Ep. 1606 - The Real Reason Why Pride Month Is Now On Life Support
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a gay leftist journalist with adopted children attacked me as morally deranged recently for saying that gay men shouldn’t adopt kids. Now a video has been released showing that same leftist journalist engaged in his own extremely morally deranged behavior with a male prostitute. Also, another terrorist attack in the US—this one targeting pro-Israel protesters. And Tinder has added a new feature allowing women to filter out short guys. Also, a female conservative pundit says that birthrates are declining because women want families but men are lazy and too busy eating DoorDash in their mother’s basement. Is that what’s actually happening?
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1606
- - -
DailyWire+:
LAST CHANCE, don’t miss the DailyWire+ Memorial Day Sale—get 40% off an Annual Membership with code DW40.
Check out Jordan B. Peterson’s new show, Parenting, exclusively ON DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/4moWlu0
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
ExpressVPN - Go to https://expressvpn.com/walsh and find out how you can get 4 months of ExpressVPN free!
Home Title Lock - Go to https://hometitlelock.com/walsh and use promo code WALSH to get a FREE title history report so you can find out if you’re already a victim AND 14 days of protection for FREE! And make sure to check out the Million Dollar TripleLock protection details when you get there! Exclusions apply. For details, visit https://hometitlelock.com/warranty
Responsible Man - Visit https://responsibleman.com promo code WALSH for 50% off your first shipment.
ZipRecruiter - Go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter FOR FREE: https://ZipRecruiter.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
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a gay leftist journalist with adopted children attacked me as morally deranged recently for saying that gay men shouldn't adopt kids.
Well, now a video has been released showing that same leftist journalist engaged in his own extremely morally deranged behavior with a male prostitute.
We'll talk about that story.
Also, another terrorist attack in the U.S., this one targeting pro-Israel protesters.
And Tinder has added a new feature allowing women to filter out short guys.
Also, a female conservative pundit Is that what's actually happening?
Well, we'll talk about all that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
We'll be right back.
Okay, this is it.
Your final day to save 40% on your new Daily Wire Plus membership.
Visit dailywireplus.com and use code DW40 to join now.
Privacy has become a luxury in this country, and that's honestly pretty messed up, because here's the thing.
You can't have real freedom without privacy.
They go hand in hand.
So, who gives privacy?
Not the regular, everyday person.
The government hoards it in classified documents while they buy our personal data from brokers and track everything we do online.
But here's what's interesting.
There's actually a way to flip the script and take back some control.
That's where ExpressVPN comes in.
ExpressVPN creates a secure tunnel for all of your online activity through encrypted servers.
So data brokers can't see what you're doing, which means their customers, government agencies, and big tech are left empty-handed.
Here's the crazy part.
In just the last year, ExpressVPN got over 400,000 requests for customers' data from tech companies and government agencies.
How many times did they hand it over?
Zero.
They can't share what they don't collect.
I personally use ExpressVPN every time I travel for work.
It gives me peace of mind knowing that my sensitive emails and financial information are safe, even on sketchy hotel or airport Wi-Fi.
And it's simple to use.
One click and you're protected on up to eight devices so your whole family can get their privacy back.
Right now, you can get an extra four months for free when you use my special link.
Go to expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
Get four extra months of ExpressVPN.
That's exprssvpn.com slash Walsh.
As we predicted a while back, the most irrelevant and low-energy Pride Month in the history of Pride Months is officially underway as of June 1st.
The LGBT movement is currently coming to terms with the reality that after years of browbeating everyone into tolerating and then applauding and then participating in disorder and dysfunction, people are simply too disgusted and annoyed to put up with it anymore.
And the signs are all over the place.
The city of Boise, far-left stronghold in an otherwise very conservative state, just canceled its Pride Month kickoff due to insufficient attendance.
This is the same city that proudly named the so-called Pride flag as an official government flag just a few weeks ago when the mayor claimed that the city is solidly behind the gay agenda.
Turns out he might have overstated the case a little bit there.
Meanwhile, major corporate sponsors like Meta, Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Something called Heritage of Pride, which organizes Pride events in New York, says they're losing hundreds of thousands of dollars this year.
The future of the organization is now in jeopardy, and it's the same situation in Canada, if you can believe it.
Google and Home Depot, along with Nissan, Adidas, and Clorox, have pulled out of the Toronto Pride Parade.
Leaving organizers to speculate about whether the event will even be able to take place in the future.
And they're also seeing similar problems in Florida.
Watch.
LGBTQ organizations across the country are reporting substantial cuts in funding, stemming from corporations pulling their support away from sponsoring Pride events.
Organizers say it's a direct result from many corporations ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs in alignment with Trump administration policies.
From last year to this year, you know, it's like a total 180.
Jameer Batiste is with Stonewall Pride Wilton Matters, which will celebrate its 25th year, June 14th.
Batiste says the event has seen about a 20% decline in corporate support.
We can't go back into the closet.
Bruce Horwich with Miami Beach Pride, which just took place back in April, says it too saw a significant cut in funding from corporations.
And international visitors.
Progress is made slowly.
Unfortunately, right now, it's not two steps back or three steps back.
It's probably about ten steps back.
It's why organizers are calling on the community and its allies.
Show up.
Don't be deterred.
Now, they'll blame the Trump administration for cutting funding.
They'll demand that the community send them more money.
But under no circumstances will they change their behavior.
They won't stop twerking in front of children or engaging in sex acts in public, which is what happens at a lot of these pride parades, or glorifying the chemical castration of children, which they inaccurately call gender affirmation.
But millions of Americans are very aware of what the so-called LGBT Pride movement actually stands for at this point.
And that's why if you walk into your local department store, You'll probably see similar indications that the downfall of pride is upon us.
A woman named Caitlin Francis just uploaded these two photos showing a side-by-side comparison of a Southern California Target store.
Now, the image on the left is from June 1st, 2024.
The image on the right, it was taken yesterday of the same spot in the same store.
And as you can see, they've replaced the LGBT colors and the shirt saying trans people will always exist.
With clothing that reasonable people would actually wear.
They've got American flag shirts instead of the LGBT propaganda now.
So it's almost as if Target, like every other major corporation, has realized that normal people vastly outnumber the far-left activists that they've been pandering to.
Indeed, with each passing year, Americans are increasingly aware of what the LGBT agenda actually is and what it entails.
They're realizing that all of the promises of the so-called "gay rights movement" have been fraudulent all along.
Assad is crumbling, and it's crumbling really quickly, in a matter of days in some cases.
And if that sounds overstated, consider the rapid and recent downfall of the leftist journalist named Glenn Greenwald, who's become fashionable in certain corners of the populist right in recent years.
Now, in case you're not familiar with Greenwald, he broke the story that the NSA was engaged in wide-ranging secret surveillance of American citizens, which without a doubt was a It's made Greenwald's career, by all accounts.
