Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 7, 2025 - The Matt Walsh Show

16:52

Proof For Your Liberal Friend: Feminism Is A Twisted Ideology, Part 1

Feminism is destroying American values and culture. Send this podcast to your liberal friend as proof. - - - Today's Sponsor: Hallow - Visit https://hallow.com/mattwalsh for three months free of Hallow today. - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	This is a good time to remember that feminism has killed far more people than the atomic bomb.
	It is perhaps the most destructive force in human history.
	Feminism's status as a historically destructive force is clear as day.
	Once more, I find myself on the defensive side of the ball in this cancellation, though as always, the objective is to make a play, get the turnover, put the offense on defense.
	That's why I'm playing in the dime right now, six DBs on the field, free safety back deep, ready to grab the pick.
	Kind of losing track of the point I was trying to make with this analogy.
	Anyway, the point is this weekend, I was again the subject of outrage, and this is embarrassing for me as someone who's normally quite meek and gentle and non-confrontational, prefers to shrink away from the spotlight.
	I also consider myself to be a people pleaser, and I have other diluted ideas about my own personality, but we won't continue down that path right now.
	What upset the internet this time is a discussion that began on this podcast on Friday.
	I read a comment from a listener during the Reading the Comments segment of the show where he asked whether his fiancé's refusal to take his name upon marriage should be considered a red flag.
	And I said that not only is it a red flag, but it's a deal-breaker.
	As a man, I would not marry a woman who didn't want to share my name.
	I would recommend that other men draw the same line.
	Now, I repeated this point on Twitter later that afternoon.
	Everything that followed is therefore really the fault of the listener who brought this subject up.
	I hope you're happy, sir.
	Look at what you've done.
	This is on you.
	So over the course of the next three days, a familiar chain of events followed.
	Thousands of people very upset that I would suggest that women ought to take their husband's name.
	The fact that I would call this issue a deal-breaker was all the more abhorrent to the outraged masses.
	They've let me know that I'm a sexist, a misogynist, a bad husband, a tyrant, a bigot, a barbarian.
	One guy said that my opinion on the subject is evidence that I might be murderous and actually a physical danger to my family, just because I want to share my name with them.
	Others went a different direction saying that my perspective proves that I'm a sexually repressed virgin, a fact that will no doubt come as a great shock to the mother of my four children.
	But rather than give a general overview, I think it'd be helpful in this case to read a few of these specific responses.
	And this, I think, is a good representative sample.
	I'm choosing only from the blue check squad, verified accounts, media people, authors, academics, and so on.
	So here are a few of them.
	Here's what they were saying.
	Bethany says, I really don't hold much importance to my surname, a random name my granddad chose in a pub after moving to England.
	My mom has a different surname now too, but I definitely would keep my name just to spite angry men.
	Steph says, this is so toxic.
	Women do not belong to men.
	Therefore, it isn't a requirement for us to be branded with your surname.
	It's a woman's choice.
	It's rare to hear of men taking women's surnames.
	So if you won't do the same for us, keep quiet.
	L-O-L.
	Rachel says, would consider it a deal breaker if any boyfriend expected me to take his name.
	Women have their own identities.
	Any man who expects a woman to give hers up for him without discussion clearly doesn't fully grasp that.
	Heather says, damn, how do I break it to my fiancé that after 11 years, we're going to have to end things because I'm not planning to change my name?
	Is that something I do over text or?
	And Amy says, I'm Amy Alcon.
	I've always been Amy Alcon.
	And even if I weren't an author, et cetera, marriages may come and go.
	I'm me for a lifetime, and my name reflects that.
	Of course, the really funny thing about all this, and most of the rest of the responses from feminists on the subject, is that they all seek to prove that they're strong and independent women by refusing to take their husband's names and instead keeping their father's names.
	Quite literally participating in the patriarchy while pretending to dismantle it.
