes.
And this is where this guy decided to pull up and open his car door and Masturbate.
A mugshot obtained by the Daily Wire from Ellis Gilmore's booking indicates that he was at least shirtless at the time of the arrest.
The sister's perpetual indulgence made headlines earlier this year after the Los Angeles Dodgers decided to honor the group at a Pride event.
The group makes fun of Christianity.
Its members are men in traditional nun clothing that frequently use sexually suggestive names.
It won the support, however, of many in the media, which defended the group from critics who said it was a perverted hate group and celebrated it for its dedication to community service.
And there's a lot more in this report, but I think you kind of get the gist of it.
And there's a lot more also, by the way, about how this drag queen, you know, all this other sexually suggestive stuff and disgusting stuff that he's posted online and all the rest of it, everything that you expect.
I mean, the main point about this, of course, when we hear another of these stories of one of these guys being a pervert, the headline, the takeaway is that There's nothing surprising about this at all.
Just the very act of dressing up like a drag queen and parading around in public, that is already, here's the point, that is already a voyeuristic, sexually depraved act.
This is all fetish that these men are engaged in, all of it.
That's the only reason they're doing it.
Why else would they be doing it?
So, every single one of them, whether it's the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence or any other drag queen anywhere else, they're all doing it because they get a sexual thrill out of it.
And that is what, you know, when it comes to transgenderism or anything, all these other things, the LGBT movement, so much of the LGBT movement really is simply about validating the sexual fetishes of men, for the most part.
It's about validating sexual fetishes of men and providing them platforms to engage in those sexual fetishes publicly and demanding that people, you know, tolerate it or even participate in their sexual fetishes.
That's what it is.
And so, when you find out that one of them is masturbating in public, it's like, well, of course he was doing that.
The drag itself is a form of public masturbation, essentially.
It is a fetish that you're engaging in publicly.
Which is also why it is always inappropriate to have kids anywhere near this.
It doesn't matter what else the drag queen is doing.
You know, a lot of these videos that we've seen, the drag queens are twerking or whatever, they're dancing, they're having money thrown at them like they're strippers, and there are kids there and that's awful.
But even if the drag queens are just quote-unquote reading a story, and even if the story is something innocuous, even if they're reading Cat in the Hat or whatever, it still is wrong because it is still part of their fetish, of their kind of sexual role play that they're engaging in front of kids.
All right, CNN, this is from Daily Wire, CNN anchor Poppy Harlow forced Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham into a corner over her recent order calling gun violence a public health crisis and effectively suspending Second Amendment rights in Albuquerque and the surrounding county.
So it's not often that you see any kind of semi-difficult question from a CNN anchor to a Democrat, but that's what happened here.
Let's watch the tape.
Are you overreaching?
Let me give you a hypothetical, right?
You're a Democratic governor who's doing this.
What if a Republican governor of a state declares a health emergency and unilaterally outlaws abortion in that state where the legislature has not done so by statute?
Following your logic, would that also be sound?
Uh, in, in this situation, honestly, I don't think so, but that is what's happening in this country.
Yeah, she has, she has no real answer to it.
She says, well, no, that wouldn't be legit.
She can't explain why, because there is no answer.
Once you've set the precedent that you can, that a governor can just unilaterally declare something a public health emergency and, and ban something outright because of it, then, um, then you, it's, There's no, that is not a self-limiting principle.
It's designed to not be.
There's no limitation on it.
It just has to do with the individual judgment of a governor and what he or she considers a public health emergency to be.
And there are legitimate, like, for example, the castration and mutilation of children is a public health, is an actual public health emergency.
And so if Democrats can do this, then a Republican governor should just say, this is a public health emergency.
We're banned.
We don't need to go through any kind of legislative procedure here.
We don't need to pass a law.
I'm saying right now it's banned because it's a public health emergency.
And that again is an actual public health emergency.
So if that's the precedent that you've set, then that's where it goes.
The interesting thing about this now, look, The fact that a governor tried to do this is already big news, something that we should pay attention to and, I mean, obviously speak out against at a minimum.
But this is not going anywhere for her.
Law enforcement basically at every level, right up to the, I believe, the Attorney General of the state in New Mexico, they've all said that they're not going to enforce this.
The sheriffs have all said that, the DAs, they're not going to enforce it.
It's unconstitutional.
They can't enforce it.
So we have that.