And then with his newfound credibility, Greenwald grew his audience as a political commentator more generally.
And he also started speaking out with this newfound authority about things like gay and trans rights.
And in this capacity, Greenwald publicly attacked me just a few weeks ago.
Specifically, Greenwald took issue with Let's watch it again.
A child being in foster care is far from an ideal scenario.
It's very, very sad.
A child going to two gay parents I think is worse.
I think it's easily worse, actually.
Why?
It's just more disordered.
It's more confusing for the child.
Again, neither scenario is good.
We don't like either thing.
I don't see going to gay parents as an improvement over what they had before.
Do we know that it screws kids up or we just sort of intuitively know it?
I think we intuitively know, but also there's been plenty of studies done about the mental health effects of kids that grow up in these, you know, single sex situations.
There's been a lot of studies done about it, but honestly, I don't...
you can look at the studies people will fact check and they're there.
It's the same thing with the trans topic.
Now, that episode was posted on April 30th of this year, and one day later, on May 1st, Greenwald responded to me by writing this.
Quote, one has to be morally deranged or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters, and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support, to believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples.
Close quote.
Now, Greenwald went on to personally attack me several other times.
For example, in response to another post on X, he wrote, quote, Walsh's hatred for gay people vastly outweighs his self-glorifying, professed love for the children.
So, to recap, he says that gay men should be allowed to adopt young boys.
He says it's far better than the alternative, which is leaving the boys in orphanages or foster care until a heterosexual couple can adopt them, not leaving them there permanently.
That's not what I advocated for.
I advocated for making sure that every child gets to a loving, stable home with a mother and a father, which is a possibility foreclosed for children who are given to homes with gay parents.
But Glenn says that when I argue my position, I'm not actually interested in protecting children.
He says that I just despise gay people because he's apparently able to read my mind.
And above all, he claims that I am morally deranged.
Yes, for adhering to traditional conservative and Christian principles about the family, I am deranged.
For having the exact same view on this topic that nearly every human on Earth has had since the dawn of civilization, I am deranged, he says.
Glenn Greenwald, who is gay himself and has adopted two young boys and then a third child more recently, is, in his mind, the one exhibiting moral clarity and decency.
Now, in case you're one of the lucky ones who hasn't heard the news, Recent events have called Glenn Greenwald's own moral character and suitability for fatherhood into question, to put things about as mildly as possible.
In fact, they've made it clear that this guy has, again, to put it mildly, a lot of gall accusing anyone else of being morally deranged.
And we know that now because, well, in summary, footage was just posted that depicts Glenn Greenwald, a 58-year-old man with three adopted children, dressed up in a maid outfit.
And performing debauched sex acts on an unknown adult male.
And at one point, it looks like Greenwald licks up the guy's spit and sucks on his toes as part of some kind of humiliation fetish.
And there's also what appears to be drug paraphernalia in the shot.
And then Greenwald sends a few thousand dollars via PayPal while on camera suggesting that prostitution is involved.
Now, I'm not going to play any of this footage or show images of it for obvious reasons.
It appears to be current.
And people are saying also that Greenwald himself briefly reposted the video, although I didn't see that.
In any event, after this footage was released, Greenwald did not state that it was fake or anything like that, beyond a vague claim that some of the leaks were, quote, distorted.
He didn't deny that there were drugs in the footage either.
Instead, he stated that he had no embarrassment or regret about his behavior.
He said the footage had been posted without his consent and said that his behavior didn't harm anyone.
And on the drug point, someone on X directly asked Greenwald about the apparent meth pipe in the video.
And Greenwald responded and did not at any point deny it or give any assurance that he is not using hard drugs.
Instead, he said this, quote, The point I've made from the start is that the moral and ethical code I believe in for my own life is one that I am satisfied and I am fulfilling.
The fruits of my personal and professional life and the values they represent speak for themselves.
I'm quite proud of them, and I feel no obligation to confine myself to the various moral codes others profess to believe in when it comes to private behavior.
My personal and private life is something I'm proud of, but don't consider anyone else's business and is certainly not something that should be publicized without my consent.
Above all else, it's not something I feel any need to try to justify to others.
I am perfectly content if others disapprove of those choices even strongly because they are fully aligned with my own moral He's asked about the meth pipe in his fetish video filmed by a male prostitute, and his response is that he's proud of the decisions that he makes in his personal life.
And then Greenwald went on in a different comment to attack Donald Trump.
Specifically, Greenwald suggests that he's morally superior to Trump and invoked the various unproven allegations of sexual misconduct that have been made against the current president.
Which is one of the most flagrant and grotesque examples of deflection imaginable, but Glenn very clearly has no shame, so he went for it.
Now, watching this sad and sordid display, some conservative commentators, including some who I really like and respect and consider friends and still do, have defended Greenwald by saying that his private life is none of our business and that these acts were performed by, quote, consenting adults.
And so essentially sort of adopting Greenwald's position that he hasn't harmed anyone and that everyone should just, you know, therefore drop the story entirely.
Now, before we get into the main reason why that's not true, before we talk about the people, the three people in particular, who are very definitely harmed by this behavior, before we get into that, it needs to be said that Glenn Greenwald, the To all appearances, he did it voluntarily.
He's looking right into the camera.
And that's very significant.
Because the moment you allow some random guy to film you while you're on your knees dressed in a maid outfit, I mean, you can't really cry about the fact that your privacy has been violated.
You did it on camera.
You did that to yourself.
Here's an idea.
Don't film something if you don't want other people to see it.
Let's put that up on the big board as a life lesson that shouldn't need to be said out loud, especially not to a 58-year-old man.
At a minimum, Greenwald is the fool who decided to let someone film all of this in the first place while he was busy licking up spit from the ground.
So let's just dispense with the whole sob story about privacy and a smear campaign right away.
And by the way, not only did he let someone film it, But he apparently let a prostitute film it.
So this is not a morally upstanding and trustworthy person.
This is not someone that any sane individual would trust with sensitive material like that.
Second, an act can be consensual and yet still be depraved and disgusting.
And in Glenn's own words, in a term that he has lobbed himself at other people like me, the act can be morally deranged at the same time.
Okay, consent is just one of the things that makes a sex act or any other act involving another person moral.
It's not the only thing.
There have been several stories in the so-called LGBT community about men consenting to their own mutilation, even murder.
That doesn't make it ethical or moral.
It doesn't mean that we should tolerate it or accept it.
It certainly doesn't mean that we can't form moral judgments about the behavior and rational judgments about the character of the men engaged in those behaviors.
Once again, this episode demonstrates why consent-based morality is so flimsy and weak and ultimately useless.
What makes an act moral cannot simply be that the people who committed the act did it on purpose.
