Ep. 1415 - ‘Gentle Parenting’ Is A Great Way To Turn Your Child Into An Obnoxious, Insufferable Brat
01:03:17 Share

I'd like to talk to you about a new book, Full-Time, Work and the Meaning of Life by David Bonson. In a time where work is being heralded as the cause of societal pain, depression, and anxiety, full-time is screaming the exact opposite, that we're created to work and that our work provides unique meaning and purpose in our lives. We are living in a crisis of apathy and ignorance regarding work's existential nature. There's no shortage of books telling people to work less, to find balance, to think less of career, and more of things that bring them happiness.

In Full Time, Bonson makes the case that our understanding of work and its role in our lives is deeply flawed. He argues that the time has come to stop tiptoeing around the issues that matter, that separating one's identity from what they do is demonstrably false, and that a low view of work is leading to disastrous policy proposals and cultural attitudes. It is in work of every kind that we discover our meaning and purpose. A significant and successful life is one rooted in full-time productivity and cultivation of God's created world.

- A life of meaning is right under your nose and with it, the joy and peace of a life well lived. Available for purchase at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Visit fulltimebook.com for more information. That's fulltimebook.com. - Today on The Matt Walsh Show, a new parenting trend has become very popular, especially among millennial parents. It's called gentle parenting. And like so many other new age parenting techniques, it is guaranteed to turn your child into a terrible human being. We'll talk about that. Also, the media and the Harris campaign claim that Trump backed out of a debate with her. They are lying, of course.

When a judge in Arizona rules that unborn human beings cannot be called human beings because the term human being is apparently partisan. Plus, the female boxer assaulted by a male boxer at the Olympics has now come out and issued an apology to the man. We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show. Daily Wire Plus members have unlimited on-demand access to our uncensored ad-free daily shows, real-time breaking news, and investigative journalism. Don't be left in the dark. Join us and the fight now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.

You know, it's difficult to be a good parent in our culture today. The forces pulling your child away from you, the corrupting influences that seek to degrade him and destroy his soul are more numerous and more powerful and more ubiquitous and unavoidable and have more immediate access to him than at any other point in human history. This is why it's so easy to fail at parenting these days, but also why it's so crucial that we don't.

For that reason, I'm always troubled when some confused, fatally stupid and inept parenting method arises. Every few years, a fancy new parenting trend seems to crop up. They always have different names and present themselves as different strategies, but they're basically the same bad ideas repackaged and resold over and over and over again.

You notice that up until the latter half of the last century, there were no parenting trends or parenting methods. You didn't have different types of parenting. There was only parenting. If you'd asked your great-grandfather what parenting strategy he preferred, if you asked him if he was a conscious parent or a helicopter parent or a positive parent or whatever, he would have looked at you confused, not understanding the question, or else he would have shown you his belt. In recent decades, thanks in large part to the psychiatric industry,

Parenting has become much more complicated than it needs to be. With too many competing strategies, all of them seemingly designed to make your child into a dysfunctional, needy, entitled little hellion. And in that way, they've been extremely successful. Which brings us to a parenting trend that has gotten a lot of attention lately. It's called gentle parenting. Now, if you've ever ventured into the world of TikTok and Instagram parents, you are familiar with this term.

It's a style of parenting gaining popularity, especially in my generation. In fact, it's very, very popular. A recent survey of millennial parents conducted by Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago found that a staggering 75% of millennial parents identify with the gentle parenting technique. So what is gentle parenting? The website parents.com has an explainer on the subject, quote,

Gentle parenting is a peaceful, positive style of parenting that is very different from that of previous generations of parents. It is but one of many styles of parenting out there. From authoritative and permissive to free-range and conscious parenting, there are seemingly more variations than a birdtout parent can count. But if you're looking to add a new approach to your arsenal, you may want to consider gentle parenting. Now, before parents.com tells us exactly what this approach consists of, we should make note of one thing.

We're told that gentle parenting is very different from that of previous generations of parents. And that's true. It's also the whole problem. Now, I'm not saying that we should parent exactly as our own parents and grandparents did. I'm not saying that previous generations of parents didn't make mistakes. I'm not saying they were perfect.

