Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Republicans in the Senate agreed on a "compromise" border bill that spends four times as much on foreign aid as it does on border security. And much of the border security money will be used to make the border less secure. Another outrageous betrayal to add to the list. Also, more high school kids are arrested after a vicious 10 against 1 assault on another student. Why are these brutal attacks becoming so common? Plus, Nikki Haley makes an appearance on SNL. And Shaquille O'Neal says that men should never open up and be emotionally vulnerable in front of women. People are upset at this claim, but he has a point.
Ep.1308
- - -
DailyWire+:
Get 20% off your Jeremy’s Razors Valentine’s Day Bundle here: https://bit.ly/433ytRY
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Good Ranchers - FREE Bacon for a Year! Use promo code WALSH at checkout. https://bit.ly/3UywSAT
Ramp - Now get $250 off when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.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, Republicans in the Senate agreed on a compromise border bill that spends four times as much on foreign aid as it does on border security, and much of the border security money will be used to make the border less secure.
Another outrageous betrayal to add to the list.
Also, more high school kids are arrested after a vicious 10 against 1 assault on another student.
Why are these brutal attacks becoming so common?
Plus, Nikki Haley makes an appearance on SNL, and Shaquille O'Neal says that men should never open up and be emotionally vulnerable in front of a woman.
People are upset at this claim, but he has a point.
I'll explain why.
We'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show
February is the month of love and everybody loves bacon, which means you're gonna love getting free bacon from Good
Ranchers When you subscribe to any of their 100% American Meat boxes, they'll add one and a half pounds of applewood smoked bacon to your order for free for an entire year.
Good Ranchers sources all of their meat from local farms.
And that means that you can trust every single bite.
But it's not just about taste.
It's about the experience and memories associated with it.
Whether it's the mouth-watering smell through the kitchen on a Sunday evening, or the joy of sharing a plate of bacon-wrapped appetizers with friends, Good Ranchers has a way of creating moments that linger in people's hearts and taste buds.
So, fall in love with beef, chicken, seafood, and especially bacon all over again by subscribing at GoodRanchers.com.
Use my code WALSH to claim $240 in free bacon.
This offer is not available on their site.
It is an exclusive offer.
Only to my listeners.
That's GoodRanchers.com.
Use code WALSH for the best bacon in the USA.
GoodRanchers.com.
American meat delivered.
So the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, appears to have just won re-election by the single largest margin in modern democratic history.
The official results are not final yet, but he reportedly captured nearly 90% of the vote, which is a massive jump from five years ago when he received just a little over 50%.
Now, outside of North Korea, you don't see numbers like this very often.
They sound way too high to be real.
But, in El Salvador, they're not that surprising.
All the polls predicted precisely this outcome.
There were massive parties in the streets celebrating Bukele's re-election before it even happened.
So, when Bukele was named the winner, everybody saw it coming.
It made sense.
There were no angry mobs storming Parliament, alleging fraud, or putting their feet up on some politician's desk.
Instead, this weekend, here's what El Salvador looked like.
[Music]
[Chanting]
[Cheering]
Previously, I've gone into some detail about why Naive B.
Kelly is so popular, but I can restate it here very quickly because it's not
that complicated.
Bukele is historically popular and was just re-elected by a vast margin because he puts his own country first, he protects his own people, he looks out for their security and their well-being, and he makes his community safer and more livable.
That's it.
It's that simple.
That's the whole equation.
And any politician who does that is going to be very popular.
When Bukele took office, gangs controlled roughly 80% of the country.
And these gangs had killed more than 100,000 citizens over the past three decades, making El Salvador one of the most dangerous countries on the planet.
But shortly after he took office, Bukele started rounding up everybody affiliated with these criminal gangs, who usually are not that hard to spot because they have tattoos on their face announcing what gang they're with.
Now, this has infuriated civil liberties groups, but it worked.
Homicides in El Salvador are down 92% Compared to 2015, 90% of the country now views Bukele favorably as a result.
And again, it's not hard to see why.
They can go out at night without getting shot.
They can operate businesses without getting extorted.
Their families are much safer.
Pretty simple.
Of course, that won't stop civil liberties groups from complaining, claiming that some people in El Salvador are now falsely accused of gang involvement.
They want us to believe that El Salvador's government should err on the side of protecting civil liberties at all costs, rather than on the side of preserving the safety and well-being of their communities.
It's better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to prison, as the common refrain goes.
The problem with that argument, which is now obvious to everybody in El Salvador, is that you cannot enjoy civil liberties when there's a total breakdown of law and order.
You don't have any constitutional rights whatsoever when you're dead.
The civil libertarians had their chance in El Salvador, and they failed to safeguard civil liberties.
And it all broke down.
It failed.
History is very clear on this.
In 2012, El Salvador's president, at the time, brokered a truce with the country's most powerful gangs, MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang.
The idea was that showing leniency might lower the murder rate.
To that end, many gang leaders were transferred from maximum security prisons to low security prisons.
Gangs also had free reign to expand their territory and communicate with their leaders in prison.
What was the result of that?
Well, within two years, the truce broke down.
The violence resumed, and El Salvador became one of the most dangerous countries in the world, averaging 105 homicides per 100,000 people, which is a lot.
Let's just put it that way.
El Salvador learned from that mistake.
In fact, El Salvador's government went on to pursue criminal charges against the former president who brokered that truce.
And there's not a single reasonable person in El Salvador who believes in this kind of compromise anymore because they know where it leads.
The country is now overwhelmingly in favor of enforcing the rule of law without regard for the concerns of humanitarians or civil liberties organizations.
Whether you think that's a good outcome or not, and again, almost everybody in El Salvador thinks that it's good, really doesn't matter.
What happened in El Salvador will happen eventually in any country that disregards its duty to protect its citizens.
At a certain point, people can't take it anymore.
They restore order one way or another.
When you don't feel safe to walk outside of your house, you can only endure that for so long.
I wanted to begin with El Salvador because the situation there is such an obvious and important contrast with what just happened in Washington, D.C.
this weekend.
Unlike the leaders of El Salvador, politicians in this country are still committed to some sort of platonic ideal of compromise rather than upholding their constitutional duty to protect this country and the American citizens who live here.
To that end, even as hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens stream across the border every month, including criminals from places like El Salvador looking for, you know, a friendlier place to commit crimes, a bipartisan group of U.S.
Senators just agreed on a border deal that would do absolutely nothing to secure the southern border.