There has to be more to it than that.
And everybody fundamentally knows that, which is why if you saw the Greenwald video or you saw images from it or even just heard me describe it just now, it triggered your disgust reflex.
It made you feel revulsion because you recognize that it is depraved.
And no amount of consent will change that.
But the most important issue here, and this gets back to what I said on Tucker's podcast and why Greenwald attacked me in the first place.
Is the fact that Greenwald adopted two young boys in Brazil back in 2017.
As their legal guardian, he is responsible for their survival and their development and their moral formation at the single most crucial period in their lives.
He's supposed to be their role model as well as their guardian.
But, as this evidence would demonstrate, he is neither.
His behavior raises obvious questions about his capacity to raise kids.
And those questions become even more urgent when you take a closer look at this particular family's history.
So for one thing, you look up Greenwald's biography on Wikipedia.
It's heavily sanitized, but it's still pretty revealing.
And as the story goes, Greenwald met his future quote-unquote husband, David Miranda, in Brazil when Greenwald was 37 years old and Miranda was just 19. So that's an 18-year age gap.
And how did that happen exactly?
Well, if you read the official narratives, you're told that Greenwald was on some kind of vacation, then he happened to bump into Miranda on the beach, they moved in together in just a few days.
Specifically, New York Times reports that out of nowhere, Greenwald's 19-year-old love interest, quote, accidentally knocked over Mr. Greenwald's drink with a ball, and then the magical romance commenced.
Now, of course, there was no New York Times reporter on the beach in Brazil when this fairy tale supposedly took place.
Presumably, they're just taking Greenwald's word for it.
Whatever we do, we're not supposed to conclude that this chance encounter on the beach had anything to do whatsoever in any universe, potentially, maybe, with the fact that Miranda was, quote, the son of a prostitute who, quote, dropped out of school when he was five.
And we're definitely not supposed to think that this little encounter was related in any way to Greenwald's short-lived career in the gay pornography business from back before he made it big in journalism.
Now, if you're a very credulous person, Then it's possible that you might take all this at face value without asking any questions.
But that's not really the relevant standard here.
The standard is not, could Glenn Greenwald possibly be telling the truth about his life story?
The standard is, should Glenn Greenwald be given custody of several small children, given everything we know?
Okay, that is the thing that matters here.
It's the kids.
It's not, is Glenn Greenwald a good journalist?
That's not the most important question.
There are kids involved here.
And he has the burden of proof.
Because the consequences of a mistake are extremely severe.
A mistake in who you send the kids to.
We're talking about the well-being of children.
And Greenwald has consistently failed to meet this burden of demonstrating that he should have custody of these children.
The question is, can we say with confidence, given everything we know, that the Greenwald household is a safe place for two young adopted male children?
Or let's look at it this way.
If this video of Greenwald in a maid outfit licking the feet of an apparent male prostitute with apparently drugs involved, hard drugs, Had been posted before he adopted these boys, does anyone, even people who think gay adoption should be legal, does anyone actually think that the adoption agency would have or should have allowed him to take custody of those kids?
I mean, the apparent drug use alone would be enough to rule it out.
Or bringing this back to my original point, does anyone doubt at this point?
That his adopted children would have been much better off if they'd remained at an orphanage until a healthy couple composed of a man and a woman had adopted them.
Can anyone really deny that, given everything we've just seen from Greenwald's own personal situation, that, you know, that's the case?
Now, to be clear, the point here is not to attack Glenn Greenwald personally.
He's the one who launched multiple personal attacks against me before I ever said a word about him.
The point is to emphasize that what I told Tucker back on April 30th is true.
There's a very good reason that male couples should not be able to adopt children.
Greenwald has demonstrated it.
It's not by random chance that within a month of Glenn Greenwald accusing me of being a horrible person for saying gay men shouldn't raise children, that he's been outed as a guy who films apparently drug-fueled gay fetish porn with male prostitutes.
I mean, you know, gay men are...
That's not some kind of accusation invented by bigots.
It's just what all the data says.
All of it.
And it's what any rational person can observe.
Hollywood and the corporate press has spent something like 30 years trying to sell the idea that gay couples are, you know, just like straight couples and they want nothing more than to raise children in a wholesome, stable environment, even children that aren't theirs.
They claim that, you know.
That's what we've been told again and again and again.
What they didn't tell us is that the true worst-case scenario is far more troubling and far more common than most people can possibly imagine.
But the secret's out at this point.
Pride parades are collapsing because the vast majority of Americans have come around to realizing what exactly the LGBT movement is really pushing for.
Just in time for Pride Month, Glenn Greenwald has made it abundantly clear with videotaped evidence why children should only be adopted by stable two-parent households with both a mom and a dad.
Here's the key point.
Here's the key point of all points, okay?
That's what the children have a right to.
Every child has a right to a mom and a dad.
It's what nature intends.
It's how God designed it, and it's what every child is entitled to.
Okay?
And we should be a lot more concerned with the rights of these children than with the desires of men like Glenn Greenwald.
Now, yes, if you say that out loud, they'll call you morally deranged.
They'll say your views are backwards and outdated.
But it doesn't matter what they think.
What matters is the well-being and safety of children who cannot defend or speak for themselves.
Children belong with a mother and a father.
And as the esteemed journalist Glenn Greenwald himself has just demonstrated with video evidence, the consequences of denying this truth are dire.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Have you checked your home title lately?
Most homeowners never do, but with the growing amount of digital scams targeting property owners, it's more important than ever.
With modern technology, criminals have found an alarming way to steal your home equity.
They simply forge your signature on a document, add a fake notary stamp, pay a small county fee, and just like that, your home title gets transferred without your knowledge.
Once they control your title, they can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property entirely.
The worst part, you might not discover anything's wrong until you receive an unexpected collection notice or foreclosure letter.
My producer, Sean, uses Home Title Lock to help protect his home and loves their service and the peace of mind they provide.
Don't wait until it's too late.
Take a moment right now to verify your home title status and protect what's likely your biggest...
Use promo code Walsh at HometitleLock.com to make sure your title is still in your name.
You'll also get a free title history report plus a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.
That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud should happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it.
Go to HometitleLock.com now.
Use promo code Walsh.
That's HometitleLock.com, promo code Walsh.
Daily Wire reports the suspect in the firebombing attack targeting a pro-Israel demonstration in Colorado.
He's believed to be an illegal alien from Egypt to overstate his visa after it expired.
Sources of the Department of Homeland Security say that the suspect in the attack, Mohamed Sabri Salaman, 45, is an Egyptian national who entered the United States during the Biden administration and overstayed his visa.
Salaman is believed to have entered the country in August 2022 on a visa that expired in February of the following year.
