Ep. 1513 - Wokeness Is Dying
01:04:08 Share

- Today on The Matt Walsh Show, Mark Zuckerberg's interview with Joe Rogan is yet more evidence that wokeness is dying, if not already dead. Also, Gavin Newsom flails around desperately looking for someone other than himself to blame for California's disastrous response to the wildfires. Some college students stage a "To Catch a Predator" style sting operation to expose a 22-year-old man who was trying to go on a date with an 18-year-old. It's "To Catch a Predator" minus, you know, the predator. And a woman on TikTok goes viral with a video claiming to reveal one of the most important secrets of male psychology, and for once,

The TikToker actually isn't wrong. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. Get ready because in exactly one week, we'll be live on the ground in D.C. for Donald Trump's inauguration. Watch live and join the fight at dailywire.com slash subscribe.

- Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona believes that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.

By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals

With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private. Christian. Affordable. Visit gcu.edu.

Last week, the news broke that Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram, and, you know, half the internet, would be, or claims that it will be, pulling back drastically from its censorship policies. Free speech will reign again on Facebook, supposedly. The CEO of Meta, Mark Zuckerberg, appeared on Joe Rogan a couple of days ago to elaborate on this decision. Much of what he says in the conversation, along with

You know, the entire conversation itself, the fact that he's talking to Joe Rogan, would have been pretty unthinkable four or five years ago. But it's not anymore because times are rapidly changing. Specifically, in the interview, Zuckerberg affirmed that there's nothing wrong with a masculine culture in a workplace and that, in fact, a lot of companies would benefit from it. Imagine that. Watch. For me, it's just I think a lot of the corporate world is like pretty...

culturally neutered. And, and I, I just think like having, you know, I, I grew up, I have three sisters, no brothers. Um, I have three daughters, no sons. So I'm like surrounded by girls and women, like my, my whole life. And it's like, so I think, um,

I don't know. There's something, the kind of masculine energy I think is good. And obviously, you know, society has plenty of that. But I think corporate culture was really like trying to get away from it. And I do think that there's just something, it's like, I don't know, all these forms of energy are good. And I think having a culture that

like celebrates the aggression a bit more, has its own merits that are really positive. Both of these things are good, right? It's like you want like feminine energy, you want masculine energy. Like I think that that's like you're going to have parts of society that have more of one or the other. I think that that's all good. Now, eight years ago, these are the kinds of ideas that would have. And if you recall the case of James Damore at Google did get

rank and file employees fired at places like Google. And now the head of a major big tech company is saying it, even though there's nothing revolutionary here or all that, nothing provocative either. But still, now, of course, the obvious response to this interview and the changes that were made at Facebook is that, well, Zuckerberg doesn't actually believe any of this. He's just saying it because Trump won the election and he wants to cozy up with power. And there's almost certainly a

a lot of truth to that, but it doesn't fully capture what's going on, which is that there's also been a major shift in American culture this time around. After all, Trump won the election back in 2016 too, and Zuckerberg didn't say anything like this. Instead, actually his companies reacted by entrenching themselves even deeper on the left.

And now the exact opposite is happening. In the interview, Zuckerberg suggested that some of Facebook's censorship was the result of pressure by the Biden administration, although he claims to have resisted some of it. Watch. They pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly were true, right? I mean, they basically pushed us and said, you know, anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, right?

you basically need to take down and I was just like well we're not going to do that like we're clearly not going to do that I mean that's that that is kind of inarguably true who's they who's telling you to take down things yeah it was it was a talk about vaccine side effects it was people in the um in the Biden administration now of course it wasn't just vaccine side effects although that's I mean that's bad enough this is important medical information that

He's admitting he allowed to be suppressed. But, you know, they also wanted Facebook to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story for obvious reasons. It was a damning account of the Biden family's corruption and no one could really dispute its accuracy because it came directly from Hunter Biden's laptop. And Facebook went along with that too on the ridiculous theory that the laptop was some secret scheme by Russian intelligence. It goes without saying that

Facebook and Zuckerberg could have gone public with these concerns at any time in the last several years. They could have said something about it when it was happening. They didn't need to wait until Trump won a second term. So, no, we shouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg now that he's made a calculation that telling the truth is in his best interest.

He had a chance to do the right thing when it would have required some measure of courage to do so, although not that much considering he was a multi-billionaire at the time, which provides you a lot of cover that most of us don't have. But Zuckerberg waited until right now. There's a lot of this kind of thing going around now. People who are seeing the light and coming out against crazy wokeness now that wokeness is a punchline and has no political power and very little cultural power.

Now, I welcome these people to Team Sanity. I'm not going to turn anyone away, but I don't trust them. And I certainly won't congratulate them. You don't get congratulated for finally coming around when there's nothing at stake. In fact, not only are you not sacrificing anything by stating the truth now, but actually now you finally stand to benefit from it.

At the same time, again, Zuckerberg's shift is a reflection of a broader change in the culture. And it's a shift that is quite dramatic in some respects. Here's how the New York Times is reporting on some of the changes at Meta, for example. Quote,

The company removed the transgender and non-binary themes on its Messenger chat app. That same day at Meta's offices in Silicon Valley, Texas, and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men's bathrooms, which the company had provided for non-binary and transgender employees who use the men's room and who may have required sanitary pads. This is according to two employees. So yes, tampons have been removed from the men's bathrooms at Meta offices.

Presumably the tampons have also been removed from the virtual bathrooms in the metaverse too, although I don't have a MetaQuest VR headset so I can't verify that at the moment, but we can change. This is a sudden change that happened virtually overnight after years of having tampons in the men's bathroom. And the CEO decides one day to end it, and it ends.