I'm going to elaborate on what this bill would do because it's such an unbelievable betrayal that it's actually hard to believe that it's real.
But before I do that, it's important to emphasize that no border bill or compromise is necessary at all.
Under existing laws, including the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the President of the United States can turn every single illegal alien away at the border if he determines that it's necessary to safeguard the country.
There is no requirement that we entertain fraudulent asylum claims, or even legitimate asylum claims, as rare as those may be.
There is no requirement that we allow a single non-citizen into this country, period.
All that's necessary to secure the border is for the President of the United States to start enforcing the law.
To start using the power that he already has, legitimately and constitutionally.
It doesn't need to be complicated.
We don't even need an El Salvador-style crackdown to accomplish this.
We just need to enforce existing laws as they stand.
But if the White House actually adopted a simple, straightforward solution to the border crisis, then two things would happen.
One, the Democratic Party would lose out on hundreds of thousands of future loyal voters because their longstanding plans for demographic replacement would be stymied in that case.
And two, Congress would miss out on a great chance to launder millions of dollars, and Congress never misses out on any opportunity like that.
So, here we are.
And here are the details.
The border proposal that the Senate is advancing would allocate another $60 billion in military aid to Ukraine.
It would send $14 billion in military aid to Israel.
That's a grand total of $74 billion that's going to other countries.
By comparison, the bill would allocate $20 billion for border security.
So, to restate, in case you're keeping track at home, Our leaders just agreed to a plan that would spend roughly 400% more tax money on foreign countries than on securing our own country.
And it gets worse.
Because even the money that's supposedly going to be used at the border, supposedly to secure our country, will actually just facilitate the illegal entry of millions of illegal aliens into this country.
Specifically, the legislation would provide another $2.3 billion to, quote, refugee and entrant assistance activities, including, quote, grants or contracts with qualified organizations, including nonprofit entities, to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services, including housing assistance, medical assistance, legal assistance, and ease management assistance.
So that's more than $2 billion to support the left-wing nonprofits that exist simply to find creative ways to sneak as many illegal immigrants into this country as possible.
We're even throwing in free legal services for illegals, just to sweeten the pot for them.
This bill is actually creating more incentives for illegals to come here in the first place.
You may have seen reporting that the bill states that the executive branch must close the border on an emergency basis if, quote, during a period of seven consecutive calendar days, there's an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.
Or if, quote, on any one calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.
That's how various outlets, including NBC News, have reported on this bill.
It's also how Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, who's supposedly Republican, has pitched this legislation.
They all say that once 5,000 people come in every day for a week, then the border is shut down.
And here's what Lankford wrote last night.
Quote, the emergency authority is not designed to let 5,000 people in.
It is designed to close the border and turn 5,000 people around.
That's just simply not true, for three reasons.
First of all, the bill gives Joe Biden the authority to waive this border emergency authority at any time.
He can simply ignore the bill effectively, and so can DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
So, I mean, that alone means that it doesn't mean anything, it doesn't do anything, because you're writing into the legislation that, oh, by the way, Biden, you could just ignore this, and so he will.
Secondly, the bill doesn't even count unaccompanied minors from countries other than Canada or Mexico in the number of encounters.
In other words, many illegal migrants from Guatemala, Haiti, El Salvador, India, Honduras, the Philippines, China, etc.
just flat out don't count towards the 5,000 total.
Like, we could have 20,000 of those show up, and it wouldn't count.
They are illegal migrants, but they're not relevant to this part of the bill for whatever reason.
And then on top of all that, the bill doesn't actually close the border, even if this fraudulent 5,000 migrant threshold is reached.
This is a direct quote from Senator Chris Murphy, one of the authors of the bill.
This is what he said last night, quote, The bill contains a requirement that the president funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5,000 people cross a day.
The border never closes, but claims must be processed at the ports.
So maybe you catch the contradiction there.
Chris Murphy, one of the bill's authors, says the border never closes.
At the same time, James Lankford, another of the bill's authors, says, quote, it is designed to close the border.
So, two authors of the bill, one is saying it closes the border, the other one says it doesn't.
So, our leaders are either liars or they're bumbling idiots who can't keep their story straight.
Or both.
Probably both, really.
But if you read the bill, the implications of the text are pretty obvious.
It says that once we hit 5,000 illegals per day, we don't actually close the border.
Instead, we direct them to ports of entry where they can make their asylum claims and then enter the country from there.
So this is a complete scam, essentially.
And it's intended to be a scam that runs for a very long time.
The bill has a sunset provision three years into the future.
The idea is to bind a future Trump administration to the terms of this deal.
Now you might say, wait a minute, let's say that 5,000 person threshold is reached and then these migrants have to report to a port of entry and make an asylum claim.
Surely you might think, well, we wouldn't simply allow all of these migrants into the country, right?
Because that would be insane.
But if you thought that, you would be wrong.
In one key respect, this border compromise would actually lessen the already minimal standards for allowing asylum applicants into this country.
Because right now, migrants who arrive at a port of entry Supposedly, need to show a significant possibility, quote-unquote, that they can establish a, quote, credible fear of persecution on the basis of race, national origin, political beliefs, etc.
That's what it requires to be, to get asylum.
Not a very high standard.
Like, it doesn't require migrants to present any evidence for anything they say.
They can just make a claim, which they've rehearsed, and then get into the country.
That's the status quo.
But this border bill would lower that standard even further somehow.
From requiring a significant possibility of persecution to a reasonable possibility of persecution.
So from significant to reasonable.
And reasonable is just another way of saying plausible.
It's like, it's possible, plausibly possible that I could be persecuted.
In other words, it's a bar that anyone from any country can get over.
So in practice, we can assume there's basically no way that anyone claiming asylum will ever get turned away, if that's the standard.
And then once these fake asylum applicants are here, this bill will shower them with new benefits, including guaranteed work permits and free lawyers.
And there are other giveaways in there as well.
For example, family units and unaccompanied minors will be released into the country when they're caught.
Like, they're not going to be detained.
They're just going to be released right away.
And I could go on, but suffice to say, this proposed bill is just an abomination.
It's not simply inadequate or ineffective at securing the border.
It makes the border even less secure than it already is, which is a remarkable feat that few, if any, people imagined was even possible.
Fortunately, it does appear as of today that the House will not consider this Senate bill.
Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise have said that it's dead on arrival.
They're not going to even do a vote on it, which is good news.
It doesn't begin, though, to explain why Senate Republicans thought this bill was reasonable in the first place.