But previous generations of parents did parent the people who built human civilization. They parented the pioneers and poets and philosophers and artists and inventors and warriors and leaders who accomplished incomprehensible feats of heroism and genius and who gave us every good and wonderful and beautiful thing we have in our lives. So old-fashioned parenting, we might call it, has a track record. It's the parenting that took us from mud huts to the moon.

What has modern parenting produced? Does it have a similar record of success? Or has it instead produced multiple generations of depressed, lazy, overgrown brats stuck in a perpetual state of emotional and mental adolescence? I'll let you answer that question for yourself. The point is, we should be immediately suspicious of a very different style of parenting. Why is it very different? Was the old-fashioned parenting style broken? In what way was it broken?

And if it wasn't broken, why are we fixing it? Continuing, quote, gentle parenting is a means of parenting without shame, blame, or punishment. It's centered on partnership as both parents and children have a say in this collaborative style. Quote, gentle parenting, also known as collaborative parenting, is a style of parenting where parents do not compel children to behave by means of punishment or control, but rather use connection, communication, and other democratic methods to make decisions together as a family, says Danielle Sullivan, a parenting coach.

Gentle parenting teaches children that they can be active in the world, set their own boundaries, trust their own needs and make their voices heard. Now there's a lot wrong with what I just read. Using democratic methods in your home is a recipe for dysfunction and chaos. As the father and head of my household, I am not presiding over a democracy. I was not elected to my position. Even if my children voted to throw me out of office, I would remain in power.

Our system of government in the United States, in theory anyway, depends on the consent of the governed. My home does not. If your home does, that certainly means, without exception, that you have failed as a parent and your children are the kinds of horrible, out-of-control, miniature terrorists who nobody wants to be around and who, without miraculous intervention, will grow into maladapted, miserable adults. To explain why, it may be helpful to take a look at some examples of gentle parenting in action.

In fact, this article provides one, quote, "If you're looking for a way to incorporate gentle parenting into your life, your best bet is to start small. Model what you want to see on a regular basis. Practice kindness, compassion, and empathy at all times, and try to be less demanding and commanding. Instead of saying, 'Tie your shoes,' make it a suggestion. Something like, 'Do you think you should tie your shoes so you don't trip?'" Now, the first few sentences of this paragraph start out fine, but then we're told that you should be less demanding and commanding. Now, that's only half right.

Less demanding, sure, but you should be commanding. Now, the problem with demands, it's not that making demands is going to traumatize your poor child. It's actually that they're weak. Demands are made by people who are not in control but want to be. Kidnappers and bank robbers make demands. Demands are desperate. It means that you're not in control of yourself or your surroundings. To demand respect is to pathetically and impotently request it. It is to shout, respect me.

Because nobody does. If you have to tell someone to respect you, it's a clear sign that they don't. And the fact that they don't already is a problem. But to command respect is to be regarded with esteem, admiration, and obedience without asking for it. So you should command respect in your home. If you have to demand respect from your children, it means that you are not commanding respect. So you should be less demanding because you're more commanding.

But to be neither demanding nor commanding is to be a figure with no authority or respect at all. So instead of telling your child, tie your shoes, you're encouraged to say, do you think you should tie your shoes so you don't trip? Which is all wrong. A strong leader knows what things must be done and gives clear, concise, and confident instructions accordingly.

Tying shoes is a thing that must be done. It doesn't matter if your child thinks he should tie his shoes or not. You don't need to build a consensus on the matter. You don't need to put a referendum up for a vote to democratically establish the necessity of tying shoes. And what if he says that no, he doesn't think he should? What then? Will you respect him as an equal and let him fall down the steps and break his neck? Or will you tell him to tie them anyway? And if the latter, and I hope it's the latter, what was the point of asking the question in the first place?

Your child is a child. He has no idea what he's doing, what he should be doing, what's going on. He needs to know that you know. He needs to know that you are confident and secure in your position as the leader. Here's a parenting secret for you that is apparently not common knowledge but should be. A child wants to be told what to do. He doesn't want open-ended questions and limitless options. He wants direction. Now, he may not know that he wants that.

He may say that he doesn't want that, but that's because he doesn't understand his own wants, much less his needs. If you give instructions, not requests, instructions, and you do it clearly and firmly, he'll be a happier kid. He'll feel safer, more loved, and will end up being a better person in the long run. So this is the major problem with the gentle parenting method. It relies heavily on partnering with children who don't know what's best for them and are relying on you to know that.