So it's unenforceable.
She has no enforcement mechanism.
And she has a bunch of people on her own side, like Democrats, including gun control wackos like David Hogg, have spoken out against this.
So this particular thing is not going anywhere.
For her.
It's just going to die on the vine, and that's going to be it.
My guess, it's a 30 day suspension, and people are just ignoring it, as they should.
And she'll probably just let the 30 days go up, and then she'll move on.
And she'll declare some kind of victory.
Over those 30 days, if she can look at the, quote, gun violence stats and find that there was even like one fewer, like there was just one less person than average was killed, then she could declare a victor.
And if she looks at gun violence stats and she doesn't see that, then she can just lie about the stats, you know, and she can always do that.
So she'll find a way to declare a victor and she'll move on.
But does that mean that the threat posed by this move Is, uh, has been neutralized?
And the answer is no.
Because like we talked about on Monday when we first discussed this, you know, there was a coordinated response from Democrats, from prominent Democrats, about this move by the New Mexico governor.
And so coordinated, you could tell it was coordinated because they were using almost identical language when they denounced it.
And remember, then you even heard it there too, I think.
But the thing that they always threw in, right, is, well, there's no authority to do this at the state level.
Right?
A state government can't do this.
There's no state exception to the Constitution.
The governor of a state doesn't have this authority.
So they're always throwing in the state part of it.
Because what they're setting up It will seem like this was a major defeat for the Democrats.
They tried it.
It didn't work.
But on the surface, in the short term, it is a defeat.
But they're trying to set up a precedent where, yeah, states can't do this.
The federal government can.
Which is always what the left prefers to do anyway.
They don't even want the states to exist in the first place.
They don't want states' rights they don't believe in, and they never have.
So they would prefer for everything to be happening, and for all the laws and all the edicts to be passed down from a massive, behemoth, centralized federal government, and so that's what they're setting up.
And that's why they always qualify it by saying states can't do it.
Federal government can.
Okay, we mentioned this, but maybe a little bit more to say about it.
I want to play this clip for you.
This is from the Daily Wire.
The View host Whoopi Goldberg offered a rare defense of a Republican on Tuesday, standing by Senator Tim Scott amid questions about his relationship status.
Scott, who's not married, has fielded a number of questions about that over the years, and Goldberg waved the question away.
So there's two clips.
Let's play the first clip from this discussion.
The other ladies of The View.
Talk about whether it's a problem that Tim Scott is single, and whether we should even be asking questions about it in the first place.
Let's play this.
Will you meet your mom when we meet her?
Will you meet your girlfriend?
You will, of course, at some point.
Okay, great.
Where's she hiding?
Wait, why is Brian Kilmeade single-shaming him?
This reminds me of my mom before I met my husband.
Like, headline, Alyssa is still single.
It does remind you of every woman that's ever walked the earth has been asked, well, where's the man you'd find you?
It can be very important because of the pillow talk that happens and she's a lunatic.
Yeah, but Abigail Adams was a huge influence on her husband.
Since the beginning of time, a spouse or a partner.
Eleanor Roosevelt, and that's why it's important to know.
I will say that a Post reporter, Ben Terrace, wrote that he left an interview with Tim Scott unsure whether Scott's girlfriend actually exists.
And he wrote this, technically I can't verify that she exists, except to note that for a presidential campaign to essentially reverse catfish America would be insane.
The Washington Post, the worst has been done.
The Washington Post reports that six friends of Scott's said they didn't know about a woman in his life.
Why are they investigating?
So, in fact, I just want to make one note about that before we talk in broad terms about it.
But I thought it was funny.
We heard from one of the hens on the view there that, well, it's something every woman has to deal with since the beginning of time, all these questions about her relationship status.
And she says that and she doesn't even notice.
Okay, what we're seeing here is evidence that, you know, you have turned this into a gender thing.
You've turned this into questions about relationship status.
You've just always told yourself that, oh, only women get that.
That's scrutiny that only women deal with.
The Tim Scott story is proof that it's not just a woman thing.
Okay, this is, if you get to a certain age, whether you're a man or a woman, and you're not married, people start asking questions.
They're like, what's going on with that?
Why didn't you get married?
And these are valid questions.
They are valid.
And so, Tim Scott is proof that it's not just women.