And it doesn't get us any closer to securing the southern border, which is a necessity.
We are in this position for one reason.
Which is that we have assembled a government composed almost entirely of anti-Bukele, as we might call them.
People who despise their own citizens, and whose top priority is the safety and security of countries thousands of miles from their own shores.
And they know it.
Because when you point out their complete dereliction of duty, they don't even defend their record.
They don't offer any explanation for how they're keeping illegal immigrants out of the country.
Instead, they call you a racist, say you're a bad person for asking them questions.
In fact, that's what happened just a few months ago at a hearing in the Senate.
Watch as the DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas responds to questioning from Josh Hawley about the border crisis and listen to what he says.
Mr. Secretary, I think that your performance is despicable.
And I think the fact that you are not willing to provide answers to this committee is absolutely atrocious.
Mr. Chairman, may I?
Like, if you'd like to have a minute to respond, you are welcome to.
Oh, I would, and I'm not sure I'll limit it to 60 seconds.
That's fine.
Number one, what I found despicable is the implication that this language, tremendously odious, actually could be emblematic Of the sentiments of the 260,000 men and women of the Department of Homeland Security.
Number one.
Number two, Senator Hawley takes a adversarial approach to me in this question.
And perhaps he doesn't know my own background.
Perhaps he does not know that I am the child of a Holocaust survivor.
Perhaps he does not know that my mother lost almost all her family.
At the hands of the Nazis.
And so I find his adversarial tone to be entirely misplaced.
I find it to be disrespectful of me and my heritage.
And I do not expect an apology.
But I did want to say what I just articulated.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, can I just respond since he has referenced me personally?
Senator Hawley, we need to move on.
Senator Romney?
Oh, Senator, you want to know why I'm not doing my job, but do you realize that my mother was in the Holocaust?
What?
What?
What does that have to do with anything?
Like, what relevance does that have?
This is a guy who, under this new border bill, has total discretion over whether to turn people away at the border or not.
And Mayorkas justifies his failures on the border by commenting that his mother is a Holocaust survivor.
It makes no sense.
It has no relevance to anything.
But it does show you how little respect these people have for our intelligence.
They think we'll hear that and say, well, okay, well, never mind.
We can't criticize.
His mother was in the Holocaust, so we can't criticize him for what he's doing on the border.
All right, I'll buy that, he expects us to say.
And it's not just the Biden administration that thinks like this.
Republicans in the Senate just agreed to this bill.
And keep in mind, Democrats are getting decimated in the polls.
Most Americans do not support this administration.
There is no political calculation that justifies any Republican Party support for this proposal.
Or Republicans in the Senate backed it anyway.
Whatever the reason for that, maybe they wanted to reward their donors or interest groups, or maybe they're completely incompetent, or maybe, again, both, it's irrelevant.
These people simply cannot lead us any longer.
Nobody is buying the idea that we need a lengthy, multi-billion dollar giveaway to Ukraine and Israel in order to enforce the law and defend this country from invasion.
And most Americans want our leaders to prioritize our country before any other country.
That is not an unreasonable thing for us to want.
Nobody seriously thinks that it's appropriate to pay foreign countries vast sums of money to secure their borders, while we allocate a fraction of that money to open up our borders even more.
It's just, it's too much.
These people have looted the Treasury for too long.
Because of what they've done, America is careening at high speed toward its own El Salvador moment.
And at this point, it can't get here fast enough.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
That's why I'm so excited to introduce you to RAMP.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back into your pocket.
With RAMP, you can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions.
You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting.
Ramp's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports.
The time you save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster.
Ramp is so easy to use.
Get started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have 5 employees or 5,000.
Get $250 when you join RAMP.
Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh, spelled R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Members FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
So there's a very revealing moment on CNN over the weekend related to what we talked about in the opening.
I want you to watch as one of CNN's law enforcement analysts explains to CNN hosts why illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime in New York than in Florida.
It's a very simple and rather obvious reason that is stunning to the CNN anchors that hear this.
So watch this moment.
We don't touch our police officers.
We don't touch anybody.
Thank you everybody.
I mean we're hearing a change when it comes to immigration in general from President Biden on down.
Do you hear her talk about that?
It is also directly related to the fact that these were police officers.
Does that have any impact?
Did that change anything?
Well, it's so complicated because, you know, you're a New Yorker.
You move through the city every day as I do.
We see these people.
We touch these people.
They're out looking for work.
They're delivering our food.
They're at the gas stations and the car wash.
I mean, these are people who came in waves, you know, 170,000 probably to New York City.
But within that group, this hard-working, you know, throngs of people in search of hope and a better life, there is this one percenter, you know, criminal element that looks at a different opportunity here.
These individuals, I went over their rap sheets yesterday, multiple charges, grand larceny, robbery, attempted robbery, grand larceny, grand larceny.
This particular crew operated on mopeds and scooters.
They were doing organized retail theft.
They were doing snatches on the street.
iPhones, iPads, clothing, so on and so forth.
One of them that they are still seeking has 10 charges on one day because he's part of a pattern that's been going on.
And I'm looking at the dates that their arrest started, which is probably close to when they got here.
They've only been here a couple of months.
So what the detectives are telling me is they have crews here that operate in New York, do all their stealing, then go to Florida to spend the money, and then come back.
And I'm like, well, why don't they just stay and steal in Florida?
And they said, because there you go to jail.
Oh.
Fair point.
Oh.
Fair point.
Wow.
Speechless.
So criminals are less likely to commit crimes in places where they will actually be punished?
Is that what you're telling us?
I'm astounded.
I can't believe it.
And they were.
They were both astounded.
They were astonished by this revelation.
They didn't know what to say.
They had to stop and process it for a second.
Criminals travel from Florida to New York Specifically to commit crimes, because they'll go to jail in Florida, and they don't want to go to jail.
Like, just like anybody else.
In fact, maybe, again, if you work for CNN, it surprises you to learn this, but even criminals don't want to go to jail.
They very much prefer not to.
Most of them.
Okay?
And you have to commit crimes anyway.
So they prefer to commit them in a place where jail is less likely.
There's a lot going on here, obviously, a lot we can say about it, but most of it related to the issue of illegal immigration, which we've been talking about.
But what the guy on CNN is describing here is the simple concept, I mean, putting the illegal immigration aspect of it to the side, what he's describing is the simple concept of deterrence.
Florida has deterrence, and New York doesn't.