The Egyptian national filed an unknown claim to DHS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Several people were injured Sunday afternoon at a Boulder, Colorado rally in support of the Israelis taken hostage by Hamas terrorists after a man set people on fire while yelling, Free Palestine and End Zionist!
Police arrived at the scene and found the victims had injuries consisting with burns and other injuries.
The FBI said that six people were taken to the hospital with injuries and that a witness of the suspect in the attack used a makeshift flamethrower and threw an incendiary device into the crowd.
And the and the and the And Tulsa Gabbard and Dan Bongino have spoken about this and made it clear that this is being investigated as an act of terrorism, which it very clearly was.
So this is more violence committed by someone who shouldn't be in this country, and we'll continue to be told that somehow right-wingers present the greatest terrorism threat that this country faces, and yet all of the terrorism in this country is being carried out by leftists, Illegal immigrants and or these free Palestine militants.
And obviously there's a lot of overlap, as there was like all three categories overlapping in this case.
But it's not white American conservatives.
I mean, they're not the ones throwing Molotov cocktails or attacking Tesla dealerships or storming the stage during a concert like they did in Seattle we talked about last week.
Or trying to kill the president or killing Israeli embassy workers in D.C. That last one was carried out a couple of weeks ago by a guy named Elias Rodriguez, who is a communist and a BLM activist.
So it's pretty clear where the threat is coming from, and it's way past time for everyone to be honest about the threat.
You know, we talked about this last week when Antifa attacked that Christian concert in Seattle, and a much less severe situation because they didn't throw any Molotov cocktails, thankfully.
Then can be applied to this attack in Boulder or any of the others that I mentioned, which is that when it comes to leftists and their allies, they are a unique terror threat.
They are a unique danger because they believe that people who disagree with them have no right to exist.
And that's not hyperbole.
It's actually true.
It's what they believe.
And they're pretty open about it.
I mean, most of these people, if you ask them, these are the same people who cheered on Luigi Mangione.
You know, it's another example.
Essentially a terrorist act.
And if you ask them about that, I mean, they're pretty open about it.
Why did they cheer on Luigi Mangione?
Well, because his victim had no right to live.
Why didn't he have any right to live?
Well, because they cast him as the villain.
And whether he was a villainous person or not, in this great stage play that they're putting on, if they cast you as a villain, it means that it's like being the villain in any horror movie.
It gives a moral license for them to kill you.
It means that you have no right to exist.
And again, they're very clear about this.
And they believe that...
They live in a world where there are genocides happening everywhere, including in this country, which there is a genocide happening in this country, by the way, but that's the one that they support, which is the genocide of the unborn.
They're fine with that.
But they find all these other genocides constantly happening that are totally imaginary.
And anyone who opposes them on any issue is a co-conspirator in the plot.
So killing them is self-defense.
There's a genocide of trans people happening.
Completely imaginary.
Totally made up.
But anyone who says something trans people don't like is a genocidal maniac.
And deserves to die.
And there are a few labels that they can use that provide them in their minds the moral justification to commit violence.
Genocide is one.
That's what they're doing.
Anytime they say, oh, you committed genocide.
I've been accused of being involved in genocides.
Anytime I say something, again, that trans people don't like, LGBT people don't like, somehow I'm involved in a genocide.
But all that really means, the reason why it's just them saying, It's basically them putting a bounty on you.
That's what it is.
This is like the Old West putting up the wanted poster.
Dead or alive, but preferably dead.
That's all it is.
It's them sending the signal that, okay, this person has no right to live.
So when they use the word genocide, that's what they're doing.
When they use any racist, homophobe, any colonizer is another one.
If they call you a colonizer, then they have the moral right to kill you.
That's why I've been making this point for a long time.
Back during the campus protests that were happening a couple years ago, or last year, I guess, the decolonization movement is inherently violent.
It's all a pretense to commit violence.
That is basically all that left-wing political activism is.
Really.
I mean, all left-wing political activism is either violence, In and of itself, or it's building a case for violence.
It's either violent, or it's about establishing a pretense for violence.
All of it.
Like, 100% of the time.
And we see that here again.
Well, speaking of genocidal maniacs, I wanted to mention this.
Cory Booker gave a speech on Saturday in California and...
But let's put it up on the screen so you can see it.
This gesture that Cory Booker did.
Do we have it?
Okay, let's go ahead.
There it is.
Play that again, because a lot of people...
It's quick, but it's very disturbing.
Yep.
And that's been playing in a loop in my mind.
It's so horrifying.
Because as you can see, he did the Nazi salute.
He did the exact same gesture that Elon Musk did.
The exact same one.
Hand over heart, then straight out.
That's the gesture that he did.
And if you recall, when Elon did that, everyone in the media and the Democrat Party accused him of doing a Nazi salute.
So that's what Booker must be doing.
And I'm stunned.
I had no idea that Cory Booker was a Nazi.
I knew that he was an attention-starved, overgrown child.
I knew that he was completely useless and incompetent.
But I didn't know that he was a Nazi.
I honestly didn't.
And here's what Corey's camp is saying.
And, and, you know, obviously given that he's a Well, given that he's a Nazi, you can't trust anything that he says.
But Newsweek reports, a spokesperson for Cory Booker told Newsweek on Sunday that the New Jersey senator...
Cory Booker was obviously just waving to the crowd.
Anyone who claims his wave is the same as Elon Musk's gesture is operating in bad faith.
Maya Krishna Rogers, spokesperson for Booker, told Newsweek, the differences between the two are obvious to anyone without an agenda.
Sorry, Maya, that's not going to fly because this is how it works now.
Remember?
The intentions behind a word or gesture are not determined by the person who says the word or makes the gesture.
They're determined by whoever is most offended by the word or gesture.
Those are your rules.
That's the rules that you guys have set up.
That you don't get to speak to your own intentions, your own motivations, your own meaning.
You don't get to speak to that.
Whoever is offended by whatever you said, it's their meaning.
It's their interpretation that matters most.
And I have to say, I'm deeply offended, and I would wager that everyone in my audience is, too.
I am among the people, the legions, who are profoundly disturbed and offended by that gesture.
I'm scared, actually.
To be honest with you, I'm terrified.
Let me just tell you the truth.
I could barely sleep last night.
I was tossing and turning.
And I had this image in my mind.
Of Cory Booker doing the Nazi salute.
I was terrified.
Okay, trembling.
So I have, then, the moral right to decide what Cory Booker meant by that.
Because I am so shaken by it.
I'm literally shaking.
Not right now, but I have been.
I was able to pull myself together and do this show, just barely.
I have the moral right to decide this.
Anyone else offended by it does.
He doesn't have that right.
We say it was a Nazi salute because we're offended by it, and that's how this works.
So those are their rules.
That's the rules they've set up, and that's just how it goes now.
Cory Booker's a Nazi.
It's a fact.