But rather than realizing that, rather than saying, oh, okay, well, apparently women are not being uniquely persecuted with this question, it turns out that men are asked, people ask these questions about men also.
Rather than saying that, they have to insist that, well, this is the exception.
This is the one time, this is the one time anyone has ever asked this question about a man.
Anyway, but then we have Whoopi Goldberg chime in and say that her rare occasion of defending a Republican, let's watch.
Here's my question.
I don't care.
This is the issue.
And it's a big issue in the country.
Why is my private life...
Of so much interest to you that you can't get past the fact that I may not be interested in being married.
I might not want a spouse.
That doesn't mean I can't do the job.
It doesn't mean I don't have people who can meet and greet all those folks that come.
You know, there have been several presidents in our, not our lifetime, I don't think, not even Joy's lifetime.
Joy always says, Joy always says, you know, she used to go with Lincoln.
James Buchanan, did you ever marry him?
Yes, yes, I did.
Did you date him too?
You had more time, you had more energy.
I was much more productive when I was single and hiding in a job than I do now.
I just don't think it's right for people to invest that kind of stuff into anyone until you know what...
So we get the idea.
But ultimately, they are having this long conversation about Tim Scott and his relationship status.
And as we already covered in the opening, there's the underlying hypocrisy here that, once again, he's Republican, so we're having this conversation.
When it comes to Democrats, there's supposed to be just a veil of silence and secrecy over their entire—you can't ask any questions about their private life at all.
Certainly, we know that Barack Obama benefited greatly from that double standard, and no questions about, you know, this guy just shows up on the scene, and everyone's asking, like, where did he come from?
What's his deal?
What's his background?
Can we find out?
Any discussion about what this guy was doing prior to yesterday is irrelevant in innovation and privacy.
So we know about that double standard, and that's been established, and it's, you know, and we have to always mention it.
That said, again, if this is being applied consistently, these are, of course it matters.
Okay, just speaking objectively, putting all the double standard stuff aside.
Of course your private life matters.
Of course it matters.
Of course it matters for politicians especially.
Obviously it does.
So you take Tim Scott.
Now again, it's pretty clear to me, and I don't know this, but from my perspective, it certainly seems that he is lying about having this girlfriend.
And if you watch that whole interview with, the whole exchange with Brian Kilmeade on Fox, you could just, you could tell.
You could tell.
It is very obvious.
Are we going to meet your girlfriend?
Oh yeah, sure.
It seems very clear that something is up with this quote-unquote girlfriend.
And obviously, if you want to be president, and you're allegedly in a romantic relationship with someone, we want to know who that person is.
Someone that you're spending a lot of time with, that has a lot of influence on you, as it would in any romantic relationship.
Who is that?
We would like to know that.
We actually have a right to know that if you want to be president, if you want to be in the most powerful position in the country.
And potentially whoever this person is is going to be coming with you into the White House or certainly be visiting very often.
Who is the person?
You really have to tell us that.
You can't just keep it a secret.
If you want to have all that stuff be a secret, don't run for president.
And beyond that, it's just, it's absurd.
It's an absurd conversation because it's absurd to even question whether a political candidate's private life Of course it is.
Their private life speaks to who they are.
In many ways, you could make the argument that a politician's private life is even more relevant and more important than what he's done publicly.
It's certainly more important than what he says publicly.
Now I think ultimately the most important thing for a politician is going to be the policies that he's supported, the policies that he's pushed through, the laws that he's written or signed.
That's always going to be the most important thing.
But a real close second on that list is going to be that person's private life, who they are privately.
And that is more important than what that person says publicly.
We all agree that if someone's running for office and they say something publicly, whatever they've said is open for scrutiny, and it does matter.
Is what they said true?
Are they lying?
Are they telling the truth?
Are they making an argument for something that makes sense or not?
I mean, we talk about all these things.
But even more relevant is how does that person conduct themselves in their private life, which is another way of saying, what kind of person is this?
And when you want to be president, you're on the clock 24-7, unless you're Joe Biden and you take 23 days of vacation every month.
Most of the time, in most cases, you're basically on the clock as president 24-7.
So actually, you don't really have a private life.
That's what you're signing up for.
It's one of the many reasons why I would never want to be president.
And I sort of like question, this is the paradox to begin with, of having an office like the presidency, that if someone who would seek it in the first place is automatically suspect, the fact that you would even want that job, I think immediately calls into question your judgment and all the rest of it.