Florida puts you in prison for crimes, Which deters criminals from committing them in Florida.
And they go to New York, where there's basically no deterrence.
Where, as we've seen, you could be a non-citizen who commits a vicious assault, and you walk out of jail, like, flipping off the cameras, and you just waltz out, and then go wherever you want.
Get on a bus and go to California, or wherever they went.
And that's because, so, why does it work this way?
Because punishing crime is a deterrence against crime.
If you punish crime, you get less of it.
And in this case, if there's a place that punishes crime and a place that doesn't punish it, the place that doesn't will get even more crime because they're going to get the criminals who live in the places where they do punish it.
So they're going to get a kind of like crime tourism thing, which is what New York is experiencing.
And all this seems very obvious, but it was not obvious to the CNN anchors.
It's not obvious to anybody on the left these days.
And that's because in recent years, the left has bought into this absurd myth that deterrence itself is a myth.
They have decided that you cannot deter crime by punishing it.
This is what they actually believe.
This is what is taught in schools.
And it's a movement on the left that goes deeper than you probably realize.
In fact, I'll elaborate on it a little bit more this week, later on, but, you know, this idea that, like, there's no point in trying to deter crime because you can't, by punishing it.
This is an idea, this is, it's an idea that, You know, one of these insane notions that has filtered its way down from academia, and then it starts in academia, like so many other crazy ideas that we can think of, especially in recent history.
It starts in academia and it filters its way down through all of our other institutions, and then from there it makes its way into our communities and destroys them.
And this is one of those kinds of ideas.
In fact, it's one of the most insane ideas.
The idea that you cannot deter crime by punishing it.
But it's one that those CNN anchors obviously believed.
Which is why they were so stunned to learn that Florida has successfully done the thing that's supposed to be impossible.
So we'll have more on that later, as I said.
A little more crime here.
Ten Middle Schoolers Were Arrested For Allegedly Assaulting A Coney Island Classmate In A Brutal Caught On Video Bus Beatdown.
The Victim, Who One Fellow Student Later Callously Declared Deserved It And Should Have Died, Could be heard shrieking in pain as a pack of kids collectively rained punches on him in the January 26th incident, according to footage shared with The Post and posted on social media.
The boy can be seen trying to protect his head from the relentless fists while he's passed down the aisle by his attackers on an MTA shuttle bus, which brings kids to Mark Twain IS-239 for the gifted and talented.
It brings them from there to the Stilwell Avenue subway station.
The beating continues for several minutes, moving from the back of the cram bus to the front as the boys punched, slapped, kicked, and even hit with a sneaker.
In all, ten kids were assaulting this one kid.
And these are kids, apparently, from a gifted and talented school.
Because this is what passes for gifted and talented these days.
You know, I would prefer if they just got rid of the gifted and talented programs in schools than lower the standard to the point where, you know, people like this get into it.
You might as well just get rid of it.
I can remember gifted and talented programs when I went to school when I was a kid.
They had gifted and talented.
And I remember them from the outside.
I remember looking in on them.
I was never invited.
They never labeled me gifted and talented, and for good reason.
There's a very specific kind of kid that would qualify, and these were the kids who were very academically rigorous and responsible, kind of nerdy, disciplined, hard-working, you know, all the things that I was not.
And these kids certainly aren't, and yet they've made it into the gifted and talented program.
And since we're going down memory lane here, Here's something else, and every time I see one of these videos, I think about this, and if you're my age or older, you probably have the same thought.
Something else I don't remember as a kid is, I don't remember fights, quote-unquote, like this.
And we're not even going to show you the video, because you could go find it if you want, but you've seen enough videos like this.
You know what it is, 10 kids stomping the hell out of one kid.
We've seen a million of these fights now.
I don't remember that.
You know, a gang of kids stomping the hell out of one other kid, kicking him in the head.
You know, as we so often see in these videos, if the kid falls down, he starts getting kicked in the head, that sort of thing.
I don't remember that.
I went to a very, shall we say, as they say now, diverse school all through my public school career.
They're very diverse schools.
I wasn't going to prep schools for trust fund babies.
And there were fights all the time.
I'm only aware that I can remember maybe two examples in 13 years of public school where a gang of kids beat the hell out of one other kid.
Maybe two examples.
The stomping on the head thing.
That again is so common now.
Never saw that.
Never saw it.
Never heard of it.
Most of the time it's because a fight was a fight, right?
And it can be brutal sometimes.
But there was at least some sense of honor in it.
It was usually one-on-one, and you get into a fight, you go until someone breaks it up, which most of the time is how it ends, or if there's no one around to break it up, then you go until someone is on the ground and they're clearly defeated.
But now there's no honor or dignity in the way that these kids just brutalize each other.
It's a very unmanly, cowardly, even sort of effeminate way of fighting.
And I think the difference is that historically, when two men or two boys squared off to fight, whether it was like at the playground, a playground fight, or it was a duel in the 1800s, historically, the point, it was less to harm the other person, even if you did end up harming them.
In the case of a duel, you might kill them.
But it was less, that was not really the point.
The point was to prove your own courage and toughness and masculinity to everybody else.
That's what the fight was about.
And you wanted to win, not simply because you wanted to hurt the other person, but because you wanted to prove yourself.
And that's why, you know, that's why a lot of times these fights would happen in school.
Because, for one thing, you're doing it for the sake of everybody watching.
You want people to see.
Because you want to win and you want to be the tough guy.
And also, you know that someone's going to break it up.
At least they used to break these fights up.
Now they just let the kids go until someone's dead, I guess.
But at the time, like, they'd break it up.
And so, and you knew that.
You knew that someone was going to break it up.
So it was, and so it was really, it was more of like a performance.
And you might say that that's, that's wrong.
You know, it's, it's, we shouldn't encourage boys to behave that way.
Okay, well, now we don't encourage it.
You know, we say that boys shouldn't worry about proving their toughness and certainly using violence to do that.
We don't want that.
Well, this is what we get instead.
We still get the violence.
In fact, we get more of it.
But now the point of the violence is actually just to inflict as much harm on the other person as you possibly can.
Just for the sake of it.
If you jump some other kid and it's 5 on 1, and you're stomping on his head while he's on the ground, you obviously have not proven your toughness.
Like, you haven't proven anything.
You've only proven that you're a cowardly, sucker-punching little b****, frankly, is what you've proven.
But, you have inflicted maximum harm on the other person.
Which is the point now.
That's the point.
That's the goal.