Why did the men's bathrooms ever have tampons to begin with? Why did he ever think that was a good idea? The problem with taking tampons out of the men's bathroom is that it means that you had tampons in the men's bathroom to begin with. Did Zuckerberg believe that men could have periods? And then did he see the lights after reading a elementary school biology textbook? I doubt it. I think he probably knew it was absurd the whole time.

But guess what? There have been no riots at Meta over this change. There have been no massive protests or mass resignations, as far as we know. The metaverse hasn't collapsed. That's because everyone at Meta, including the supposedly trans employees, know that reality is actually not subjective. They know that men do not need tampons. And now that an adult has told them the truth, they're, you know, they're...

They have no choice but to basically accept it or at least tolerate it. That's all it really takes for a return to sanity. And it's happening more and more often. To give another example, we talked about this briefly on the show, I think on Friday. Recently, a federal court in Kentucky handed the Biden administration a major defeat in a Title IX case. In case you're not familiar with Title IX, it's a law that prevents sex discrimination in educational programs, including sports, that receive any kind of federal assistance. At least that's what it was supposedly meant to do.

The Biden administration unilaterally tried to reinterpret Title IX so that it prevents discrimination on the basis of so-called gender identity. Their rule would have required teachers to use students' preferred pronouns, among many other demands. From a legal perspective, the Biden administration and trans activists thought they had a winning case, and that's because an earlier Supreme Court ruling had held by a 6-3 vote that a different provision of civil rights law, Title VII,

prohibited discrimination on the basis of so-called "gender identity" in the workplace. Gorsuch and Roberts sided with the leftist judges to come up with that rather absurd ruling. But last week, a federal judge in Kentucky held that the same logic does not apply to Title IX because Title IX is explicitly focused on sex discrimination and no other form of discrimination. This is the judge's ruling: "The entire point of Title IX is to prevent discrimination based on sex. Throwing gender identity into the mix eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless."

This ruling will obviously be appealed and it'll work its way up the courts, but as it stands, it could lay the groundwork for a new Supreme Court ruling, one that rejects any attempt to conflate sex and gender within the meaning of the law. A ruling like that would have seemed rather far-fetched not too long ago, but not anymore. And that's because everywhere, even in places like California, some of the most left-wing places in the country, there are clear signs that

A critical mass of people are tired of this insanity. Consider the eruption of anger over California's DEI policies and general incompetence in the wake of these historic fires, which still are far from under control. The corporate press is trying to run the same familiar narrative where they blame racism and climate change. They're attempting to do it. They're covering the base. For example, here's the AP, quote,

The California wildfires could be leaving deeper inequality in their wake. The fires also burned through a remarkable haven for generations of black families avoiding discriminatory housing practices elsewhere. They've been communities of racial and economic diversity where many people own their own homes.

Yes, that's the real tragedy of the fires is not that they're causing billions of dollars of damage, not to mention killing dozens of people. It's the effect on equality and equity. That's what makes it a tragedy. Now, the reaction to this article online has been, as you would expect now, universal mockery and derision. People...

are not persuaded by this kind of thing anymore. Well, people never were persuaded by it. The difference is that now very few people pretend to be persuaded. No one talks like this unless they're a journalist for an outlet like the AP. The rest of us are sharing clips like this one featuring the chief of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a very important agency now, obviously, but this is what she was saying not too long ago. Listen.

You call it powered by equity and I know that it's been really important for the DWP to put an equity lens on everything. Yes, yeah. And that's the number one thing that attracted me to this role.

So coming from the communities that I come, seeing what I've seen through my career in utilities and through the military, I've been in the Coast Guard 19 and a half years now. So I got six more months to qualify for my 20 years, which was my original goal. Wow. Congratulations. And thank you for your service. Thank you. Thank you.

It's important to me that everything we do, it's with an equity lens and social justice and making sure that we right the wrongs that we've done in the past from an infrastructure perspective and that we involve the community in that process. And this utility is serious about it, is authentic about it. And so I'm just super excited to be part of that movement.

So again, that is the chief of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. And what she says is, quote, the number one thing that attracted me to this role is that it's important for me that everything we do is with an equity lens and social justice. Now, it's reminiscent of the aftermath of the Maui fires when a top official talked about how access to water should involve conversations about equity. These are the kinds of clips that have quickly surfaced in the wake of the California fires, and they're surfacing because people are

really sick of DEI hires running their cities into the ground. People are realizing that lives are at stake now. That's especially obvious after the discovery that a key reservoir was empty in the Pacific Palisades when the fires began. Quoting from the Los Angeles Times official said, the reservoir had been closed since about February for repairs to its cover, leaving a 117 million gallon water storage complex empty in the heart of the Palisades for nearly a year.

Now keep in mind, that's the LA Times with that exclusive reporting. That's the same paper that called Larry Elder the black face of white supremacy not too long ago. And then like Jeff Bezos, the Times' owner withheld the paper's endorsement of Kamala Harris in this past election so they'd focus more on the news. Now they're exposing genuine misconduct and incompetence, no matter how embarrassing and damaging it may be for California's Democrats. You're not going to find a clearer sign that

wokeness, as we've come to call it, which really just means the suspension of reality to appease the preferred demographic groups of the Democratic Party, that is coming to an end. Now, it may be coming to an end in part because of self-interested political actors like Mark Zuckerberg, but it is ending one way or another. When Donald Trump won in 2016, that was not the case. But if there's one overriding reason for optimism for Trump's second term, it's that this time around, no one

Not even Silicon Valley megacorporations like Meta. No one is pretending to take this nonsense seriously anymore. Now let's get to our five headlines. You know, success is not built on resolutions. Those are made to break. It's built on taking action and building unstoppable momentum. When it comes to optimizing your health span, living better and longer, certain things are non-negotiable.