Fact.
Cory Booker is factually a Nazi.
That's it.
You can't, I mean, I'm not putting an alleged on it.
Let me be clear about it.
He's actually a Nazi.
That's how I feel.
I feel that he is.
And I feel that that's what that gesture meant.
And so he is.
That's all.
Alright, we've talked about Tinder recently and how generally awful it is and how men in particular shouldn't use it, but really nobody should use it.
Here's more evidence to support that claim.
TechCrunch reports, So they're adding a height preference.
And this is a feature for women, obviously.
I mean, men can use it too, I guess.
Women are the ones concerned about height.
I've never met a man who cares about a woman's height.
I mean, if she's freakishly tall or something, if she's taller than me, that might be an issue for some guys.
But generally, height is not something that men are thinking about with respect to women.
So this is a feature for women to filter out or at least get recommendations that filter out short guys.
And as I said, this is just more evidence for why you shouldn't be on the dating apps in the first place.
We've already talked about how the deck is stacked against men on the dating apps.
There are fewer women, and the women get on average much, much, much more attention than men get.
So it's stacked against men, but really for both men and women.
The whole thing is so dehumanizing.
It really is.
It doesn't have to be.
You can have dating websites, matchmaking type services and so on, and dating websites that aren't dehumanizing, that are actually trying to help people who are serious adults looking for serious relationships find other people who are serious adults or looking for serious relationships and have the same kinds of values.
Those kinds of sites used to exist.
Maybe they still do.
I don't know.
But that's not Tinder.
Because Tinder treats you like an object.
And when I hear about Tinder, it reminds me, every time I hear something about Tinder or some new update, it reminds me, You know, the real estate website where you can go and find houses that are for sale if you're looking to buy a house.
I have no experience on Tinder.
I have a lot of experience with Zillow because we've purchased a lot of houses, one at a time.
I'm not saying we only own one house.
I'm saying we've moved a lot.
So we've had to, one at a time, we've bought houses and sold them, unfortunately.
So we've switched houses many times.
So anyway, on Zillow, you can narrow down your search with like this extensive list of specifications.
And there are specifications that Because it's kind of arbitrary.
You might put, when you're looking for a house, you might put that you want to see houses with three-plus bedrooms.
And so it's only going to show you that, but there might be a house with two bedrooms and a bonus room or some other kind of room that you could make into a bedroom that has all the other things you're looking for.
And it's an affordable price and that you would have wanted to buy, but you're not going to see it because it's, it, it.
And this is what you do when you're looking to buy an object.
You get really specific and choosy.
I think everyone is like this.
And it's this weird thing where even if you're kind of desperate for a house, I mean, I've been in this situation too, kind of desperate for a house, you need to buy a house, even You don't have a lot of money.
So it's not like you have dozens and dozens of options to choose from.
You're kind of in a, like, you think in a sort of a beggar's camping chooser situation.
You still become picky about weird things because online shopping, even online house shopping, just has that effect.
And you scroll through all the houses.
You see one that you kind of like.
You swipe through the pictures, right?
And, you know, and then you see something like...
And then you just move on to the next house.
And like I said, you can get this way about house shopping on Zillow, even if you're kind of desperate for a house, even if you don't have a lot of money.
This is just how online shopping, this is what it does to you.
This is how it is when you've got so many options, and you can be so specific and so picky.
Including about things that don't actually matter that much or things that you could change about the house and wouldn't cost you much to do it.
Still, that's how we're programmed to be when we're shopping for something online.
And it's one thing when your mind works this way, when you're looking for an object, like a house or a car or, I don't know, fishing lures.
I just bought a bunch of new fishing lures, so I'm thinking about that.
So you can do that with objects.
The problem is that dating apps seem to make you look at people that way.
Tinder is like Zillow for people.
Or Amazon for people.
And that's a really bad thing.
Because people are not objects.
They're people.
And you're going to do the same thing you do with Zillow, where you put in your physical specifications that you want.
And you're almost definitely weeding out people who you could have had a very meaningful relationship with.
You could have married them.
Because maybe they didn't fit one little specification that you had.
But they got everything else you could possibly want in a person.
And that other thing really doesn't matter that much.
But you're not even going to see that person because you've weeded them out.
And so it's just...
This is not how human relationships work.
It can't work this way at scale.
It never has.
There's no precedent for it.
There's no analog to this in human history.
This is not how people...
And on top of that, the specifications aren't even evenly applied.
Because if you're going to allow women to narrow down a search based on height, then as many people have pointed out, and I agree, you should allow men to narrow specifications based on what is important to them physically, which would be weight.
Fair is fair.
Height to women is like weight to men.
Only the weight bias is a lot more justified because, for one thing, weight is a choice.
Like, if you're overweight, I don't care what you say, you are choosing that.
You don't have to be.
You could eat less and lose weight.
That's the laws of physics.
It will happen.
So it's a choice.
And also, if someone is severely overweight, it does actually reflect poorly on their character.
It doesn't mean they're bad people.
It doesn't mean they're irredeemable, certainly.
We all have flaws.
I'm not saying that, but it is a character flaw.
I mean, you're wearing your character flaw.
That's an unfortunate thing about gluttony, is that you wear your character flaw.
On you as in the form of body fat so people can see it.
There are plenty of character flaws a person might have that are just as bad, but you don't wear it.
You don't sort of advertise it publicly so people don't see it.
But even so, it is a character flaw.
It is a choice.
And so sort of having a bias against women who are severely overweight is much more reasonable than having a bias against men who are short because a man's height It's not a choice.
It doesn't reflect his character at all.
And so if you're going to allow that, if you're going to allow that kind of bias, that kind of specificity, that kind of pickiness, if you're going to allow those specifications on the site, then you should also allow it for weight.
And yet, Tinder doesn't do that, and I don't think any site does that.
Because if they did, that would be seen as some sort of attack on women.
That would be seen as Then we'd have this whole thing about body positivity.
Even though, again, it's a lot more important, body positivity is mostly a nonsense concept because it's applied so often to things that are actually flaws that are changeable.
And so you shouldn't be positive about them.
You should try to change them.
But if body positivity could be legitimately applied to anything, it'd be something like height.
You know, if you're a short guy, like, yeah, you should just be positive about it.
And this is the body God gave you.
You can't change it.
So that's an area where that should actually apply, but we don't apply it to that.
Anytime someone talks about body positivity, they're never talking about height.
They're always talking about something like weight, something that can be changed.
So it's all bad all the way in conclusion.
Let's get to the comment section.
If you're a man, it's required that you grow up in A. We're the sweet baby gang.
We're the sweet baby gang.
Summers here and seasonal businesses are desperate to hire, from kayak instructors to berry farm managers and beyond.
People with these niche skills are suddenly in high demand, and let's be real, they're not easy to find.