Is just to, let me harm, and you heard one, as they quoted, one of the kids, he should be dead.
Like, that's the way they look at it.
Let's just kill him.
You stomp on a kid when he's on the ground, that's attempted murder.
You might kill him.
That's what you're trying to do.
Why are you even trying to do it?
I mean, most of the time, if you were to pull these kids or talk to them afterwards, like, what did that other kid do that was so wrong?
Why were you, they wouldn't even be able to explain it.
They're not even, like, mad.
It's just inflicting maximum harm on another person For the fun of it.
Just for the sake of it.
And that's what's become so common, and it's not good.
I'll put it that way.
There was some backlash against SNL over the weekend after they featured Nikki Haley in a skit.
I'll play some of this for you.
I don't have to give you cringe warnings ahead of time, but the cringe level is up to 100 on this thing, but we'll watch a little bit of it.
Anyway, here it is.
The question is, why won't you debate Nikki Haley?
Oh my God, it's her!
The woman who was in charge of security on January 6th.
It's Nancy Pelosi!
For the 100th time, that is not Nancy Pelosi.
It is Nikki Haley.
Are you doing okay, Donald?
You might need a mental competency test.
You know what I did?
I took the test and I aced it, okay?
Perfect score!
They said I'm 100% mental.
And, you know, I'm competent because I'm a man.
That's why a woman should never run our economy.
Women are terrible with money.
In fact, a woman I know recently asked me for $83.3 million.
And you spent $50 million in your own legal fees.
Do you need to borrow some money?
Oh, Nikki!
Don't do this, Nikki!
Nikki Tiki Tavi.
Nikki, don't lose that number.
Nikki Haley Joel Osment.
Nikki Haley Joel Osment, we call her.
Six cents.
Remember that one?
I see dead people.
Yeah, that's what voters will say if they see you and Joe on the ballot.
Oh, that's not very nice, Nikki.
It's not nice.
And I'm always very nice to you, except when I'm implying you weren't born in this country.
Even though you're from South Carolina, and now I'm going to beat you in your state.
So, the left was very upset about that because they allowed Nikki Haley on set, and that was an upsetting thing.
In fact, there was one left-wing activist who said that this is comedy washing.
So, you know, you've heard of whitewashing.
Well, this is comedy-washing.
And they're accusing SNL of comedy-washing.
Another conservative.
Yes, comedy-washing.
It's more like cringe-washing, if anything, based on what we just saw.
Not the finest acting performance from Haley.
Although I have to say, the Trump impersonator is very good.
That's a really good Trump impersonation.
It's, I don't know how it took SNL like six years to find a guy who can do a good Trump impersonation.
Even though there are, you can go on YouTube and find a million people who do at least a passable Trump.
And yet it took SNL the entire, Trump's entire first term, they couldn't find a good one.
They were going with Alec Baldwin for most of the time.
And they finally found a good one.
So that's at least one thing.
But the real point is that People on the left were mad about Nikki Haley's appearance, which shows two things.
First, it's that the idea that shows like SNL are left-wing.
This is not a conservative invention.
We didn't come up with the idea that these are left-wing shows.
We didn't make that up.
The left itself believes that it owns SNL, it owns every other mainstream TV show, which is why they feel so betrayed.
You know, there's this sense of betrayal when someone who is nominally supposedly not left-wing appears in a show like this.
They see it as a betrayal against them, because whether they will normally acknowledge it or not out loud, they know that they sort of own all of these entertainment properties.
That's the way they see it.
But the second point is that they have demonized Nikki Haley, of all people.
According to some of these activists, even she is so radically right wing and offensive
that she should not be allowed to appear on a mainstream forum at all.
And this is someone who is as milquetoast and liberal leaning as a Republican can possibly
get.
And they can get really milquetoast and liberal leaning as we've seen.
And yet even she, as far as they're concerned, is like persona non grata.
Even she should be banned from a mainstream society, according to many on the left.
Because if you are disagreeing with them, it doesn't matter to what degree you're disagreeing
with them.
It doesn't matter how agreeable you try to be as you disagree with them.
It doesn't matter how nice you are about it.
It doesn't matter how much you try to compromise.
It makes no difference.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
You know, you're still an enemy.
You're still a bigot.
Whatever, all the labels somebody would put on, they'd put on someone like me.
As an actual radical right-winger, you know, militant right-winger, stochastic terrorist, whatever they want to say about me.
All those labels that they put on me, even someone who's much further left on the spectrum, as long as you're on the right side of the spectrum in their view, they're going to put the same labels on you.
They don't draw any distinction.
That's the crazy thing about it.
That from the left's perspective, they really don't see any...
Relevant distinction between Nikki Haley and, like, me.
We're all the same, as far as they're concerned.
And what's the lesson from there?
The lesson is, what's the point of trying to compromise?
What's the point of trying to be nice?
It won't make a difference anyway.
Whatever you're trying to accomplish with it, it won't matter, so you might as well go all the way.
And stop all the niceties.
All right, finally, this is from the Daily Wire.
Utah lawmakers advanced a bill this week to prevent the granting of inherent rights to nature, a movement gaining momentum among environmental activists.
House Bill 249, the Utah Legal Personhood Amendment, declares that only mankind may enjoy the legal rights and obligations of personhood.
The Utah House bill passed on Tuesday and now faces consideration by the Senate.
The bill expressly prohibits the granting of legal personhood to any artificial intelligence, inanimate object, body of water, land, property, atmospheric gas, astronomical object, weather, plant, non-human animal, and any other member of a taxonomic domain that is not a human being.
Republican State Senator Walter Brooks brought forth the bill amid efforts by environmental activists to leverage current U.S.
law to grant legal personhood to the Great Salt Lake.
Brooks explained during the House floor vote on Tuesday that a constituent brought the movement to his attention, a request he believed was unjust, until he did his own research.
Brooks said the bill was common sense.
So, this is not a movement that's getting very much attention except in Utah, I guess.
But this is something that is being pushed by environmental activists in particular at this point, and it's happening more and more recently.
Where, as it said, they want to grant personhood rights to non-persons.
And, just to look into the crystal ball here for a minute, I would predict that in 10 years, this will be, maybe not, in the next 10 years, might not even take 10 years, this will be a major issue.
Because it's the next logical step, once you've broken down all of the definitional lines, as they have.
They've broken down the lines between man and woman.
They've also broken down the lines that define personhood already.
They've already done it.
They've blurred it into obscurity by the abortion movement.