You should not be looking to make your child a partner in his own parenting any more than you'd want the captain of your plane to invite you to partner with him and be a co-pilot in the cockpit. Now, your captain's commitment to democratic equality may flatter you for a moment, but it also makes it much more likely that you'll die a fiery death. Now, if you go over to TikTok, as mentioned, you'll find many examples of influencers promoting gentle parenting.

And they all run into the same problem. So here's one popular gentle parenting video from a guy with 12 million followers on the platform. Just to show you how popular this stuff is. And let's watch it.

Hey, the school called me today and told me about you skipping school. You lied to me about that. I know. I'm sorry. I should have told you the truth. Look, here's the deal for that. I think we go two weeks grounded. Is that fair? Yes. Everything make sense? Yeah. All right. All right, look, so that's the way we do it in our house. Different scenarios come up with different things. We don't have to set grounding or anything like that. But the kids know if they get grounded and they come and hang out with the family and they do things, help around the house, whatever.

things that they're not asked to do, that ground he doesn't have to stay two weeks. And also, look, Drew's a senior. If her last Friday night football game fell within that two-week thing, I'm not going to hold her back from that either. That is something I'm not going to take memories away from her. Same with, you know, her younger sister, Kenna. She got in trouble when a friend had a birthday party. Now maybe she doesn't get to spend the night, but I'm not going to let her miss that birthday party. We don't take things like that away, but that's kind of how we do some of the punishments here in our house.

We try to do better. Now, it will not surprise you to learn that the comments, and there are hundreds of them, are all from people applauding the strategy and saying that they wish this guy was their own dad. And that's because most of the comments are likely from teenagers who, for obvious reasons, would love to have a dad who only grounds them if they agree that it's fair. And who will still let them go to parties even when they're grounded. Which is like the court sentencing you to house arrest, but then telling you that your house for these purposes includes anywhere on the earth.

Of course, in real life, if you tell your teenage daughter that she's grounded and then ask her if it's fair, in a million cases out of a million, she will say no. She's not gonna say, yeah, that's fair, and then just walk out of the room perfectly fine with it. No, she's gonna very stridently inform you that it is not only unfair, but it's the most unfair thing that has ever happened to anyone ever in the world. So what then? Will you respect her opinion and validate her perspective by throwing out the punishment?

If so, what was the point of the whole exercise other than making you look emasculated and weak? And if you'll stick with the punishment, even though she says it's unfair, what was the point of asking her whether it's fair or not? This is what gentle parenting is all about. It's designed to make parents look indecisive and pathetic in the eyes of their children. Here's maybe the most egregious example that I found just from a quick skim of these kinds of videos. I can only stomach so much. But just watch this and try to follow this story that this mom relates. Watch.

My daughter just asked for dessert and I calmly say I don't think we have anything for dessert only she quickly disagrees and says we do we have ice cream in the freezer as the blood is draining from my face I say oh

That ice cream. Honey, Daddy and I ate that last night. Y'all, she had a reaction. She slammed the freezer door, hands on hips, and said, Mommy, we really need to talk about this. Excuse me? This happened with the Oreos. It happened with the cookies that you made. And you said that Daddy ate the last one and that you ate one too. It happened with the other ice cream. It's starting to occur to me that she's on to us. It happened with Uncle Aaron's birthday cake. You and Daddy always sneak the good snacks at night, don't you? Why are you and Daddy sneaking all the good snacks at night? Uh...

And how come every time we wake up, all of the snacks are gone? I, uh...

There is no getting out of this. And as I'm getting stared down by my four-year-old, I have nothing to say because I am just caught. Only I didn't spend my childhood pulling hey misters and hide the snacks to deal with this. I don't have to justify myself now and my midnight Oreo snacking and whatever else I do. I am an adult, so I can do whatever I want at night and I can eat all the snacks I want is what I want to say. But I know that she's not going to buy that. I also know that I've taught them about this thing called fairness and sharing. And so she just wants me to share the snacks. I don't

Which is where she gets me when she says, from now on, you need to just save us a little bit, please. Fair enough. But in 10 to 15 years, this is going to click and I'm screwed. So wish me luck. Dear God, God help the next generation. That video has 360,000 likes, by the way. So let me see if I have this right.