Whether you're hiring for one of these roles or any other role, Well, you do that with ZipRecruiter.
And right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter's smart, matching tech finds the perfect people for your jobs.
Post your job and instantly see qualified candidates match to your needs.
And when you spot someone amazing, ZipRecruiter helps you reach out right away.
Just use their ready-made invite-to-apply messages to personally connect with your top picks.
Here at The Daily Wire, we're always looking for top talent.
Having the great features ZipRecruiter offers would make hiring a breeze for any business owner, big or small.
Gear up for the summer with ZipRecruiter's high-speed hire See why four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
Just go to this exclusive web address right now to try ZipRecruiter for free.
ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh.
ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Matt, I need to tell you about the newest member of the Sweet Baby Gang.
My son, one and a half years old.
We read Johnny the Walrus to him, amongst many other books.
Often, anytime we get to the zookeeper, we say Matt Walsh.
He then brought us the book today and called it Matt.
You have a fan.
Well, you're raising him right.
That's good to hear.
And I can tell you that our youngest are about that age.
They're a year older, two and a half years old.
Twins.
And they also love Johnny the Walrus, except they call the book Daddy, and they can't wait to get to the page with the zookeeper, and then they point to it and shout Daddy.
So they've got great taste in literature at their young age, which is a good sign, and so does your son as well.
Couples counselor here, and Matt, you're exactly right about going to bed angry and fighting versus arguing.
There's a great deal of reliable research supporting these ideas, and they're echoed by the Gottman Institute.
These are more than just wise observations.
They're also scientifically sound.
Well, there you go.
See, I could be a counselor myself.
And I actually mean that.
I'm not qualified for much in life.
I realize that.
But I am qualified to be a counselor.
Only because a good counselor just requires having basic common sense and not being afraid to say things out loud that are sensible.
Which is a bar that the vast majority of counselors, I'm sure with the exception of the person who left this comment, it's a bar that the vast majority of counselors do not actually reach.
So not only am I qualified to be a counselor or a therapist, but I, in fact, am vastly more qualified than the vast majority of counselors and therapists that are working today.
And so are you, if you have a I mean, on average.
Matt, you say it's okay to go to bed angry, but I think you mean go to sleep on the couch angry.
No, I meant bed.
I meant bed.
You know, this whole, I'm sure I've commented on this in the past.
I know that I have.
But this whole, my wife made me sleep on the couch thing is incredibly cringe.
I think it's dying away a little bit.
You know, it's kind of a sitcom, a 90s sitcom motif.
But you still see it.
You still see comments like this all the time.
I see these comments.
And I get these comments a lot if we're talking about gender dynamics or something.
I say anything that people perceive to be sexist or whatever.
These comments, oh, Matt's sleeping on the couch tonight.
I hate these kind of comments.
I've always hated it.
No, I'm not sleeping on the couch.
I'm sleeping in my bed.
I'm not getting kicked to the couch like I'm some kind of child.
Like I'm the dog being told to get out of the bed.
I'm sleeping in my bed.
Which has never been an issue.
By the way, because my wife has never and would never try to tell me that I can't sleep in our bed.
14 years of marriage, that has never happened one time.
But if I were one of these husbands whose wives try that move, and I get in bed and she's mad, how does that even work?
Is that actually a thing?
Based on how often I hear it, it seems like this is a real thing and not just something from sitcoms in the 90s.
And so I'm just wondering, in real life, how does that work?
You get in bed and your wife says, no, no, mister, you're not allowed to sleep here.
Get out of your own bed in your own bedroom and go somewhere else.
And then what?
The men say, okay, sorry, honey.
Oh, I don't have permission to be, oh, I'm sorry, I'll go sleep on the couch until you, let me know when I have permission to come back into my own bed.
I'm so sorry, honey.
I'm so sorry.
No, if I were one of these husbands and I had a wife that tried that, I would say, oh, so you don't want to share a bed with me tonight?
Well, okay, well, then you're free to go sleep on the couch.
I'll be sleeping in my bed that I bought in my own house, in my own bedroom, but you can go sleep wherever you want.
I'm not going to stop you.
Dude, that's the way this is gonna work.
You're the one with the issue, so you can leave.
That's what these husbands should say, but...
Then again, if they were the type of men to say that, then their wives wouldn't be trying to kick them out of bed in the first place.
Like if they were the type of men who would ever say anything like that, actually sticking up for themselves, having any kind of a freaking spine.
And also, by the way, if a spouse, if you go to bed angry because you're upset at each other, and one spouse or the other decides that they want to storm off to the couch of their own accord, well, you can do that, right?
You also shouldn't do that either because I think that that, yes, if you're upset, just like I said, just go to bed.
Just go to bed, calm down, go to bed.
And if you decide you still need to talk about it tomorrow, talk about it tomorrow and you'll be rested.
And so nothing bad can come of that.
There's a lot bad that can come of just trying to hash it out while you're tired and it's like 12 o 'clock at night now.
But if you are going to do that, you should still sleep in the same bed because setting this precedent of, well, I'm not going to even physically be near you because I'm upset, I think that that sets a bad precedent.
Part of my go-to-bed angry strategy is that not only are you going to bed and both of you will calm down and you'll just wake up rested and refreshed, but also the act of going to bed in the same bed.
Where you're at least physically near each other and not yelling at each other.
And yes, you're sleeping.
But just that alone, I think, that's part of why the go-to-bed-angry strategy can work.
So, don't go to the couch.
Finally, are there any Matt Walsh fans who would trade a show every Friday for another movie?
An hour or less?
You know, I understand your point, but not all 90 minutes are created equal.
And films, if done well, have a kind of power that a podcast episode just never will or can.
And, you know, I mean, I've done what?
Like, what are we on?
I've done 1,600 hours about of this podcast.
1,600 hours.
And that's a lot.
I've done three hours of movies, right?
They're both about an hour and a half.
I would wager that the three hours of movies that I've done have had more influence on the culture and are more remembered and had, in general, a greater impact than the 1,600 hours of podcasts combined.
And, you know, I don't say that to knock podcasts.
I still do this podcast every day or almost every day now, four days a week.
I think it has value.
It does matter.
If I didn't think it had value, I wouldn't do it.
It does matter.
Like I said, I put a lot of work into it.
I care about it.
If I'm going to do something, I'm going to try to do it well to the best of my ability.
But films, art, entertainment, if you do that well, can speak to people in a way, kind of using a language that just is not accessible in podcast form.
That's the power of storytelling.
So, yes, if you're looking at it just by the number of hours, it's a loss.
But if you look at it in terms of impact, then I think that this is a gain.
I think that ultimately you gain from it.
You know what this country needs more of?
Strong men, mentally, physically, and morally.
But most men these days aren't operating at full strength.