So the stage is set.
It's set for a world where when someone says the word person, you have no idea what they're talking about.
I mean, you know what a person is.
Hopefully, if you still have your wits about you.
But when someone else says it, because of how confused society is, you won't know what they're talking about.
Because they could be talking about a person, or they could be talking about a cow, or a lake, a rock, a computer.
You know, you hear this term, transhumanism, which is generally understood as the sort of melding of human and machine.
And the transhumanist dystopia is one where a person is half person and half computer, basically.
But this is, I think, another element of transhumanism, another way that it will manifest itself when personhood or human being, when that status is granted and also denied in this utterly arbitrary way, according to the whims of the elite, which, as we know, is already happening, and it will only continue from here.
Let's get to, was Walsh wrong?
Referencing Richard Dawkins, he did a podcast with Helen Joyce about the trans issue, and he apologized for not coming along sooner.
He just wasn't aware of A, how serious it was in scale, and B, the damage it was doing to women's sports and private spaces, etc.
Another comment says, I don't think it's a smart idea to attack people for being late to an issue.
Dawkins may not have spoken up earlier, but he is now.
That's all that matters.
Well, it's not all that matters.
All that matters isn't that you speak up at some point eventually.
The timing does matter, and I'm glad that he's apparently acknowledged and apologized for being so late to it.
And I do, as I think I said last week, I generally find it annoying.
When conservatives do this thing where they yell at people for not talking about a certain issue or not talking about it sooner or not talking about it enough or in the right way or whatever, this endless kind of purity spiral that you see on the right, I'm the target of it all the time because whatever I'm talking about, I'll hear from a hundred people mad at me for not talking about something else.
And even the people who are happy that I'm talking about the thing are gonna say that I should have talked about it differently, or whatever.
It's always something, okay?
No matter what you're focusing on, there's always a million other things that people tell you.
Well, you're ignoring this!
What's going on?
Have you been bought out, you grifter?
Are you getting paid to ignore this one other random arbitrary issue that I've selected that I think you should talk about?
So.
I find that highly irritating and I get it, but this issue is different.
It just is.
Trans ideology is simply the craziest thing that human beings have ever come up with.
And it's one of the most destructive ideologies in human history, so it's a unique kind of insane evil.
We are not omniscient or omnipresent.
We can't be everywhere talking about everything all the time.
But some issues just cry out for special attention.
Some issues you just have to pay attention to and speak out about.
And this is one of them.
And lots of people who knew better did not speak out about it.
Including people... It's not just... Talk about someone like Richard Dawkins.
He's not just some random person.
He's a biologist.
So...
It's in particular people who were in professions that are very relevant to that issue, had a special obligation to speak up, and he did.
And on top of that, he's not only a biologist, but he's a biologist who has positioned himself as a defender of science against attacks, what he perceives to be attacks on science, which is all the stuff, the outspoken atheism, going after religious people and all that.
For many years, as he has.
Well, okay, here's an attack on science, like an actual attack on science, because belief in God is not, but here's a real attack on science, coming from the left.
Where are you?
Really nowhere to be found until recently, and that's the problem.
You're wrong on the tampon story.
If it was you in high school, that tampon dispenser in the boys' restroom would stay up for at least two hours because in a sane world, you'd have to prove it was there before tearing it down.
I'd run through the halls telling my friends to see it and laugh and then destroy it.
That's actually a good point.
If they had put a tampon dispenser in the men's room when I was in high school, originally I said it would be gone within seconds, but no, I guess it wouldn't.
You're right.
You'd be so stunned to find it there that you'd have to let everybody know.
Everyone would have to come see it first so they could believe that they actually put a tampon in the men's room.
And then, once everyone has seen it, once they've laid their eyes on this hilarious sight, then you tear it down.
I don't agree with encouraging children to be bullies.
It's good to teach our kids not to go along with the gender craziness, but they also have to learn respect for others.
Respect for others, you have to qualify that a little bit, because I don't teach my kids to be bullies.
Yes, we should teach our kids not to be bullies.
My point is that the anti-bullying crusade We went way too far, to the point where we were telling kids to, we went way beyond bullying, right?
In an effort to not be a bully, we've encouraged our kids to be pushovers and to just accept things that are unacceptable, all in an effort to not be a bully, and that's what I have a problem with.
As far as respect goes, I don't teach my kids to respect everybody universally, regardless of that person's conduct.
I teach them to be respectful, sure, but they should be respectful in the same way that they should be peaceful.
That's the ideal.
That's kind of the default position.
You never want to be the person who introduces non-peaceful behavior, introduces violence into a situation.
But I don't tell them to be peaceful towards everybody, regardless of how that person is towards them.
Obviously, you have to be able to defend yourself, defend your loved ones, and that might require being non-peaceful in some circumstances.
And the same goes for respect.
I want my kids to go into any interaction with another person ready to respect them, ready to show respect, going in with a respectful attitude.
But if that person carries themselves, conducts themselves in a way that is not deserving of respect, then they shouldn't receive respect.
And this is even more the case when it comes to ideas and concepts and claims about the world.
No, we should not be automatically respectful of any of that.
If it's an idea that is ridiculous, such as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys, it's a ridiculous idea.
And you should treat it as ridiculous.
You should show that idea no respect whatsoever.
That's, um, I think how we should be teaching our kids.
Valentine's Day is coming up fast, and Jeremy's has the perfect gifts to surprise your better half.
Whether you're shopping for him or her, Jeremy's has a bundle that they'll love, from delicious chocolate, to smooth razors, to the iconic Leftist Tears tumbler.
And to celebrate, Jeremy's is offering a deal that you will love.
Get 20% discount on all Valentine's Day bundles.
That's right, 20% off, but you have to act fast because today is the last day for shipping on time for Valentine's arrival.
This offer is only here for a limited time.
Go to jeremysrazors.com right now and order our Valentine's Day bundle before they're gone.
Jeremy's Valentine's Day Sale, the best way to treat your Valentine and yourself.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
But this time, it will be the first time that the conversation begins with Shaquille O'Neal.
Recently, Shaq made some comments on his podcast, that he apparently has a podcast, and the comments went viral, led to a fair amount of blowback.
During the course of the conversation, the NBA legend cautioned men that they should never be emotionally vulnerable in front of a woman, ever, under any circumstance, according to him.
And here's his reasoning.
Watch.
The day you fall off, that woman ain't as interested as you think.
Yeah, once you start complaining and dragging your feet.