Quality sits at the top of that list, and in the world of performance-focused supplements, Momentous stands alone. Their commitment to NSF certification means every batch undergoes rigorous testing for heavy metals, harmful additives, and label accuracy. It's why they've earned the trust of all 32 NFL teams and leading collegiate sports dietitians nationwide.

While other brands chase trends and flood the market with endless options, Momentus takes a different approach. They rely on research and expert guidance to focus on what truly matters, mastering the fundamentals with unwavering consistency, and then tailoring supplementation to your specific goals

Speaking of fundamentals, protein and creatine form the cornerstone. Momentous sources the highest grade creatine monohydrate available, an essential supplement for both men and women seeking peak physical and cognitive performance. Ready to start living on purpose? Visit livemomentous.com and use code WALSH for 20% off your order today. Fires, as we mentioned, continue to rage in Los Angeles. The winds had died down over the last few days, but

they're picking up now and the forecast has them projected to continue uh until wednesday or maybe even longer than that the death toll last i saw was at 24 certainly going to go higher rescue workers haven't been able to go into a lot of these communities that were burned to the ground so 24 is just you know that's the number those are the victims that we know about so far

Just an unfathomable catastrophe. I think it'll probably go down as the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States when all is said and done. And one of the reasons why it may end up being the worst in history is that California, particularly LA, have some of the worst leadership we've ever seen in history. And that starts with the incompetent governor, Gavin Newsom, who did an interview yesterday where he was asked point blank

if the buck stops with him in the wake of this catastrophe. And his answer, I'm not exactly sure what his answer was. It's hard to interpret, but here it is. - So I want to, all of us want to know those answers and I just don't want to wait because people are asking me. I want to know those facts. I want them objectively determined and that the chips fall where they may. This is not about finger pointing.

You say what to people who insist that these independent investigations are calls for them. Are you passing the blame on to other people? How could it be when we're doing an independent investigation and we just want the adjudication of the facts? As I say, it's not about finger pointing. It's about answering the questions you and everybody wants answered. And I think there's a propensity to wait to answer those questions. And people want immediacy. They want response and responsiveness. And so that's the idea. Ultimately here, does the buck stop with you?

I mean, you're governor of California. You might as well be the mayor of California. We're all in this together. We're all better off. We're all better off. We're all better off. And we're working together to take care of people and to make sure people are supported. We're empathetic. And we're here not just in the immediacy of the crisis, but we're here after the crisis, as opposed to creating a crisis in the middle of this by trying to divide people and play political, take cheap political shots. Was?

Yeah, I'm honestly not sure what he, so he was asked, does the buck stop with you? It sounded like his answer was, you're the governor of California, you may as well be the mayor of California. Isn't that what he said? What does that mean? I mean, he's right, I guess, in a sense, the governor of California is

like the mayor of California in the sense that the governor holds the highest executive office in the state, like the mayor holds the highest executive office in the city. So I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. And then he follows that up by remarking that we're all better off if we're all better off. So this was kind of a combo of a Joe Biden and Kamala Harris answer. So you had the first part of it that was just gobbledygook. You didn't even know what he was trying to say.

And in the second part, you had a circular answer like that, which is very Kamala-esque. Look, we're all better off if we're all better off, which again is undeniably true. We are indeed better off if we're better off. We're certainly not better off if we're worse off. But these are not really answers to the question because he can't answer the question because he isn't going to say, well, no, the buck doesn't stop with me. It stops over there with that person.

Because that would be very bad optics. A leader is supposed to take responsibility. But he also isn't going to say that the buck does stop with him because he doesn't want to take any of them lame. And he wants to run for president in 2028. All he's thinking about is how he can navigate this in a way that won't destroy his presidential ambitions. That's his only concern right now. That's the only thing he cares about. The actual answer, though, of course, is that, yes, the buck stops with him. He's ultimately responsible for

so is the mayor of the city. And this is a disaster that should mean that those two, along with dozens of other government officials, but at least those two, lose their job. There should also be criminal investigations. People should go to prison for this. But before we get to that, yes, every high-ranking political leader associated with this disaster should be gone. And, you know what, we could say that, even if we didn't know, as we do, that California made massive cuts to its fire prevention system,

program, $100 million in cuts to that. Even if we didn't know that they didn't have enough water to fight the fires because of mismanagement. Even if we didn't know that the city of Los Angeles had deliberately made its fire department less competent and less capable through DEI programs and so on. Even without knowing any of those details, we would still know that at a minimum, Newsom and Bass in Los Angeles need to take the fall for this.

And we know that because that's leadership. Leadership means, yes, the buck stops with you. Which means that when something like this happens, you take the blame. That's the burden of leadership. That's how it goes. That's why the captain used to go down with the ship. Your whole job as the captain is to make sure the ship makes it across the ocean and doesn't end up at the bottom of the Atlantic. I mean, that's not the whole job, actually. That's the starting point of the job. That's like step one.

And if that job is not done, that's on you. You could not have failed any more than you did. And same here, your basic, basic job. Again, step one as mayor and as governor is to make sure that your cities still, you know, exist. I would think that that's, there's more to the job, okay? If you've done your term as, let's go with the mayor, you've done your term as mayor,

And we want to figure out whether your term was successful. There's a lot we want to look at. But if half the city doesn't exist anymore after you were in office, well, OK, we don't need to look any further. You failed. You failed. And as I said, we would know that even without knowing any of the details. We would still know that because that's what leadership means. And if you don't want to have that kind of responsibility, OK.

then don't apply for the job. No one forced you to be governor. No one forced you to be mayor. But it turns out that we do know the details, of course, and we know a lot of them. And one of the big details, just going back to this, is this issue of the reservoirs. And Newsom was asked about that also during this interview. Let's listen.