Your daughter slammed the freezer door, lectured you, and instructed you not to eat food without her permission. And you stood there, tail between your legs like a scalded puppy, and just took it. You allowed yourself to be chastised and reprimanded by your own daughter. You permitted her to rebuke you for eating your food that you purchased. This is disordered in the extreme. Well, you and your husband should be communicating.

is that the ice cream is your ice cream. It's your fridge, it's your kitchen, it's your house. You're not sneaking any snacks. They're your snacks. You should pull out a snack and eat it right in front of her, okay? It's yours. You don't have to ask her permission. She should be grateful that she has a roof over her head, a room to sleep in, and any food to eat at all. You're so generous that you even buy her ice cream sometimes.

The fact that she's ever had ice cream in her life is an act of generosity on your part. The only attitude you should accept from your child is gratitude for the things you give her and the life you provide for her. And if she speaks to you that way, you should not respond by promising to give her more snacks in the future. No, you should take away snacks, take away privileges, take away freedom until she learns how to speak to you and afford you the respect that she owes you. The only thing you have to give your child

are the basic necessities to keep them alive. Everything else is a privilege and privileges can and should be revoked if they are not deserved. Now I had to give my own daughter a lecture like this recently. She was not scolding me for eating my own food out of my own fridge and would not dare talk to me like that. But she did tell me after I reprimanded her for not keeping a room clean, that it's her room and she doesn't know why I care so much whether it's clean or not. Now, I did not validate her feelings.

or get down to her level to make sure that she felt seen and heard. I didn't get on my knees and look her in the eyes and say, "I'm sorry you feel that way, sweetie. That must be so hard. I just, I really like it if your room was clean. Is that fair? Is that okay with you? Can we agree together as a team? Here, I'll help you clean it." No, instead, I stood there and simply said, "No, it's not your room. It's my room. It's my house. I let you stay in this room under certain conditions.

One of those conditions is that you keep it clean. That's a requirement. It's not a request. I'm going to go downstairs, and when I come back up in an hour, it will be clean. That's it. I wasn't negotiating or asking for permission or trying to come to a consensus. Simply asserted my authority, gave the instruction, made sure that I was clear. It's not any kind of revolutionary parenting technique. It's just parenting. That's what a parent is supposed to do. I want to play one more gentle parenting video for you. Another thing that you hear from

The gentle parents is that you shouldn't punish your children. You should instead rely on natural consequences, they like to say. What does that mean? Well, here's another popular parenting TikTok influencer named Dr. Chelsea. She has a doctorate in education, but still uses the doctor prefix.

But here she is explaining how consequences should work. And she starts by going through some consequences that she says are bad. You shouldn't use them. And then she gives other consequences that she thinks are much better. This is the parenting expert. She's a doctor, everybody. Let's listen to her. You ran away from me at the park. There will be no screens tonight. You didn't eat your dinner, so there's no ice cream.

You failed your math test, you're grounded. You didn't clean up your room when I told you to, now we're not going to the party. You didn't complete your chores, you can't stay home alone with your big sister.

What do all these things have in common? They're unnatural and illogical consequences. And while they might work to scare your child into compliance for a minute, in the long term, they're likely to make things worse. Which is why so many of you tell me, "I've been parenting and trying to do consequences and hold boundaries, and it's not working here. She doesn't care about anything." I think your ratio's off. The ratio at which a natural consequence, not those,

will work is 97 to 3. When you're doing 97% positive supports, then a natural consequence, natural, not like the ones in the beginning, may well be effective. But you have to get the positive supports dialed in first. Here's some examples of natural and logical consequences. Kid throws truck. Oh, looks like trucks are too tricky for today. Trucks are all done. We can try again tomorrow.

Kid is splashing in bath. Up, water stays in tub. Kid splashes. Water stays in tub. Kid splashes. Oh, looks like bath is too tricky for today. Pull the plug or remove the child. Kids are fighting in the car. Slowly pull over. Be silent. Say, I drive when everybody is calm and quiet. Then don't say anything else. You can start driving again when they're calm and quiet.