She don't want to hear no complaints.
The day you come home and think you could be like, baby, I was down.
I lost it.
She gonna stroke your ego, but she gonna remember that time.
You cannot let them see you one time down.
The world can't see your head down one time.
Ever.
So I'd say people stay up.
I want you both to know that you can.
No.
And I know that you've... Cannot.
I don't want to get into like Dr. Phil right now.
No, but I think... You don't think you've ever had someone that you really could trust and really open up?
Now, if you want to keep... Now, if you want to give somebody else some coochie all the time, you know what I'm saying?
I'm saying, if you want to bail, I'm just being real.
No, I guess... Open up to a woman?
Yeah.
Never.
No.
Never.
When's the last time you think you've opened up to a woman?
We don't.
Yeah, your whole life.
Bro, I'm telling you.
We got players like, I can, me and him related.
Yeah.
It's our first time meeting.
Yeah, I can tell you guys, there's some connection here.
Oh, no.
And they gonna tell you you can't.
Because you know why?
But it's a trap.
Because you know why?
I'm trapped.
No, no.
I'm gonna tell you why.
Cause once you do, whenever something go down, they gonna throw it back in your face.
That's, I've had that.
That's why.
That's why.
So you can't ever.
That's why you cry cause your dad left you.
Yeah.
So, you should never open up to a woman, because if you do, the woman will store that moment away in her brain and throw it back in your face at some point in the future.
That's the argument Shaq is making.
Interestingly, there's one guy of the three who initially takes the position that you can and should be emotionally vulnerable with women, but even he, by the end, admits that he has personally had the experience of having his vulnerability used against him by a woman that he had opened up to.
Just kind of interesting.
Now, we should note that Shaq is divorced, and therefore not necessarily the sort of man that you should consult for relationship advice.
Even if he wasn't divorced, I'm not sure why you would consult him for relationship advice.
He's also making a general statement that seems to be informed more by his own personal experience than by any broader insight into male-female dynamics.
And his experience is not universal.
You know, he's describing a kind of cynicism and manipulativeness that It's obviously not anywhere close to universal among women.
It's certainly not how my own wife operates, so I know that not every woman is like that.
But with those caveats, there is still some truth to what he's saying, and the truth is very important to understand.
So let's work through it.
First of all, I think some of the sort of angry reactions to Shaq's comments, the sort of reaction you see any time a man says something like this publicly, ironically lends validity to the very point that the angry people are arguing against.
Like, by Shaq saying that you can't open up to women because they'll throw it in your face, he is himself opening up.
He's obviously talking about his own experiences, and it's an experience that many men, as you can also see in the comments about this clip, have had.
So once again, we see how society says men should open up, and then a man does open up, and society responds, not like that.
It's apparently Shaq's experience that his emotions are used against him by the women in his life.
To yell at him for sharing that experience is to say that he should not have shared it.
So which is it?
Do you want men to share or not?
And the fact is that even if his experience isn't universal, it is common enough that it resonates with a great many men.
If a bunch of men are saying that they have revealed vulnerabilities to their girlfriends or wives only to have those vulnerabilities cynically exploited or used as ammunition in arguments weeks or months or years down the line, the appropriate response, especially if you do in fact want men to open up, is to ask why this is happening and why some women behave that way.
It's not to get angry at the men for sharing those experiences, experiences that they are not all making up in some sort of patriarchal conspiracy, right?
Some men have this view of women because these are the kinds of women that they have encountered.
The Red Pill and MGTOW movements, which I've criticized plenty of times for plenty of reasons, are driven at least in part by the fact that a lot of these men are resentful and broken down after having been abused in this way by these sorts of women.
To assume that they're all exaggerating, that they're simply a bunch of sexists, is to, again, validate the claim that men shouldn't be emotionally honest.
But this is not just a matter of spurned men who have closed themselves off because of their experiences with manipulative, scheming women.
There's a seed of truth here that is, in fact, universal.
The problem with Shaq's point is that it's too absolute.
He says, well, never open up.
Never, ever.
Well, if you never open up to a woman at all, then you'll be entirely emotionally closed off.
This is an extreme level of stoicism that even I find excessive, because your wife married a human being, not a tree stump.
You need to have some emotion, or there will be no connection, no understanding between the two of you, and then there can't be a real relationship.
But these days, we've gone way too far in the other direction, right?
We've massively overcorrected, as we have with pretty much everything else.
And men are encouraged, in theory, in theory, to be completely vulnerable, to air all of their fears and anxieties, to be sensitive, to cry, and so on.
Society bids a man to be as emotional as a woman because society denies that there's any essential difference between the two.
And then, when a man accepts this invitation, he quickly discovers that it doesn't work in practice the way it works in theory.
And that's because men are supposed to be strong, resilient, self-contained, and to a large degree, though not absolutely, more stoic.
No matter what the culture says, This is how a man is meant to be.
And it's also how his wife and his family need him to be.
And it's how his wife and family want him to be, even if they don't say it, or even know it.
Even if they say the opposite.
They say they don't want that.
Actually, they do want it.
And the truth of this point is indisputable if you stop and think about it for two seconds.
So, consider this hypothetical.
Husband and wife are driving on a back road at night.
Car breaks down.
Maybe we'll throw in that you don't have cell reception.
It's a back road, so you're not able to call anybody.
Now, the woman is frustrated, nervous, scared, maybe starts to cry.
Situations like this have played out a billion times.
There's nothing unusual about it.
Women often cry when they're frustrated, nervous, and scared.
And they do.
Like, we're not going to deny that.
And a man, if he's a responsible and manly sort of man, he'll try to calm the woman.
And he'll remain calm himself.
He won't think any less of her for being emotional.
He probably won't even remember it a day later.
Like, when he thinks about breaking down, he's not going to think about the fact that his wife got emotional and started to cry.
Because there's nothing particularly notable or disturbing about that.
You know, seeing his wife get emotional in situations like that.
Now, on the other hand, Imagine that they're driving down that same back road at night.
Car breaks down.
And the man starts to cry.
Okay?
The woman in the seat next to him could be the most dedicated feminist in the world.
She could be as progressive and supposedly enlightened as they come.
She could have told her husband many times in the past that she wants him to show more emotion.
In fact, she could have been in the process of giving him that speech when the car broke down.
But, if he cries in that situation, She will be extremely disturbed and frustrated and frankly disgusted.
She'll be disgusted by the sight.
And no matter what she says, no matter what she might proclaim publicly, she will think less of him after that.