I called for him to come out, take a look for himself. We want to do in the spirit of an open hand, not a closed fist. He's the president-elect. I respect the office. We have a president of the United States that within 36 hours provided a major disaster declaration over a text. We had support from the president of the United States, Joe Biden, with 100% reimbursement. All the resources you could hope for, imagine, constant communication. I'd like to extend that to the president-elect.

I don't know what he's referring to when he talks about the Delta smelt and reservoirs. The reservoirs are completely full of the state reservoirs here in Southern California. That mis- and disinformation, I don't think, advantages or aids any of us. Responding to Donald Trump's insults, we would spend another month. I'm very familiar with them. Every elected official that he disagrees with, very familiar with them.

We do know, though, from reporting here locally that that one reservoir that serves the Palisades was not full. And that's exactly what triggered my desire to get the investigation to understand what was happening with that local reservoir. That was not a state system reservoir, which the president-elect was referring to as it relates to the Delta and somehow connecting the Delta smelt to this fire, which is inexcusable because it's inaccurate, also incomprehensible to anyone that understands water policy in the state.

Okay, so he says the reservoirs were full, then the interviewer says, well, what about the other, what about the Palisades Reservoir that wasn't full? And Newsom says, oh, well, yeah, except for that one. Except for that one. And we're investigating. We're investigating that one. Then he quickly clarifies that the empty reservoirs are local reservoirs, not state reservoirs. So, which means that, yes, the reservoirs were empty. They didn't have the fire, the water they needed to fight the fire. But he says it's not his fault because that was local.

And so I guess the buck doesn't stop with him after all. It stops somewhere over there with those people. Don't blame him. He has nothing to do with that. Which again, if that's the case, it's sort of either this is fundamentally your fault as the governor, or we don't even need a governor. If one of your cities can burn to the ground and there's nothing you could have done differently, nothing you could have done differently,

to prevent or even mitigate this disaster slightly. Why do we even need you? Apparently we don't need a governor in the state. Which is it, is my question. I want to talk about this. This is a pretty bonkers story for you. This is from NBC News. It says, six college students in Massachusetts were accused of luring an active duty service member whom they falsely described as a sexual predator to their campus where a group of more than two dozen people chased and assaulted him, authorities said.

One of the students who was charged told police the plot was modeled on To Catch a Predator, which is NBC's discontinued program that during its three seasons aimed to catch adults who were seeking to prey on minors. Easton Randall, 19, says, quote, Catch a Predator is a big thing on TikTok currently. Eleven Illinois teens were charged last month in a similar incident. So it's become a TikTok trend. In a statement at the time, the city's police department did not provide additional details about the trend.

At Assumption University, which is where this happened, the private Catholic university where the six people charged in a plot are students, there was absolutely no evidence that the man students accused of being a predator had been seeking sex with a minor, the statement says. Still, he was chased by what the statement describes as a mob of 25 to 30 people, some of them recording the pursuit, and ensnared in a conspiracy carried out by a group of six that includes allegations of systemic mistreatment, false imprisonment, physical assault and battery, and potential character assassination.

The statement identifies one of the students as a juvenile whose charges are not included in a criminal complaint. Kelsey Brainerd, 18, was charged with intimidation. Okay, so this was some kind of To Catch a Predator-style supposed sting operation that these college students were conducting where the guy was lured into the situation on false pretenses. The only difference is that, if you recall from that show, in To Catch a Predator,

the mark, you know, the person who's being lured, first of all, isn't assaulted as he was in this case. And also, and this is the big one, this is the more important one. And to catch a predator, the predator is a predator. You know, that's a really important part of this. It's an important ingredient in this recipe is that the person that you're luring into the situation because you're catching a predator is actually a predator. In this case, the guy wasn't

at all. So going back to the article, it says, according to the statement of facts, the incident on October 1st was initially reported to university officials the next day when Brainerd said that a creepy Tinder app contact had come to campus looking to meet a 17-year-old girl. That was the initial story. But turns out a review of Tinder messages showed the service member believed he was meeting an 18-year-old

The woman's profile indicated she was 18. When officers followed up with Brainerd about where the information about an underage girl came from, the statement adds she could not answer. Okay, so this is a long story to get to the point, which is that the to catch a predator style operation here, which was supposedly exposing and punishing a pedophile, was actually targeting a, this turns out to be a 22-year-old man. So the guy that was lured into the situation and then chased and assaulted and all that,

22 years old, and he was attempting to meet an 18-year-old. So if you're a math whiz, you've already done the math on this, and that's a four-year age gap between legal adults. That's what the Justice League had assembled for. This is the person that they were looking to expose and punish. Now, this story would be just a weird little blurb.

If not for the fact that it's part of a larger trend, this is a thing with Gen Z. Not so much the Chris Hansen cosplaying, although that apparently is a thing too. That's a trend now. But more this...

Hypersensitivity to age gaps. You see this all the time on social media. It's a constant topic of conversation. Every other day there's some Gen Z weirdo getting hysterical because like a 28-year-old man is dating a 23-year-old or something like that. I mean, I'm not exaggerating. That's not a straw man. That's the kind of thing that is now controversial in some corners of the internet and in particular with some people in Gen Z.