Kids are fighting over what show to watch. Oh, looks like shows are too tricky for today. I'll take the remote. Let's try again after dinner. Okay. Well, you should know from the start not to pay attention to a parenting guru who can't even get her own kids to be quiet for two minutes so she can record a video. More to the point, there's a major problem with the consequences that she suggests. She calls them natural—I don't even know what the hell that's supposed to mean in this context—

But they would more aptly be called flimsy and toothless. The problem with a consequence like pulling the car over momentarily before you start driving again or taking TV away only until dinner is that those consequences cause no discomfort or pain or even inconvenience to your children. They aren't going to care about the consequences because there's no reason to care. A consequence should be something that causes them enough grief that they want to avoid it in the future. No other consequence has any meaning or will have any impact.

So think of the consequences that she says don't work, taking away screen time, grounding, taking away a party that they were supposed to go to. But no, those are all good consequences. Those are effective consequences. Why? This is real simple, because it's stuff that the kid will not like, okay? A child will be upset about losing screen time and losing a party, etc. And that's the whole point of the consequence. They have to be upset with it. If they're not upset with it, there's no point.

Okay, this is one of the reasons why timeouts often don't work when they're overused and not used in the right way. Because the kid doesn't care. They sit for five minutes and they don't care. It doesn't matter. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't make an impact. The problem is that many parents today are terrified of making their children upset. They'd rather be friends than authority figures. They're so focused on validating their kids that they've lost all sight of the much more important job, which is guiding, instructing, and civilizing their kids. That's the primary role of a parent.

that is parenting, gentle parenting, like so many modern methods to come before it and so many others that will come after. May more accurately be called non-parenting. It is not a new way of fulfilling your parenting duties, but a way of abdicating them entirely. Now let's get to our five headlines. Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down. Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day

Sounds miserable and time consuming, and sometimes, you know, I just want an egg sausage and muffin. That's the fact. But with Bounce of Nature fruits and veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure that you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients.

Balance of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, freeze dries them, turns them into a powder, and then puts that powder into a capsule. You take your fruit and veggie capsule every day, and then your body knows what to do with them. Go to balanceofnature.com. Use promo code Walsh for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer. Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice. That's balanceofnature.com. Promo code Walsh.

All right, let's start with this because it's kind of a funny moment. CNN went to a black barbershop in Pennsylvania to talk to them about the election and obviously was counting on and hoping for certain reaction, certain feedback, but they were shocked and scandalized by what they discovered. Let's watch this. CBS network anchor went to a central Pennsylvania barbershop seeking some candid conversation.

among the revelations that some of the black men that he interviewed did not regard Harris as black. Is Kamala going to make you a little more likely or less likely to vote Democrat? Hold on, Ray. It's Kamala Black, yes or no? I'm going to let her speak on that. But to me, no. Oh. It's Kamala Black, yes or no? I share that same view. Wow. It's Kamala Black, yes or no? I heard she was. I heard she's half black and half Asian.

When I played that audio on my Sirius XM radio program on Thursday, many callers who self-identified as African-American were quick to tell me that those men were the exception, not the rule.

Some describe them as low information voters, no different than you'd find among whites. Okay, so that wasn't CNN that went, that was, what did they say, CBS? Anyway, it's all the same. Pretty hilarious. They, of course, went there hoping for the opposite. They were hoping that the black guys at the barbershop would talk about how offended they were by Trump's comments. Instead, they agreed with his comments, basically, questioning the blackness of Kamala Harris.

Which is great. Now, I still don't think that this question about Kamala's race is a question that the Trump campaign needs to focus on. And they don't seem to be focusing on it. But it is funny and perhaps kind of telling that they got that answer. And at any rate, the Trump campaign may not be focused on the question of Kamala's race, even if Trump did bring it up during that interview. But the media, the media's focused on it. So here was a

George Snuffleupagus on ABC also on Sunday berating Byron Donalds, of course, a black Republican congressman about this issue. And this is an exchange that goes on for like three or four minutes. We won't play the whole thing. We'll play a minute and a half, two minutes of it. But I want you to watch as he is simultaneously berating Byron Donalds for talking about this

while also insisting that he keep talking about it. So it's a very interesting dynamic here. Let's watch. And you just repeated the slur again. If it doesn't matter, why do you all keep questioning her identity? She's always identified as a black woman. She is biracial. She has a Jamaican father, an Indian mother. She's always identified as both. Why are you questioning that?