	The other thing, almost as funny, is that each response only underscores rather than undermines the original point I was trying to make.
	Bethany says that she would refuse to take her husband's name purely out of spite.
	Now, fortunately for her, this probably won't ever come up.
	I mean, she can actually force her cats to take whatever name she wants to give them.
	But still, she confesses to being driven by spite.
	Steph and Rachel see the unity of sharing a name as branding.
	They would consider it a deal breaker in the other direction if their future husband dared to request that they have a shared family name.
	Heather says that she's getting married to her boyfriend after 11 years and doesn't plan to take his name.
	11 years.
	This is someone whose commitment issues are probably terminal at this point.
	Doubly so for Amy Alcon, who says, again, marriages may come and go.
	So you see in these answers, not just that cat ownership tends to make women very bitter, but also evidence of two other things.
	One, that the trend to move away from sharing the husband's name is driven primarily by an ideologically fueled hatred of our cultural traditions.
	And two, that it's a symptom of a society that fears commitment.
	So let's talk about both of these in reverse order.
	Starting with two.
	Marriage, if it's anything worth doing, is the bonding of two people into one marital unit.
	It is a union.
	It is a decision to share your life and even in many ways to share your identity with somebody else.
	It's not that you lose your identity when you get married, but rather that your identity is changed and it's bonded to this other person, fulfilled by them and by the love you share.
	If this all sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus to you, that's fine, but please don't ever get married.
	I mean, why would you?
	If you don't believe in what I'm saying, then you don't believe in marriage.
	And the worst thing you can do when you don't believe in marriage is get married.
	If you do believe in marriage, then the very first thing you should do, the very first thing you should want to do is come together under the same name.
	Is this a symbolic move?
	Yes, but marriage is symbolic.
	It's real, but it's also symbolic.
	Your name is real and also symbolic.
	You know what?
	So we know what sharing a name symbolizes.
	It symbolizes unity, commitment, togetherness, a shared life.
	What then does not sharing a name symbolize?
	You can't say it symbolizes nothing.
	It's going to symbolize something.
	That the decision to keep your own name is a symbolic gesture in its own right.
	What is it symbolizing?
	It symbolizes separation, detachment, disunion.
	Names are important.
	Everyone recognizes that at some level.
	The left recognizes it, which is why they make such a big deal out of demanding that people respect the new name of a trans person after they, quote, transition.
	To call somebody by their old name, their dead name, as it's called, is an egregious offense.
	Why?
	Because names matter.
	The symbolism in a name is profound.
	John Proctor in the crucible would rather be marched to the gallows than sign his name on a false confession.
	He was willing to give the false confession.
	He was willing to have the whole town told that he gave it, but he couldn't sign his name on the paper.
	He chose death rather than that.
	Why?
	Because it's his name.
	It's the name that his sons will carry down to their children and through the ages.
	He couldn't stand to sully it.
	In our deluded yet materialistic and utilitarian age, we don't understand things like dignity and symbolism.
	We pretend not to even understand why the symbolism of a shared marital name is so crucial.
	And yet the people on that side admit to the truth when they say something like marriages come and go.
	They see marriage as temporal and fleeting while names are deep and rich and permanent.
	But marriage is supposed to be deep and rich and permanent also, which is why it should be formed under a shared name.
	But then, why share the man's name and not the woman's?
	Well, a big part of the answer for me is that I believe the man is supposed to be the head of the family.
	That may be unfashionable to say, but I care about fashionable opinions about as much as I care about the outrage from childless cat ladies.
	But putting that aside, here's another reason.
	Because it's a significant and enduring cultural tradition.
	As already established, we live in a utilitarian age and also a stupid and shallow age.
	So we tend to look at tradition as totally unimportant, superfluous, or worse.
	We think that it's noble to break traditions just for the sake of breaking them.
	We hate traditions.
	We feel oppressed by them because traditions come from our ancestors and we think that our ancestors should have no say in how we live our lives, even though we live in the civilization they gave us.