But, you know, it's just you have to deal with that paradox.
But one of the consequences is that you have no private life.
You're on the clock all the time.
You're the president all the time.
You wield a lot of authority and power all the time.
24-7, every second of the day.
And so, everything about you matters.
And to me, that's, again, pretty obvious.
Let's get to the next segment.
You know, one thing we're always talking about over here is delicious all-American meat.
Do you know what we all like even more?
When that American meat is free.
That's why we love Good Ranchers.
They source the best meat in America and deliver it right to your door.
Even better, right now they're offering two years of free ground beef to anyone who subscribes.
That's a $480 value.
I can tell you the ground beef is delicious as well.
I use it in my chili.
I only put the best meat in my chili.
I just made some this past Sunday, and it was the best chili of all time, as every batch of chili I make is.
Not only are you going to get the best cuts of meat from a trusted 100% American source company, but you're also going to lock in your price for two whole years when you subscribe to any of their boxes.
That's two years of free, high-quality ground beef at a locked-in price.
No other meat company guarantees you 100% American meat and a locked-in price.
That's because no one else is Good Ranchers.
You can save on your beef, chicken, and pork by locking in your price today.
Every single steakhouse quality cut is individually wrapped and flash frozen to make mealtime easy.
Subscribe to Good Ranchers to get a guaranteed price and a trusted 100% American source for your favorite cuts.
Go to GoodRanchers.com and use my code WALSH for $25 off and free ground beef for two years.
Remember, subscribe to any box to lock in your price on America's best meat for two whole years as well.
That's GoodRanchers.com today and use my code WALSH for over $500 in savings.
Subscribe to Good Ranchers.
American meat delivered.
Was Walsh wrong?
I haven't been wrong yet since we started this segment, surprisingly.
But let's find out if today is the day.
So we have a couple of responses to two different points made on the show yesterday.
So, Mr. Big Deal says, how is manifesting any different than praying?
Why is praying considered normal but manifesting isn't?
By the way, I think both are most likely scams.
And another comment says, isn't that what prayer does?
I mean, I know Christians will spin it, but I'm a Christian and prayer literally brings manifestation.
So, do you mean their way of doing it is wrong and fake?
Yes, that is what I mean.
Their way of doing it is wrong and fake.
I think I explained this already in pretty Pretty extensive detail, certainly.
I think I clearly explained it.
The difference between this New Age, modern notion, this TikTok thing of manifesting and praying, on the other hand, and probably the number one biggest difference is that when you're praying, you are beseeching In authority, you know, the ultimate authority, God, you're reaching out to God, a being, right?
With manifesting, you're reaching out to nobody, to nothing.
It is a prayer being offered up to empty space, to no one, to, again, the universe itself.
So that's the difference.
Are you going to pray to the creator of the universe or to the actual universe?
It's a little bit like, I don't know, somebody builds a house and you can go and if you need
a favor, you can go and ask for the favor from the guy who built the house, you know,
the carpenter, the builder, or you can go ask for the favor from the house itself.
And I think if you stand at the house and say, hey, can you help me with something?
Nothing's going to happen because it's a house.
It's an inanimate object.
If you go up to the guy who built it, maybe he'll help you out.
Maybe he won't.
But he's an actual person.
It's a being, right?
So that's the biggest difference.
But there are other differences too.
Probably the second biggest is that in prayer, first of all, not all prayer from the Christian conception is supposed to be a prayer.
Not all prayers are prayers of petition.
That's a type of prayer where you are petitioning, you're asking for something.
But there's always the understanding that the answer can be no.
And I know, certainly in my own life, prayers or petition, probably 90% of the time, the answer ends up being no.
Or at least, if not no, the answer very often will be not yet.
Or not like that.
Or not exactly in the way that you want.
So, you're not always going to get an exact yes.
And Christians understand that.
With manifesting, right?
Remember all those manifesting TikToks we played?
It was like, say this exact phrase and you'll get exactly what you want.
You know, put in mind this precise thing that you want.
You want, right, you're a woman and you want this guy to text you.
And say this phrase and that particular guy will text you because he will be taken over by the forces of the universe in some cosmic mysterious way and compelled to text you.
So it's a kind of a form of like cosmic kidnapping that's going on.
So there's no room for getting a no, another difference.
Which then leads to the other big difference, which is that there's no humility.