Worn down by long days, poor sleep, and worse nutrition.
That's why I recommend Responsible Man, a new line of supplements built for men who lead.
No fluff, no fads, just what your body actually needs to perform.
It starts with Emerson multivitamin, 33 physician-formulated ingredients to support your energy, focus, heart, and immune system.
It's not your grandpa's centrum.
And now Responsible Man has released their new product called Theodore Protein, named after Theodore Roosevelt.
It's built to fuel the kind of strength and grit that modern men are, you know, very often missing.
With 25 grams of premium American-made whey protein and no junk fillers, it closes the gap fast.
Here's the deal.
Go to responsibleman.com, use code Walsh, and get 50% off your first order.
Strong men build strong families.
And a strong country.
ResponsibleMan.com.
Code Walsh.
All right.
This is your final chance.
Last day.
So listen up.
If you're not already a Daily Wire Plus member, you need to fix that right now.
Today only.
New annual memberships are 40% off with code DW40.
That gets you all of our daily shows unfiltered and ad-free.
Our entertainment library, including my blockbuster documentaries like What is a Woman and Am I Racist?
But if you're not a member, you get none of it.
Go to DailyWirePlus.com.
Use code DW40 and save 40%.
It's the last day.
Don't miss it.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
For our daily cancellation today, we turn to a segment on Laura Ingram's show featuring conservative commentator Tommy Lahren.
A clip from this segment went viral over the weekend with Tommy doling out some tough talk for young men who she says are lazy and feminized.
Tommy has been on this subject for a long time and we'll have more on that in a minute.
Let's start with this most recent segment.
Here it is.
Listen.
It's a major problem.
And, you know, Speaker Johnson has been talking about those maybe deadbeat folks that are on Medicaid, and maybe some of those folks are the stay-at-home sons.
We don't know.
But I'll tell you this.
Leave it to Gen Z to rebrand laziness and social awkwardness as something cutesy, like a stay-at-home son.
They did much the same thing with quiet quitting, where you can go to work and do less.
And if you call it quiet quitting, it's somehow better.
But, Laura, I got to tell you, this is also a big problem when it comes to, I think, declining Birth rates, people not getting married and having children.
You know, that's a big problem.
They blame it on women.
Well, look at what young women have to choose from.
The pickings are slim.
Yes, we might have a feminism problem in America, but it's the feminization of men.
There are a lot of young women out there that want to get married.
They want to have kids.
They want to have stable families.
But there are a lot of young men out there who want to live in mama's basement and order DoorDash.
And therein lies a big part of the problem.
So, Tommy blames young men for the declining birth rates, saying that women want to get married and have children, but men would rather stay in mama's basement and order DoorDash.
It's an interesting accusation coming from a 32-year-old woman who, as far as I know, doesn't have children.
Her Wikipedia article, at least, mentions a chihuahua, but no human children.
But in any case, Tommy, as I mentioned earlier, has been on this subject for a long time.
She's spent the last several years blasting men for their incompetence and their insufficiency.
In fact, the last time she was featured on the Daily Cancellation was five whole years ago when she said this.
Now, I've often talked about the vacation of America and how men are no longer men.
Maybe it's just the guys in Los Angeles.
It is not just the guys in Los Angeles, Nashville, Dallas, and they're not any better in the Midwest.
They, quite frankly, I think they're trash all over this country in the age range of about 20 to, I think, about 55, maybe even 60. A lot of men are trash.
A lot of men don't know how to treat women.
A lot of men are trash, she said five years ago.
Men are trash all over this country, was her exact quote.
That's the kind of statement that if I said that about women, I would be denounced by both sides as a radical misogynist and likely domestic abuser.
It's the kind of statement that you cannot say about any broad demographic except men.
I mean, imagine saying, you know, Those are unacceptable statements in polite society, but a lot of men are trash.
Men are trash all across the country.
Is commentary so acceptable and normalized that we hear it even from pundits on the right?
Let's go back to what Tommy said not five years ago, but five days ago on Laura Ingraham's show.
Again, she said, quote, young women want families.
Too many young men want DoorDash and Mama's Basement.
Now let's leave aside how insulting and dismissive this statement is.
The much greater problem is that it's just simply inaccurate.
In fact, polls have consistently shown for years now that young men are significantly more likely to desire family life than young women.
There are more young men who want to start families than there are young women who want to start families.
And these are not like the findings of Andrew Tate or the red pill youtuber, you know, but of research firms like the Pew Research Center.
Let's put it that way.
And according to a recent Pew study, 57% of men between the ages of 18 to 34 want to be parents someday.
For women in the same age bracket, the number is only 45%.
So yes, less than half of young women, Want to be mothers.
As opposed to nearly 60% of young men who want to be fathers.
And this is not just Pew Research Center claiming this.
Multiple polls over the past two decades and across the world have found that young men are more likely to want children than young women.
There was even a poll done in Nigeria a couple of years ago that found the same kind of gender gap.
So this is a very consistent finding, which means that there just isn't any evidence to support Tommy's claim.
In fact, the data tells us that it's young women who, more often, Would prefer DoorDash and Mama's Basement.
And it's not just that women don't want kids.
Reading now from a New York Post report from April, quote, Women have certainly come a long way, no longer feeling the need to put a ring on it due to social or cultural pressures.
It turns out U.S. women are ditching the traditional idea of marriage and instead choosing to live their best single lives.
And the proof is in the data.
According to a 2023 Pew Research survey, almost half of U.S. women didn't view marriage as an important element of a fulfilling life.
The percentage of women looking for romance is on a steep decline.
According to a 2022 Pew survey, only 34% of single gals were looking for a serious romantic relationship, which is down from 38% in a 2019 survey.
So, not only are a majority of young women not looking to start families, the majority aren't looking for any kind of serious romantic relationship at all.
That's what basically all of the studies and surveys tell us.
Now, I'll be the first to say that most studies are fake, but in this case, they also line up with our anecdotal observations.
Social media is full of videos of young women glamorizing single life.
This is a whole genre of videos that we've played and talked about many times on the show.
Here's just one recent example.
Ended up with a good guy until I figured out how to truly love being single and doing things alone.
I don't think we give enough credit to single women who love being single because there's still the whole childless cat lady trope out there.
Like, you can enjoy life alone.
You don't need somebody to bear witness to your joy to make it exist.
Well, actually, I have to tell you, you can't really enjoy life alone.
You can't.
You do need someone to bear witness to your joy to make it exist.
Happiness is only real when shared, in the words of Christopher McCandless moments before he died alone in the Alaska wilderness.
If it were possible to be happy completely alone, then it would be possible to find people in solitary confinement who live in a state of total bliss.
It'd be possible to be stranded on a deserted island alone for 10 years and actually enjoy the experience.
But almost no human And that's because we are human beings.