They would really call that predatory. Any age gap at all. I mean, anything more than like a year, two years tops. Even that, who knows? I mean, I'm 38 years old. My wife is 37. So I'm not sure if that age gap would pass muster. Who knows? And I've seen this kind of outrage even when both people in the relationship are over the age of 40. You'll hear some story about a

some celebrity, older males in his 60s dating a woman who's 40 or something, that gets construed as predatory somehow with a 40-plus-year-old woman. It's that crazy. That's how absurd it gets. But you tend to see it even more in situations like the one in the article where the woman is between 18 and 21, and the man is early to mid-20s, sometimes late 20s. And that's when they really reach for the pitchforks. And I guess the claim is that there's some kind of

inherent power imbalance when someone in the relationship is older. That's how they would justify saying that this is predatory. Because there's nobody more powerful than a 22-year-old dude who just graduated college. That's the pinnacle of power right there, 22 years old. So obviously the reasoning makes no sense. So what's really going on here? Why is it suddenly controversial for adults to

with very modest age gaps to date. Why is that? Now an age gap of four years is considered perverse. Historically, 15 or 20 years was not uncommon. Now four years is considered somehow depraved, even though, again, both parties are adults. So why is this happening? I think partly this is the infantilization of adulthood.

A lot of these people on social media who think that a 21-year-old in a consensual relationship is being preyed upon are themselves in their early 20s and they kind of see themselves as children. And so a person their age in a relationship with somebody even slightly older is viewed as a child because that's how they view themselves. That's how they want to view themselves. They don't want to be adults. They'd rather stay in the cocoon of perpetual adolescence.

To them, your early 20s is really just a replay of your preteens and teens. So a 22-year-old might as well be a 12-year-old. That's how they see it or how they want to see it. That's part of what's going on, but that doesn't quite explain it all because there's another piece of this conversation. Really, this is a conversation about consent. And the question is whether a young adult can actually consent to being in a relationship with somebody a little bit older. Now, the answer to that question is obviously yes.

In young adulthood, you are old enough to exercise your free will and make decisions and understand the consequences of decisions. You may still have some immaturity. You may still be prone to making dumb decisions. It doesn't mean you're not an adult. Like I'm a much, much more mature and responsible person today than I was at 24. Does that mean that I wasn't an adult when I was 24 years old? Does that mean that I was indistinguishable from like a seventh grader when I was 24? Obviously not. But here's where things get weird or weirder, I mean.

Because the wrinkle is this, that there is, I'm going to guess, probably a 100% overlap between the people who think an 18-year-old can't consent to dating a 22-year-old and the people who think a 13-year-old girl can consent to a quote-unquote gender-affirming double mastectomy. Like 100% of the people who say that a 21-year-old woman is being groomed if she's dating a man who's 27.

also would say that a five-year-old child is old enough to choose and declare his own gender. Like I said, there's probably just about a 100% overlap between these two groups. There might be a few exceptions, but for the most part, if you're in the camp where you think a guy in his mid to late 20s is a predator because he's dating someone who's old enough that they could have gone to school at the same time,

If you're in that camp, you probably are also in the camp that thinks that at 15, a gender affirming, quote unquote, double mastectomy is fine. And what does that tell us? It tells us that their notion of consent and their notions of human psychology and maturity and development, all of that is just hopelessly contradictory and confused. I mean, what it really tells us, and I don't know, when you look at these kinds of contradictions, you look for some kind of

And you can't help but look for some kind of like philosophical through line. But there really isn't one. It's just these people have no idea what they believe about anything. They just don't know. They haven't thought through any of this. They probably haven't even stopped to consider how you rectify those two things. They've never even, they hold in their minds two notions. One, that a 15-year-old girl can consent to life-altering surgery.

and that a 21-year-old woman can't consent to dating someone a few years older than them. They hold those ideas in their head simultaneously and have probably never even noticed that they hold them simultaneously. That's the only way that this kind of logical disconnect can exist, is if you have just a pathological lack of self-reflection. And I think that's really what lies at the bottom of a lot of this stuff.

Finally, before we get to the comment section, here's a pretty rough video, but also kind of funny. Mayor Brandon Johnson in Chicago was at some kind of event recently where he was asked, quite simply, why his constituents hate him so much. It's a valid question, good question. Not a fun question to be asked, I imagine, but his answer was not so good. Let's listen.

To the front again. Hello, thank you to the IOP for having this event. Thank you, Mayor Johnson, for being here. My name is Tyler Shasteen. I'm a third year studying economics and law letters in society. And in March, I was elected as the Republican committeeman for the Fifth Ward of Chicago, which is where we're at today.

I wanted to ask, you know, it was brought up earlier. In 2023, you were elected a little over 52% of the vote in the mayorals race. But in the most recent poll of Chicago voters that you had a 14% approval rating with a 70% disapproval rating.

I know you mentioned that there's a lot of numbers that you care about and that you were pointing to things that you are talking about doing for the city. But in a democracy, what really matters is how the voters perceive your administration's work. So why are you so unpopular? Well, I mean, look, you know, fortunately for me that I'm not moved by polls. They're a snapshot at a point in time.

Like, people have their expression and opinion of whether or not, you know, we should hire more young people. You know, people have an opinion of whether or not we should open up mental health clinics. Clearly people have an opinion of whether or not we should, you know, stay to international and national law. People have those opinions, you know, and, you know, I can say this emphatically, I was elected to build a better, stronger, safer Chicago.

And I will stop at nothing to ensure that that happens. So he has no idea how to respond. His answer makes no sense. He starts babbling about how people have different opinions about whether we should hire young people or stay to international and national law. What does that mean? What's he even getting at? I don't know. I guess he's implying that his constituents who don't like him have a problem with the fact that he hires young people and respects international law.

What does being the mayor of Chicago have to do with international law? None of it makes any sense. It's total gibberish. I'm always amazed, kind of amazed by these moments. I shouldn't be, but I am because you know that you're going to be talking, you're going to be taking questions at this event. I assume that this was not a surprise to him. And you know, you must know, you should know that you're extremely unpopular with the voters. So how do you not know that there will be questions on that topic?

How are you not expecting this stuff? How do you not have a canned answer ready? Now, it used to be with politicians that they always had a canned answer ready to anything, and that can be frustrating. But now, with this even lower tier of politician, where politicians are getting dumber and dumber, now you're almost frustrated that they don't have a canned answer ready. It's like, don't you just have something prepared for that kind of question? How do you not...