So prayer is an act, if it's being done correctly, prayer is an act of humbling yourself before a power greater than yourself.
And so it's an act, if it's actual prayer, If you're praying the right kind of way, then you are humbling yourself before God.
This manifesting thing takes God out of it.
It takes any possibility of disappointment out of it, right?
You're always going to get a yes.
So it's very self-serving and all that, but also there's no humility.
Okay, remember what we heard from those manifesting gurus.
What did they all say?
They said, well, this is what you deserve.
This is what you should have because you're so special and the universe owes this to you.
And so when you manifest, you're declaring to the universe how great you are and what you're owed.
That is not what praying is.
It's not what a Christian does in prayer.
I'll tell you something, as a Christian, if you approach prayer that way, if you go to God and say, I'm great.
I think we both agree.
So, here's what I need from you.
If you go to God that way, then you're certainly not going to get what you want, and most likely you'll get repudiation.
You know, you'll get something that you didn't want.
So, I think there's a number of significant differences.
Uh, now we talked a little bit about 9-11 conspiracy theories, a couple comments about that.
Dad Bear says, President Kennedy's assassination by the U.S.
government was kept secret for 60 years, so why is it so incomprehensible that 9-11 has been kept secret for 20 years, Matt?
Tommy says, hope they're paying you enough for 9-11 stuff.
None of the theories make sense.
How about Building 7, Mr. Intuitive?
Nothing hit that building.
You really believe the debris?
Matt, you're losing credibility by the day.
Who do you think is paying me?
Yeah, you're right, Tommy.
I'm part of the conspiracy.
The government is paying me.
They've paid me to do that one segment in my whole life.
I talked about 9-11 conspiracy theories for like three minutes, probably for the first time in my public life.
I've mentioned it one time and I'm being paid.
I'm in on it.
The FBI has come to me and they said, we'll give you $10 million to talk about this for three minutes on your podcast.
That's how influential you are, Mr. Walsh.
Here's the $10 million.
That's exactly what happened.
So you caught me.
To the other question, no, it's not incomprehensible that the government could keep a secret.
I think we've shown the government's very bad at keeping secrets, and that it leaks like a sieve.
I mean, think about, especially all through the Trump administration, there's just leaks coming from everywhere, all the time.
And as the government grows and grows and grows, you get more and more of that, because it's just, when we're talking about the government, we're talking about a massive, behemoth, blob-like organism that it's just, it's impossible to keep it all silent.
But when it comes to the 9-11 experience, it's not just the secret, it's the coordination.
So I think it is true that the government is very bad at keeping secrets, but they're even worse at coordinating and achieving something, like putting a goal in mind and then coordinating amongst all these different limbs and things, more like tentacles.
You've got all these tentacles spread out all over the place, coordinating all these tentacles to then go and achieve something.
And that's why I talk about the government.
It's more like, it's not an octopus.
You think of tentacles, you think of an octopus.
But an octopus, it's not.
Because an octopus, it's got many brains, and each of these tentacles in some way is like autonomous, but they all work together in this sort of hive mind, mysterious kind of way.
That is not how the government works.
Each tentacle has its own designs, and they're not coordinating at all, and they're all going off in different directions.
So, the coordination Okay, that you're talking about for this 9-11 conspiracy where they've rigged all the buildings with explosives and they're pretending that planes are flying.
Maybe planes really are flying into some of these buildings, but elsewhere they're not.
So the Pentagon didn't get hit with a plane, right?
They got hit by a missile somehow, and then we're pretending.
So you're taught to do all of this, right?
You would need coordination from Thousands of people.
I mean, from everyone, from the people that are setting up the explosives, to the building managers in these buildings, to the airlines themselves, who are going along with the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon when it really didn't, so they've made up an entire plane that never existed.
Just thousands of people, thousands, are coordinating to pull this off.
And that alone is just, any time I hear a theory like that, my immediately Red flags go up, and I think that is not the incompetent, clumsy, oafish bureaucracy that I have come to know and loathe through my 37 years on Earth.
But then there's also just, as I said yesterday, it's not even clear what the theory is.
Like, it doesn't even make any sense.
I mean, they rig the building with explosives, they still fly planes into them, but then they rig Building 7 with explosives, and they don't bother flying a plane into that one, and then they detonate it anyway?
Why?
So, there's the question for people who believe in the 9-11 conspiracy, where they say, well, why did Building 7 fall?