We're not trees or spiders.
We desire companionship.
Which is why these single women who are happy alone actually spend their whole lives searching for a way to replace the companionship of a man.
That's why these single women still have one-night stands.
It's why they become obsessed with their pets.
It's why they go on podcasts to talk about how happy they are.
It's why they post about it on social media.
They are looking for human connection and validation and companionship in other forms, some form that will sufficiently replace the form of a man who loves them and is devoted to them.
And they never find it.
And so they are never really happy, no matter how desperately they claim otherwise.
Now, women aren't the only ones giving up on marriage and family life, but they are giving up on it more often and in greater numbers.
In fact, there is a distinct difference, even between the Young men who have given up on family life and the young women who have given up on family life.
Even when you compare those two groups, the men and women who both say that they're not going to get married or have kids, there's still a difference.
And the difference is this.
The young men usually have given up on the idea of having a family despairingly because they think it's not an attainable goal.
The young women give up on it happily because they think being childless is a path to personal empowerment and freedom.
Now, in my pretty extensive experience talking to young men who plan to be alone and single forever, almost none of them are happy about it.
I don't think I've ever heard any of them claim that they're empowered by this decision.
They have resigned themselves to the fate because they believe, wrongly in my opinion, You know, I have no doubt that some young women have also given up on dating out of a similar sense of despair and hopelessness, but it seems much more common that they'll cast their decision as empowering and objectively good in and of itself.
In other words, a man gives up on getting married and having kids because he feels like he has no choice.
A woman gives up on it because she feels that giving up on it is the best choice.
And I think both are wrong, but one is wrong for a worse reason.
But this isn't just about pointing fingers and establishing who is more to blame for the problem.
The point isn't even what Tommy said.
It's what she didn't say and never says.
It's what almost no conservative female pundit in the mainstream will say.
Now, we've heard all of them scold young men.
We've heard their tough talk and supposed tough love targeted young men.
We've heard that for years.
Well, my question is, when will they start directing even an ounce of that criticism and that toughness towards young women?
You know, I call young men out on this show all the time.
I challenge young men to work harder, to improve themselves, to toughen up all the time.
I talk about that all the time.
Just ask a lot of the red pill YouTuber guys who don't like me for that reason.
So I'm not afraid to do that.
Do the same for young women.
Why won't any of these female pundits do that?
Why don't we ever hear this kind of tough talk?
You know, these women, they're just lazy.
All they want to do is sit around.
We never hear that from women about women.
If women, they will only say it about men.
Why won't they challenge young women to live up to their obligations?
In fact, I want you to listen to this exchange on Piers Morgan between Andrew Wilson and Tommy Lahren.
This was a couple of months ago.
I thought it was a very revealing exchange.
Let's watch it.
Covert feminists on the right are constantly and consistently talking about how they need to have privilege in society.
I want men.
Their version of masculinity is men who take care of us, men who protect us, men who do all of this.
Those are all duties that men have towards women.
Great.
What are the duties that women have towards men?
What are the duties that women have towards anything?
What do men get out of this arrangement?
What are we getting out of this arrangement?
Can you tell me?
Well, I would argue that men immediately should be protectors and providers.
Most men are born that way.
Let Tommy respond to that, and then I'll come to you, Jess, and then Sean, you'll be waiting patiently.
Most men are born to be protectors and providers.
I can't imagine my dad saying, you know what, to my mom, you know what, I'm not going to be a protector and a provider unless you do this.
That's not how real men operate.
Real men are protectors and providers, and they marry women who hopefully have some virtue, but also bring a lot to the table as well, that are great mothers, great wives, caretakers of the home.
There's nothing wrong with being a traditional wife and mother.
You're misunderstanding me if you think that I think that women should just be out doing whatever they want.
I love getting lectured by women on what real men are.
But I don't think a man needs to get something out of it to be a manly man, a protector and a provider.
If you think you need to get something out of it, I quite frankly don't consider you a real man.
Now, Andrew, Asked a very reasonable, important question.
What are the duties that women have towards men?
Tommy, who talks a lot about the duties men have towards women, could not list even one duty that goes the other way.
She says men have the duty to be protectors and providers.
I agree, by the way.
I say that all the time.
You're not going to find anyone who agrees more with that, or you're going to find very few conservative pundit types who...
But, okay, so that's the obligation that men have to women.
What obligations do women have to men?
She could not provide even one obligation that women have towards men.
Instead, she says that a man who expects to get something out of a relationship with a woman, Is not a real man.
Which means that in Tommy's world, no man in history has ever been a real man.
Because, of course, every man hopes to get something out of his relationship with a woman.
Men are human beings.
They're not robots.
They're not machines programmed to do the bidding of their female operators.
Men are human.
They have their own dreams and goals and desires.
That's okay.
They're allowed to be people, aren't they?
In fact, women who are in relationships should want that.
Like, I can't imagine how it would make my wife feel if I said, you know, I don't really get anything out of this.
It's not for me, though.
I don't get anything out of this.
That's insane.
That's an insane attitude.
Of course, of course I should get something out of my relationship with my wife and she should get something out of it, too.
If either of us can look at it and say, we're not getting anything out of this, then, like, something has gone massively wrong here.
The fact that it's apparently shameful for a man to want anything out of a relationship at all, the fact that he could be shamed for expecting anything out of his girlfriend or wife at all of any kind, should tell you everything you need to know.
The fact that he is supposed to have only obligations that go one way in the relationship and there's none that go back the other way.
That should tell you something.
And most of all, it tells you that feminism has seeped into the very core of our culture so deeply and so thoroughly.
You've lectured men enough.
We've all heard the speech.
Some of what you say about men has a degree of validity.
Some is kind of bitter and resentful and doesn't have a lot of value.
But what?
would have a lot of value is if you would just once deliver one of these harsh, no-nonsense speeches to the statistical majority of young women who have no desire to have children and become mothers and do their part to continue the human race.
A lot of young women...
The very concept of responsibility is foreign to them.
Certainly the concept of having responsibilities to men is not only foreign to a lot of young women, but anathema.
Okay?
There is not a young man who exists in the country who has not been told many times about the obligations he has to women.
But there are many young women Millions.
Millions.
I mean, almost all of them have never been told, ever, that they have any obligations to men.
I mean, if they were told that, it would be like, it's heresy.
It's blasphemy against what Katy Perry would call the divine feminine.
I still don't know what that is, but, you know, I guess it's blasphemy against that.
Now, I don't know if those young women are eating DoorDash or not.
I don't know if they live in their mother's basement or if they live somewhere else.
But I do know that they exist.
And there's a lot of them.
And in fact, Tommy, it seems, is one of them.
So I think she should focus on fixing that problem before she tries to fix men.
And that is why Tommy Lahren is today, sadly, canceled.