They seem genuinely, now these politicians often seem genuinely caught off guard. I mean, we just saw it with Gavin Newsom when he was asked, does the buck stop with you? And he stumbles, he gives an answer that literally means nothing. He's fumbling around for anything to say.

And again, it's if you didn't know any better it'd be sort of shocking because you think well how you must know that that question is going to be asked and so you must how did you not go into this with something prepared just 30 seconds a way of You know giving is deflecting away from it in a way that is not super obvious And yet these politicians aren't that's because they really are just it's a cliche to say they're out of touch, but they really are and

And the other thing is this, you know, the other reason Democrats in particular get really flummoxed when you ask questions like this is that they pretend to idolize democracy. They talk incessantly about defending and preserving democracy. But then what happens when the vast majority of people hate you? Your pro-democracy convictions oblige you to take those people seriously and to defer to their judgment. But of course, Brandon Johnson doesn't want to do that. He can't do that.

He can't say, yeah, listen, I respect the will of the people. So if people say that I'm awful, I must be. He can't say that. So instead, we get this nonsense. Let's get to the comment section. If you're a man, it's required that you grow with a sweet baby game.

As we kick off 2025, we're looking to expand our team here at The Daily Wire. We need talented individuals for various key positions. This got me thinking about how challenging hiring can be for business owners, especially when it comes to specialized fields and positions.

And if you need to hire for your business and want an easier way to find qualified candidates, head to ZipRecruiter. And right now, you can try it for free at ziprecruiter.com slash Walsh. If you're also looking to grow your team this year, ZipRecruiter makes the hiring process remarkably efficient. Their smart technology immediately begins matching your job posting with qualified candidates, saving both time and resources.

What sets ZipRecruiter apart? Well, they're the most preferred hiring site among employers, according to G2. Their powerful matching technology not only finds top talent fast, but also lets you personally invite promising candidates to apply for your position. Here's a new year of hiring made easier with ZipRecruiter. Four to five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. See for yourself. Go to this exclusive web address to try ZipRecruiter for free.

ZipRecruiter.com slash Walsh. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash W-A-L-S-H. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. I'm a small female, and if I was in an emergency situation, I wouldn't want to see anybody like me trying to help. Well, that's your internalized misogyny talking. If you're trapped in a burning building, you should be praying for a female. You should be praying for a female even smaller than you to show up. If you were really committed to equality and equity, that's how you would see it.

Never have I ever felt the need to see someone who looks like me in any situation whatsoever Yeah, well, well, right. I mean that's normal people don't look at it like that Because you're not looking to be represented I mean that this is part of the wokeness and the left leftism is in every situation the most important thing is that people feel represented even though in most areas of life

feeling represented is totally irrelevant, especially in an emergency, but really in any situation where there's a task and it just needs to get done, in any situation like that, feeling represented is completely irrelevant and no normal person is even thinking along those terms. If you, which isn't to say that you might not make, you might still make cursory judgments, you know, based on appearance,

in certain situations, but it's not because you want to feel represented. I mean, I've said many times when I'm getting on an airplane, and I think everyone does this, most people won't admit it, but if you get a look at the captain, if you get a look at who's sitting in the cockpit, there's a certain look you prefer that makes you feel safer. But it's not because you feel represented. I don't need to feel represented. In fact, I don't want to be represented because I'm 38. And to me, that's still a little bit too young for pilot. I want the pilot to be

Between like 45 and 65. That's that's the age. I'm looking I'm looking for that that age bracket And male, you know needless to say let's see the timing of I am racist could not have been better people are much better informed when events like this happen The movie was called am I race? It's not I am racist. So you're banned from the show I haven't done that in a while, but that's that's deserving that was that's They're very different titles. I know you just flip one word, but still um

I failed the driver's test three times before passing and ironically here I am at 30 and have never had a speeding ticket and never been in a car accident. I mean that, yeah, that doesn't surprise me because the driver's test has nothing to do with whether you're a good driver. But three times, that, like the driver's test is really easy. That was my whole point. The whole spiel I gave on the driver's test, way too easy. You fail, how did you fail three times?

Matt, you say watching childhood movies or TV shows alone as an adult is shameful, but how many times do you listen to music from your childhood slash teen years alone in your car? Be honest. Isn't that the same thing? I didn't say shameful. I didn't say that. I said it's weird. It's weird for an adult to spend his own leisure time watching children's entertainment. Yeah.

It doesn't mean that an adult can't appreciate and enjoy children's entertainment, but you just, you enjoy it as children's entertainment. You enjoy it because it's a great story for your kids. You enjoy it with your kids. I don't know how many analogies or examples I can give to, like, here's another one. I like playing hide and seek with my kids. I play hide and seek. I play hide and seek with my kids 10 million times. And I enjoy that with them.

Now, it would be weird as hell if I had some friends, some grown men over to the house, and I said, let's play hide and seek, guys. Okay? That would be strange. All right? If my wife walked into the living room and then one of the guys is like hiding behind the couch, shh, don't tell them I'm here. It would be weird. That would be a very weird thing. It's not weird for me to play with my kids. It is weird for me to play without them. Okay?

So that's it. But again, some children's movies are great. Great as children's movies. Here's another positive review I'll mention. Just last night I watched with my daughter, my five-year-old, the movie Up, which I'd never seen before. Of course, it came out like 20 years ago, but I hadn't seen it. And it was tremendous. I mean, maybe like the best...