And I think it's pretty obvious, debris fell, it lit on fire.
And then it fell.
Okay, you don't buy that, but then I would throw the back on you.
Why would they?
Why is that part of it?
Why would they do that?
Why?
So they have this whole big plan where they're flying planes in the buildings and then detonating them.
I don't know why you need to do both.
But then they have Building 7 and they say, and they're coming up with their plan and they say, are we going to take that building down too?
Oh yeah, we got to take that building down.
Are we going to fly a plane to that one?
No, we don't need to fly a plane.
We'll just take that one down without the plane.
Why?
Did they do that just so they could leave the breadcrumbs?
So that you, Tommy, could figure this out and expose... It doesn't make any sense.
It's kind of like...
You know, the conspiracy theories that popped up about Sandy Hook, where people said that Sandy Hook never happened and it's crisis actors and it was all nonsense.
And one thing that they said early, early on is that there were articles about Sandy Hook that were posted before Sandy Hook happened.
And of course, the explanation is very simple, that timestamps on articles are very often wrong.
They're very often wrong.
It's not that confusing.
And so there were some articles about Sandy Hook that came up, and the timestamps were wrong, and they seemed to indicate that the article was published before Sandy Hook happened.
And so that makes sense to me.
But then I throw it back at the conspiracy theorists, and I think, what?
So if this is all a big staged thing, why would the conspirators publish the article before they even committed the fake mass shooting?
So how does that make any sense on your theory?
So these are evil geniuses that are able to hatch this plan and carry it out and fool everybody, and yet they still do something really obviously stupid like publish the article about it before it even happens?
You see, that makes less sense on your theory than it does on mine, and mine is just the reality.
Grand Canyon University is an affordable private Christian university that is located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
It has a vibrant and expansive campus, ranked top 20 in the country according to Niche.com.
Praised for its culture and community, giving and impact, GCU integrates a free market system and a welcoming Christian worldview perspective into over 320 academic programs, With more than 260 programs online as of March 2023, you can earn your bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, where you can engage with faculty and connect with your own university counselor who takes a personalized approach for your success.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.
Private.
Christian.
Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
That's gcu.edu.
Also, despite the lackluster economy, The Daily Wire is thriving.
And not only that, we are hiring.
We're currently looking for an inside sales rep to join our fast-growing sales department.
As an inside sales rep, you will identify and solicit new client direct business.
This is a unique opportunity to engage with clients nationwide, to discuss advertising opportunities across multiple platforms, including podcast, display, email, Video and more.
The position is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
You will report directly to me, and I will have all hiring and firing decisions reserved for me, as they all are with all positions here.
If you're interested in joining our team, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
That's dailywire.com slash careers today.
Now, let's get to our Daily Cancellation.
And here's the title.
When I became a mother, I lost my body and realized it never belonged to me.
Now, that's actually true.
As a woman, your body does not belong entirely to you.
As a man, your body doesn't belong entirely to you.
You are not an autonomous island floating alone out in the sea.
Neither am I. I have responsibilities.
I have obligations.
I owe myself to others, especially my family.
And when I say I, That includes my body, as I am not, in this life, separable from my body.
There is no I that exists separate of my body.
They're one and the same.
I am my body.
This is why bodily autonomy is a misnomer.
It's a myth.
It's incoherent.
To be entirely autonomous in your body is to be entirely autonomous in your person, as these are one and the same.
But no person is autonomous.
We all have duties that transcend whatever claims we might want to make to autonomy.
Like, there are lots of things that you can be forced to do.
And if you are forced to do it, then your body is forced to do it.
Because again, you exist and your body exists.
They're wanting to say you are your body.
And this is especially true if you're a mother and a wife or a father and a husband.
Though it's also true of everybody, no matter their relationship status.
I, that is my mind, soul, and body all together, they're a packaged deal, I get up every morning and care for my family.
I go to work.
I do things around the house.
I pick up the sleeping three-year-old from the couch and I carry her to bed.
I lift heavy things that need to be lifted, whether physically or metaphorically.
I do all of this and many other things with my body, as my body.
And I have no right, legally or morally, to just up and declare one day that I don't want to do anything for anyone else, I don't want to be forced to do anything, even for my own kids or my wife.
That would make me neglectful and derelict, and criminally so.