	I reject that attitude.
	I despise it, actually.
	I think that if you're going to dismantle a tradition, you better have a good reason.
	And the reason shouldn't be indifference or spite or half-baked notions of female empowerment.
	You know, G.K. Chesterton said that there are many fences in the world that are worth tearing down.
	But you damn well better understand why the fence was erected before you demolish it.
	Tearing down fences on a whim because they obstruct the path you wanted to walk is foolish and arrogant and a good way to get your face eaten by a rottweiler.
	A similar thing could be said about our cultural fences, our traditions, which these days we dismantle with no notion as to why, no coherent reason.
	And the result is that we lose the sturdy and beautiful things our ancestors gave us and we replace those things with nothing at all.
	Sharing the husband's name is, among other things, a meaningful tradition dating back centuries.
	You know, July is that perfect time when we're all thinking about vacation, taking a break from work, soaking up the best of summer.
	And here's the thing, while it's great to step back from the daily grind, this isn't the time to take a break from your spiritual life.
	I'll be honest, it's way too easy to let your prayer routine slide during these hot summer months.
	It's exactly why I love Hallow so much.
	They've got over 10,000 different prayers, meditations, and challenges to make it really simple to build and stick with a prayer routine, even when life gets busy.
	This month, they're doing something really special, leading everyone through the spiritual exercises of Saint Ignatius with Father Timothy Gallagher.
	It's all about imaginative prayer, which is pretty incredible if you've never tried it.
	You'll be praying alongside some amazing voices too, Father Mike Schmitz, who hosts Bible in a year, and Sister Miriam James Heidland from the Abiding Together podcast.
	Look, this July could be the perfect time to really dive into your prayer life and experience that love, grace, mercy, and peace that only Jesus can bring.
	Hallow has helped millions of people do exactly that through their guided prayers and meditations, including my own family.
	Right now, you can join millions of others who are praying every day on Hallow, the number one Christian prayer app in the world.
	Head to hallow.com slash MattWalsh and get three months completely free.
	Like the media, I have not exactly been fawning over the huge box office numbers this past weekend, but even I must admit that it's rather fascinating to see this kind of success for a film that centers around one of the most devastating and deadly inventions in the history of the human race.
	Indeed, it is not every day that audiences flock to see a movie about a weapon of mass destruction.
	And of course, lots of people also went to see Oppenheimer.
	But Barbie was the bigger film, and it tells the story of a vastly more destructive force.
	I don't mean the Barbie doll, but rather feminism.
	Not every man-made weapon of mass death is as obvious as a nuclear bomb.
	Mushroom clouds are easy to comprehend and easy to see.
	The significance is obvious, but the more abstract and tangible threats to human life can be far deadlier than nukes.
	With that in mind, a few days ago, I tweeted this factually true statement.
	Here it is, quote, this is a good time to remember that feminism has killed far more people than the atomic bomb.
	It is perhaps the most destructive force in human history.
	Trans ideology, its offshoot, is competing for the title.
	That's what I wrote.
	Predictably, there was outrage from the left.
	That was always going to happen.
	Of course, no matter what I said, I could tweet something really obvious like two plus two equals four or something really innocuous like, I don't know, I enjoy pancakes.
	And they still call me a bigot and report my account demanding that I be deplatformed.
	So it was no surprise that this admittedly slightly more provocative statement meant that I would trend on the site for multiple days as the outraged masses had a series of temper tantrums about it.
	Now, I don't need to give you examples of their responses.
	They're exactly what you expect.
	Matt Walsh is a fascist.
	He hates women.
	He's a misogynist.
	He's a sexist, et cetera, and so forth.
	The only mildly interesting feedback came from the so-called gender critical feminists, the feminists who oppose trans ideology, who reacted to my statement as if it was some kind of deep betrayal against them.
	You know, we're on the same side nominally on the trans issue, which means that I am apparently required to pretend that feminism is good.