The first 20 minutes of Up is probably maybe the best first 20 minutes of a children's film I've ever seen. It gets a little bit tedious towards the end. Overall, great film. Great children's film. I would not watch it alone. I would not sit on my own and watch Up. But with my kids, I enjoyed it. And as for music, you really only proved my point because there's a lot of music that I liked as a kid

that I absolutely would not listen to now. My tastes have changed. They've matured. I've changed and matured. Now, don't get me wrong. I can still listen to 90s music. It was a great era for music. Plenty of songs from that era were just high-quality songs for anyone of any age. I can still listen to that. But there's plenty of stuff I listened to when I was 17 that now if I hear it again, I'm like, wow, this is trash. This is awful. And if you never do that...

If you never find yourself in a position where you watch or listen to something that you liked when you were a teenager and thought to yourself, man, this is terrible now. I can't, I don't know how I enjoyed it. If that never happens with you, it means either that you had impeccably mature tastes from birth, which is very unlikely, or it means that your tastes have not matured at all, but they should. Okay? That's the whole point.

When The Daily Wire released What Is A Woman? it ignited a national conversation. Identity Crisis takes it further, revealing the raw, heartbreaking truth about the devastating impact of radical gender ideology on children and families. This powerful new film from The Daily Wire and Turning Point USA is streaming now on Daily Wire Plus. Creating bold, premium content like this is not easy. It's costly. It's risky.

But it's essential. That's why we rely on your support. Every dollar you invest goes directly back into building a platform that challenges the cultural narrative. Join the fight today at dailywire.com slash subscribe and get 25% off your new annual membership with code DW25. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

Today we have a viral TikTok video from a woman who decided to share some marriage and relationship advice. The twist in this case is that the advice actually isn't terrible. This is one of those very rare occasions when somebody on TikTok had something not horrifically stupid to say about romantic relationships. One of the few times where we don't have to lament that this video has been viewed millions of times, which it has, because the point she's making here is actually terrible.

basically true. Watch. This is a hot tip for the ladies, men love quests. No, I know not all men, but most men, okay? And all the men I want in my life, they like quests. Most men hate puzzles, but they love quests.

Most men don't want you to be coy and confusing and elusive. They want you to have very clear quests that you tell them, "This is exactly what I want. I want you to do this and I will be happy when you do it." A friend was telling me that her boyfriend offered to scrape off her car the other day. And I was like, "Oh, that's so nice." She's like, "Yeah, I told him not to, but I thought it was nice he offered." And I was like, "Oh, you told him not to?" She's like, "Yeah, I didn't want to be difficult and inconvenience him." And I'm like, "But didn't he happily offer to do it?"

And she's like, yeah, but I told him I didn't want him to. I'm like, oh, you didn't want him to? Like you wanted to do it yourself? And she's like, no, I would have loved if he did it for me, but I just, I didn't want to be difficult. And I'm like, honey, you have to remember men love quests. If you don't want him to do something because you want to do it yourself, that's totally fine. But do not squash yourself down and deny yourself for no reason.

Instead, let them do the quest for you and then be super appreciative and kind and happy about it. Nothing makes a man happier than completing a quest for you and you being happy and appreciative about it. So when he offers to scrape your car off, say, that would be amazing. Thank you so much.

And then when he comes in, tell him thank you. That just made my day so much brighter. Maybe make him a warm cup of coffee so that it's ready right when he comes in. It's like a video game, okay? He did his quest and then you gave him a resource in return. Leveled up in the game. He's winning now. You gave him the gift of winning. When a man loves you, nothing will make him happier than knowing he made you a little happier via a quest. Why do you think there's so many memes of boyfriends and husbands filling a girl's water cup? I'll tell you why. It's a quick...

Easy quest. If the quest involves something that makes him feel kind of rarly and powerful, that's a double points quest. Husband just put together a little vanity for me and I came upstairs and I just started jumping on him down. I was like, oh my God, it looks so good. He's just like beaming like I did it. Look how happy I made her. Now I'll admit I was slightly distracted by that mysterious substance in her cup, which came perilously close to spilling over the edge multiple times during the video. Not sure what beverage has a yellowish green tint.

and is consumed out of a mug. But that's a question for another day. I was also trying to listen to her point in spite of the shaky cam cinematography technique she's using. I'm not sure why that's so popular on social media these days. Every selfie video looks like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan. It's kind of bizarre. But aside from all that,

Her fundamental point is basically correct. She says that men love quests. Now, I think a better term here would probably be mission. Men love going on missions. A quest, technically, is a long journey in search of something. So, you know, you go on a quest to find the buried treasure. You go on a mission...

to save the damsel locked in the tower guarded by the evil dragon. So these terms are similar, but not exactly the same. What she's describing in the video is more of a mission than a quest. Although men do also love quests. You might even say that a quest is a mission with a puzzle attached, which is why the only thing she got wrong is when she said men hate puzzles. We don't.

What we hate are pointless puzzles. We hate having to crack some complicated code when the answer could be easily obtained some other way. This is one of the reasons, like, I know for me as a man, actual puzzles in a box, I hate those. I'm not going to do them because...

The picture of what the thing is is on the box. It is the box. So what I need to do, I'm going to spend six hours putting a puzzle together to just recreate the picture that's already right there. I don't see a point to it. So I don't want to do it. In a relationship, you know, a man...

gets frustrated when his wife wants something or is upset about something and won't just come out and say what it is. That's the kind of puzzle we hate because it's artificial. It's arbitrary. The woman is creating a puzzle and wasting our time and generating frustration and friction needlessly. But if there is a puzzle that actually needs to be solved in pursuit of some ultimate goal, some mission, well, then we love that. That's a thrill.

And this begins at the earliest ages. Pretty much all of a boy's daydreaming and make-believe revolves around him going on grand adventures and fighting bad guys and saving the day. Which, that alone tells you almost everything you need to know about the innate differences between

boys and girls and men and women, starting with the fact that there are innate differences that go beyond the physical. There are also these innate psychological and I would say spiritual differences. Maybe every once in a while you'll have a girl that does this kind of make-believe thing where she's fighting bad guys, but I've never even seen that. For boys, this just comes naturally. It's all they ever do.