There are also laws and other legal obligations that I'm expected to fulfill and obey with my body, as I do everything with my body, as my body, because, again, I am my body.
Once again, these are obligations that supersede any notion of autonomy.
So yes, it's true in this sense that my body does not belong only to me, as I myself do not belong only to myself.
I am not a self-created being existing only for whatever purpose I decide, and neither is the author of this article.
And I thought that maybe that was the realization she had come to and decided to write about.
But I was wrong.
Instead, the author, a feminist named Amanda Monte, has written not a revelation that she is a child of God who exists for a higher purpose, but rather a lament that everybody in the world, including her children, especially her children, are using and victimizing her.
This is not an expression of motherly love, but a long, weird, and weirdly sexualized whine.
It is, in other words, exactly what you expect from a feminist.
Let me read just a few passages.
Quote, When my daughter learned to walk, she began following me around our apartment, into the bathroom while I showered, studying my naked body, into the bedroom where I dressed, regarding my baggy underwear with curiosity.
It was the fall of the 2016 election, and as she watched my utterly changed body, though her eyes were kind and questioning, I could not help but recall the faces of men who had, at various points in my life, scrutinized my body with approval or reproach.
That year, her nascent voice, full of innocent inquisitiveness, also began to drown out my own thoughts, as I was reminded of the many men who had spoken over me all my life.
Motherhood, I found early on, was triggering.
Now, this is a theme that she returns to over and over again.
She compares her young children to the men that she had unpleasant sexual experiences with.
And these comparisons get even more disturbing and specific as the article goes on.
Listen to this, quote, When I got home at the end of a long day working at the daycare, I let my daughter have her way with me.
Exhausted from many sleepless nights tending to my baby, I lay on the floor of her room and let her pat me to sleep.
I did as I was told, eyes closed, half awake.
When the game was finished, she ascended me, requesting books on laps, a ride around the apartment, more breast.
I called on coping mechanisms, old coping mechanisms.
In my twenties, I had learned methods for disassociating.
I studied corners of the room while men got themselves off inside me.
I listened to their heavy breathing, calculating how much longer, moaning here and there to help them along, moving my hips methodically or going limp.
I had cleaved myself from my body long ago.
This was nothing new.
Now, it's bad enough that she needs to develop a coping mechanism to deal with the awful burden of spending a few minutes with her daughter.
Even worse, she directly compares this time with her daughter to other times when men, and I quote, got themselves off inside her.
And she keeps going on this note, quote, "Most of our sexual encounters are spent in calculations."
The feminist theorist and co-founder of the Wages for Work movement, Sylvia Federici,
writes of women, "We sigh, sob, gasp, pant, jump up and down in bed. But in the meantime,
our minds keep calculating how much, how much of ourselves can we give before we
lose or undersell ourselves? How much will we get in return?"
Motherhood was filled with an agonizing sense of calculation, of waiting, of pushing my body to
to the brink of what it could take, of counting down the minutes and of doing things I did
not want to do repeatedly.
I tried to make myself into an object that was accommodating and agreeable, but over time, I found myself wondering whether life, for some women, was just a series of moments in which we grit our teeth and watch the clock.
Now, there's a lot more like this.
It's all woven throughout the article, which apparently the author has adapted from an entire book she wrote on the subject.
She doesn't seem to understand why normal people consider it extremely disturbing to compare playtime with your toddler to an awkward hookup you had with some guy.
She doesn't understand this because to a feminist, this is second nature.
They sexualize absolutely everything.
They can't help themselves.
I mean, they see sexual competition and sexual tension and sexual conquest and sexual mind games in everything they do.
Everything that happens to them.
Everything is sexual all the time.
This is the kind of neurosis that they bring into motherhood, and it's why their children invariably grow up to despise them, and justifiably so.
But the article isn't all just this weird, wildly out-of-place and inappropriate sex talk.
There's also quite a lot of melodramatic complaining.
This is the other specialty of a feminist, self-martyrdom.
Putting themselves up on the cross.
And she climbs up on many crosses all throughout the article.
A quick sample quote.
Avoiding my own needs and desires had become a method of survival.
What I wanted in early motherhood, more than anything, was to feel as though I fully inhabited and had my body.
But all the ideas about how I should act as a mother, how I should respond to near-constant requests, demands for attention, volatile emotions, hands down my shirt, smushing my face, not to mention the complete dissolution of self I experienced outside my role as mother, Made me feel so small.