Any woman would.
We all know that.
So, there are a great many situations like this where a woman's expression of raw emotion would be totally unremarkable and unproblematic, but a man's expression of the same emotion, in the same way, in the same situation, would make you lose all respect for him.
And that's because, regardless of what anyone claims, men are men.
They are not women.
And when push comes to shove, we expect men to act like men and not women.
Now, there are millions of people in this country who will bristle at a statement like, men shouldn't act like women.
And yet, every single one of them, without exception, would be repulsed by a man crying because his car broke down.
And a woman who cries in the same situation, they'd feel sympathetic for.
And we all know that.
And there are many situations just like this.
Now, wives may think that they want to see more emotional vulnerability from their husbands, but they don't want that much of it.
Like, they only want a certain amount.
And oftentimes, when they get a little more of it than they realize, you know, they get a little more emotional vulnerability, then they start to realize that they kind of preferred how it was before.
Generally speaking, a man should control his emotions, keep many of his fears and anxieties to himself, and be a source of consistency and stability for his family.
Does that mean that a husband can't tell his wife if he had a bad day at work or something?
No, of course not.
Yeah, you could share that, but if he's complaining about his bad day at work every day, and he's whiny about it, or if he comes home in tears, and he's had a really bad day, and he's crying about it, the way that women will sometimes, if he does that, well then she's going to get annoyed, and she's going to lose respect for him.
And, you know, on top of that, if he has some bigger, deeper, but still sort of ambiguous and amorphous anxiety, most of the time it's going to be better if he doesn't share it with anybody, including his wife.
So, for example, think about a man who has a non-specific general worry that he might lose his job.
And I don't mean that he's told he's going to be laid off or that some specific thing happened that makes it highly likely he's going to get fired.
In that case, of course, he should tell his wife.
I mean, just a generalized fear that he wrestles with and that causes him psychological pain, that he's just kind of worried about, not any specific reason, he's just kind of worried that he's going to lose his job.
Well, it's probably best, in most situations, if he doesn't share that with his wife, because all he will have done in that case is spread the anxiety around.
offloaded it onto his wife's shoulders while not even succeeding in alleviating any of his own burden.
He still feels all the same burden, and now he's kind of given some of it to her, and now his wife feels anxious and insecure and vulnerable, all due to this information that she can't do anything with or about.
And that's why the manly thing to do, in many cases but not all, is hold on to that worry, work hard to make sure that his fear is not realized, while he allows his family to live with a sense of security that he himself doesn't feel.
This is heroic masculinity.
It's the kind of thing that the whole world depends on to keep functioning.
Now, it's a man's job to shoulder emotional as well as physical burdens, I guess is the point.
So when we say that a man is a protector and provider, it includes in this psychological and emotional sense as well.
Like most men will never have, so we say men are protectors.
You know, if we only mean in the physical sense, it's kind of like we're letting ourselves off the hook.
Because most of us will never have the opportunity to protect our families from physical armed invaders in the home or something like that.
Most men these days, in the Western world anyway, will never have that chance.
Thankfully.
But they do have the opportunity to protect their families from instability, anxiety, and emotional chaos.
Which means that the man stands in the way, taking the brunt.
Because he's strong enough to endure it on his own.
Like, go back to the husband and wife in the broken down car, just for the example.
There's no doubt that the husband will have all kinds of worries going through his mind in this situation.
Like, what if the car has a serious mechanical issue that will cost more money to repair than they have in savings?
What if some murderous drifter comes along while they're stranded on the side of the road?
You know, he's gonna think about that too.
What if a million other bad things happen as a result of this circumstance they find themselves in?
But he shouldn't say any of that out loud.
He shouldn't share it.
No, he should not open up in that situation.
His wife can, and most likely will, But his job is to be a calming and competent presence.
It's what his wife wants him to be, no matter what she says in theory.
It's what she wants.
And if he unburdens himself of all of his fears and worries, it will make the situation worse.
And she'll resent him for it.
Now, why is this the case?
Most fundamentally because, again, men are men and they're expected to act like it.
Even a society that pretends it doesn't expect men to act like men, or even that there's no such thing as men acting like men, still actually does expect it.
Which is extremely unfair to men, that we have this expectation, that society has an expectation for us that society denies it has, so we're getting gaslit all the time, but it is what it is.
Also, in the context of a marriage, the family relies on the man for its own sense of safety and security, and the man is really the only person in the family who can provide that.
This is a calling that only the man can fulfill.
The wife looks to her husband to feel safe.
The husband does not look to his wife to feel safe.
He doesn't look to his children.
Everybody looks to him, and he looks to no one.
Like, this is the burden of leadership.
Eventually, it ends with you.
Like, eventually, the buck stops with you.
Everybody turns to you, and you better have answers because you can't turn to anybody.
So to illustrate my point, when I travel for work, my wife and my kids, they feel less safe in the house without me.
And when I'm home, everybody sleeps easier.
So my presence in the house gives everybody this sense of security.
But when I'm home alone, on a few occasions when it's happened, and my wife and kids are gone, I don't feel any less safe.
I do tend to be wracked with worry, but it's because I'm worried about them.
And when they come home, I rest easy knowing they are safe.
Not because I feel safer with them around.
That's because that sense of safety is something that only I can give as the man of the house.
I can't receive it from any of them, really.
This is true of physical security and security in pretty much every other sense.
My family turns to me to know that they are secure, and I don't turn back to them looking for the same reassurance.
Now, emotionally, a man looks to his wife for many things.
He looks to her for her kindness, affection, love, warmth, humor, companionship.
Many, many things.
But he doesn't, or shouldn't, look to her for a sense of security and safety.
Like, he has to bring that to the table.
And if he doesn't, his family and his marriage will suffer.
So, does that mean that he can't open up?
No, it doesn't always mean that.
He can open up sometimes, to some extent.
But if he opens up so much and so often that he begins to project a sense of weakness and instability, then he will have gone too far and said too much.
You cannot be so vulnerable as a man that those who depend on you now also feel vulnerable.
Which means that you keep some things to yourself.
You contain some emotions, and you just don't reveal them.
It's tough, but that's what it means to be a man.
It's the gift we give to our families.
And it's the most generous kind of gift, because it's the kind that they don't even know they're receiving most of the time.
But there's a lot of honor and dignity in that.
And anyway, that's why the people yelling at Shaquille O'Neal are today cancelled.
We had to bring it back around, and we finally did.