And that continues even into adulthood, by the way, in terms of the daydreaming and everything that even grown men do. And you see it in more everyday ways also. The other day, I had to run to Lowe's to get some bags of sand. Not a very exciting trip. Just had to get some bags of sand. My two older boys were begging to go with me. And anytime I run an errand, they want to come because I got a little mission I have to go do. And they want to come with me.

This is also something I've noticed with my youngest sons who just turned two. And because they're two, if you kind of shout to them across the room and tell them to come over to you, the response is quite mixed. They might come most of the time, they'll just sort of stare at you uncomprehendingly and disinterested and then carry on with whatever they're doing, playing with trains or whatever. But I found that if I asked them to bring me something,

Well, then they'll grab the thing and run right to me. Because coming over to dad isn't a mission, but grabbing that random object over there and bringing it to dad, that is a mission. So this has happened many times. They'll say, hey, buddy, come over here. Come here. And he's just staring at me. Hey, go grab me that ball and bring it over. And he gets up and runs for the ball and brings it up. This is how boys are wired from birth. Now, the only risk in this idea that men love quests, or as I would put it, men love missions,

is that it can take on a patronizing tone. Now, I don't think the woman in the video was being patronizing, but that's where this line of thinking can lead. If you take it the wrong way, you might think that the way to keep a man happy is just to constantly give him little tasks to complete and then clap and pat him on the head like he's a two-year-old who just picked up the ball and brought it to you. That may work for toddlers, but not for grown men. Because a man loves going on a mission for the reason that it has a purpose.

And men need to have a sense of purpose. There are two ways to break a man's spirit. One is to give him nothing to do at all. A man with no mission in life is a man in despair. It's one of the reasons why a lot of men retire and then die a year later, because they have no mission. The other way is to give him something to do with no clear sense of why he's doing it. Not having any task to complete can be soul-crushing for a man. But having a pointless task can be even more soul-crushing.

A mission is not a mission unless there's an objective. And a man needs to have an objective. He needs to have little objectives throughout his day and then larger ones that he pursues over the course of months and years. A man with no objectives, no missions, is again a man in a state of total despair. Now, bringing this back to the context of marriage and family, this is all really a long way of saying that men are providers. That's really what we're talking about. When she's talking about a man on a quest,

She's actually talking about a man providing. And this is why men love quests, as she said, because men are providers. They love to provide. This is the ultimate mission that gives a man, it gives his life a sense of purpose. It's the point that lies behind even the tasks that would otherwise seem pointless. Okay, a man sitting in a cubicle and punching numbers into a computer all day may feel like his job has no grand purpose, and maybe it doesn't.

But if he has a family to provide for, then that is the grand purpose. And that alone makes the job at least tolerable. Men love quests and missions because we are born to be providers. It's what we need to do. It's what society needs us to do. Now, of course, I'll be told, as we so often are, that women can also provide. And that's true. I mean, a woman can certainly provide.

in this day and age, get a job, earn a paycheck, support her family. That can happen. It sometimes does happen. But women, generally speaking, can also be happy, and I would say most of the time happier, without the pressure of being the breadwinner and provider. And society, as history has clearly shown, can function very well when men play the provider role nearly exclusively. The same is not true the other way around.

Most men cannot be happy when their wives are the ones carrying the burden of providing. And the wives cannot be happy either. Not just unhappy. I mean, I would be in agony if I was at home and relying on my wife to support our family. It would literally kill me. And that's the case for most men. I mean, this is why the stay-at-home dad arrangement doesn't work.

It can only work if a man finds a way to stifle and suffocate that innate part of himself that calls him to go out into the world and take on the mission of providing for his family, which is to say it works only if the man spiritually and psychologically deforms himself, which is to say it doesn't actually work. So unless a man is somehow incapacitated or severely disabled in some way, he should not be relying on his wife to provide for him and their children.

to choose such a life is shameful. A man can only pretend that he's not ashamed, but the more he pretends, the more his shame comes through. Now, on a societal level, there's no evidence that a society can function, much less thrive, when the women are the primary providers. No such society has ever existed in the history of the civilization, or could exist for very long at least, and we know that from history.

So this is what the statement men love quests actually means. It's a basic truth of male psychology, and it's a fundamental building block of human civilization. It's nice that something like that is being discussed on TikTok for a change, which is why the woman who made that TikTok video is not today canceled. That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening. Talk to you tomorrow. Have a great day. Godspeed. I've often said that gender affirming care is health care. It is mental health care, and it can actually be suicide prevention care.

I think I'm gonna take some medicine so I can kind of like transform into a boy, get surgery. - After the surgery, I didn't really feel any better. - When it stopped being a thing for adults and it started to be a let's teach this to kids. - Total lie, manipulation, it's gaslighting. - Please stop.

He's a boy, not a girl. How could she do this to my son? What they're talking about is hormonal therapy or sex reassignment surgery on children. I thought fixing me externally would fix me internally, but of course I was wrong. The fact that the state thinks that they're more important and have a better say in what happens to your child over the actual parent's opinion is egregious. Puberty blockers, surgeries, big money makers for hospitals, for physicians. All I want to do is hold my son.

Are you asking me to lie to parents? And he said, yes. This is an weaponized...

Use of a parent's sympathy and caring and concern by the left to destroy your child. Let's tell kids that maybe they can be the opposite sex. Maybe they actually are the opposite sex. It is an evil thing to tell children that happiness lies on the other side of puberty blockers or double mastectomies. The left so badly wants to blur these lines. That's a five alarm fire. It's criminal.