I struggled with the physicality of caring for children, which was worsened by the isolation and alienation I felt as friends and colleagues disappeared, and as my husband and I, despite our best efforts, fell into a rather traditional division of labor in the home.
She also complains that her children are ravenous beasts who devour her, reading, quote, Marguerite Duras wrote that in motherhood, a woman gives her body over to her child until they're on her, as they might be on a hill, in a garden.
They devour her.
They hit her.
They sleep on her.
Though my child's touch began as something invited, as I lost control of my life, every request, every tug felt like a violation.
She lets herself be devoured, DeRoss writes.
Nothing like this happens with fathers.
I didn't want to be devoured.
I tried very hard not to be devoured.
I would not say that I let it happen.
And she ends on this note, quote, At least on the surface, the love I shared with my young children felt uncomplicated by gender.
It was my sudden lonely house wifery that felt forced, compulsory, staged, inescapable, and recognizable.
I was living a life that seemed, as de Ross put it, to have been written down and described already.
And as with my early sexual encounters, the experience of getting what I wanted was immediately tainted by what I hadn't known before consenting.
Okay, so we see here all of the hallmarks of feminism.
One, as already mentioned, is the compulsion to sexualize everything.
Another is a fundamental misunderstanding about bodily autonomy.
Namely, the feminist thinks that bodily autonomy, absolute bodily autonomy, can actually exist, or should exist, and it can't.
Yet another is the insistence on being a victim in all things, in all circumstances, no matter what.
Notice how she describes all of her sexual encounters as horrific drudgeries that she had to cope with and endure miserably.
That's not because the encounters were non-consensual.
She did consent, but she is still a victim of them somehow.
She's the victim of everything.
She's the victim of everything that she herself does.
She's the victim even of her own children's affection.
She is cringing through life, waiting for every moment to be done so that she can get to the next moment and complain about that one, too.
She presents herself as an utterly insufferable person, a bitter, irritable, petulant harpy.
This is the picture she paints of herself, and I am quite sure that it's accurate.
It is true, of course, that women carry their own special burdens.
They have their own pains, their own suffering.
It's true that motherhood can be challenging, sometimes profoundly so.
It's true that being constantly needed by your children, constantly the focus of their attention, can at times be draining and exhausting.
Nobody denies any of that.
But you don't get any credit for facing those challenges or any sympathy for the suffering you experience if all you do is complain about it.
If you have a terrible attitude the whole time, if you are whiny and miserable and awful to be around, then you receive no gratitude from your loved ones because you don't deserve any.
Okay?
You don't deserve it.
We usually say children should be grateful to their parents, but if their parents are just miserable and resentful all the time, you know what?
Your children shouldn't be grateful for you.
They shouldn't.
To be grateful for what?
This is what happens with a woman like Amanda, and there are many such cases.
She experiences some of the ordinary hardships and difficulties that come with being a mother and a wife, and she becomes immediately bitter about it, and then even more bitter that her children and husband aren't appreciative and grateful for her sacrifices.
But what are they supposed to appreciate?
You've met every challenge and hardship with the worst possible attitude, in the worst possible way, and you have brought misery and anger and resentment into the home.
What do you want them to thank you for?
I mean, you should be apologizing to them, not expecting a thank you.
You don't get credit for simply experiencing a hardship.
Everyone does that.
Like, the fact that you're just experiencing it.
We all have to experience hardship.
There's nothing special about that.
You get credit for enduring it with some semblance of dignity and strength and courage, which it doesn't seem that Amanda ever has in her life.
And this is a point that lots of people, and not just feminists, need to understand.
We all have crosses that we bear.
And you can choose to carry yours with grace, or you can whine and cry and milk it for every ounce of pity you can get out of it.
And if you choose the latter option, then it's all for nothing.
You see, suffering is an opportunity.
It's an opportunity to become stronger, to gain wisdom, to gain perspective.
But you squander that opportunity if you whimper and moan and gripe the whole time.
Now you still have to suffer, but you aren't even becoming a better person through it.
You're actually becoming a worse person.
It's the worst of all worlds.
So you get the suffering that we all do, but none of the benefits.
None of the bright side.
You've only become smaller and weaker in the process.
Until you become an exceptionally small and weak person, like our friend Amanda, who is now today, of course, cancelled.
And that'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Export Selection