	This is a contract that I signed, apparently, but I don't remember signing it.
	We'll return to the gender critical set in a few minutes.
	Let's get first to the substance of my claim.
	As far as that goes, feminism's status as a historically destructive force in human history is clear as day.
	To begin with, if you accept that unborn babies are human beings, which obviously they are, because they could be nothing else, then we can directly blame feminism for 60 million deaths in the United States alone.
	Now, when I pointed this out, Martina Navratilova, tennis legend and outspoken feminist, responded, a fetus is not a baby.
	What a moronic thing to say.
	You spout about language used by the trans lobby and then do the same, calling embryos Babies.
	Hypocrite much?
	Well, Martina, I guess I need to ask you an even more basic question than the one that I asked trans activists.
	And that question is: what is a human?
	Can you answer that, Martina?
	I bet you can't.
	I guarantee you cannot come up with a coherent definition of human that excludes unborn children.
	Okay, you cannot coherently define human or person in a way that allows you to be one, but leaves unborn humans out in the cold.
	The word fetus, Martina, simply means offspring.
	You are pretending that there is some sort of innate definitional distinction between offspring and baby.
	A distinction that you believe is so important that it gives us the moral right to destroy, quote, fetuses and mass.
	But a baby is the young offspring of two human parents.
	They mean the same thing.
	The only thing that the word baby does is stipulate which stage of development the offspring is currently going through.
	A human in the womb is in a stage of human development.
	A six-month-old baby outside the womb is in a stage of human development.
	Same for teenagers.
	Same for middle-aged former tennis players.
	These are stages of development.
	They are ages.
	So if you say that it's okay to kill fetuses but not babies, you might as well say that it's okay to kill 41-year-olds but not 42-year-olds.
	The position makes no sense.
	We're left with the harsh reality that abortion has killed 60 million human beings, a death toll that can be laid squarely at the feet of feminism, since feminism has made the defense and promotion of this atrocity into one of its core tenets.
	That already puts it at least in the running for most destructive force, competing perhaps only with communism.
	But the distinction between feminism and communism is not absolute.
	I mean, these are related ideologies at a minimum.
	Marx and Engels called for the abolition of the nuclear family, just as many modern feminists do.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	In the past century, feminists have succeeded in destroying millions of babies and also the nuclear family to a degree that American communists could only dream of.
	According to a study from Child Trends, just 9% of children lived with single parents in the 1960s before the rise of modern feminism.
	By 2012, that number had increased to nearly 30%.
	In 2019, Pew found that the United States has the highest rate of children living in single-family homes of any country in the world.
	Divorce is a major driving factor for these numbers, of course.
	From the 1960s to the 1980s, divorce rates in the U.S. more than doubled.
	You'll often see studies showing that in the last few years, divorce rates are down, but that's only because many people aren't bothering to get married in the first place.
	They've just given up on the whole institution.
	Given what we're seeing, it's impossible to argue that the family unit hasn't been dramatically weakened due to the influence of feminism and weakened on purpose.
	They've always been very clear that that's what they want to do.
	Feminism set out to weaken and dismantle and destroy the nuclear family.
	And then what do you know, as feminism is ascendant, the nuclear family begins to fall apart?
	And then what?
	We look at that and say, oh, it must be a coincidence.
	Those two things aren't related.
	If you accept that the family is an essential building block of civilization, then we're left with an ideology that has murdered enough children to fill 800 football stadiums and eaten away at the very fabric of civilization in the process.
	Feminism's defenders, even on the right, will point out that in spite of all this, feminists gave us women's suffrage and they allowed women to take out mortgages and credit cards.
	But even if I agreed that we needed feminism specifically to bring about those changes, and I don't, they still don't begin to outweigh the cost.
	If I could trade in women's suffrage to get back the 60 million humans that feminism killed, I would do it in a heartbeat.

▲