Well, George, first of all, this is something that's actually a conversation throughout social media right now. There are a lot of people who are trying to figure this out. But again, that's a side issue, not the main issue. The main issue. Sir, one second. You just did it. You just did it again. Of the United States. Why? Why do you why do you insist on questioning her racial identity? You want me to talk? I want you to answer my question. George.

George, now that you're done yelling at me, let me answer. He talked about it on the stage yesterday in Atlanta for, what, two minutes? He spent more than 35, 40 minutes going after her record, talking about how radical of a senator that she was. She was the most liberal senator in the United States, in the United States Senate. That is a fact. He talked about the job well.

that she did as vice president of the United States, a job I will add, which has been a failure for the American people. I know you guys like to glom on to this that he talks about in jest or in a serious manner for about a minute or so, but what you do not cover is the litany of failures of Kamala Harris. That's what you're not covering, George. So questioning somebody's racial identity for a couple minutes is okay?

George, I'm going to tell you again, he brought it up. AP is the one that wrote the headline when she first came in to the United States Senate. Didn't talk about her being black, talked about her being the first Indian American senator. AP brought that up. If it doesn't matter, I don't understand why you keep on repeating it, why the president keeps on repeating it, why those introducing the president yesterday keep on repeating it. George, actually, I'm not the one who keeps repeating it. George, you're the one that's bringing it up now.

Okay, well, here's a good thing about these corporate media hacks. And this is why I appreciate guys like Snuffleupagus, that they aren't subtle. They telegraph their strategies. They generally, they take a very bull in the china shop approach to trying to steer the conversation one way or another. And that's what's going on here. So it's both, hey, let's talk about this thing. And then he answers, why are you talking about it? It's literally what happened in this exchange over and over, like three times in a row, just in the two minutes that we played.

Which means that if you're a Republican, it's very clear what the media wants to talk about and what they don't wanna talk about. So that as a Republican, your response is pretty simple. Your counter strategy should be pretty simple. Talk about the stuff they don't wanna talk about and don't talk about the stuff that they do. That doesn't mean that you cower or hide from the stuff that they want to talk about. It just means that you steer the conversation

To the places that they don't want to go, which is what Donald's tried to do in that interview. He did a good job. There's only so much you can do when you're being harangued and berated in that way. But the media wants to stay focused on this thing about Kamala's race. Trump brought it up half joking in a 90 second clip as part of a longer 30 minute interview. It was only talked about for a minute, two minutes.

And everybody knows this is Trump's style, that he just kind of like, he tends to wander a bit rhetorically. And he goes down various, he doesn't stay on the main river, let's say. He goes down various little streams and tributaries. And he comes back to the main river. And so you can always, you can find him wandering over here for a second, and then you decide you want to focus on that. And they're doing that here because that's what they want to discuss.

So for Republicans, it's easy. Okay, they want you to attack on the race thing, so attack somewhere else. Where don't they want you to attack? Let's find those weak points and focus your energy there. And this, again, is the point that Donald was making in the interview. I thought he did well. All right, staying with politics here, let me read this from NBC News. It's nonsense, of course, but I'll read it. Headline, Trump ditches upcoming ABC debate, proposes Fox News debate instead.

Former President Donald Trump on Friday said he would no longer participate in a September debate on ABC, opting instead to propose a debate against Vice President Kamala Harris on Fox News on September 4th. The former president said the ABC debate was agreed to when President Joe Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee, but has been terminated and that Biden will no longer be the nominee. Trump also cited his active defamation lawsuit against ABC and the network's anchor, George Snuffleupagus. But that lawsuit was filed in March and the Biden-Trump debate on ABC was announced in May.

So he's saying, let's do Fox. The Harris campaign has said that he's running scared, he's backing out of the debates. Kamala just tweeted that Trump is hiding in his, quote, safe space. And so she'll be there on September 10th on ABC. Trump's saying he's gonna be there on September 4th on Fox. So they'll be in two different places on two different days debating each other, I guess. Now, this, as I said, is all nonsense. Trump never agreed.

I mean, so it's just the media, no surprise, straight up lying, saying Trump is backing out of a debate. There was no debate scheduled. Trump never agreed to debate Kamala Harris on September 10th. He agreed to debate Joe Biden on September 10th. And you can't just swap out the person like it's a technicality. It's not, you're agreeing with a person to a certain thing. When that person is gone and a new person comes in, well, now we have to make a new agreement.

This is pretty obvious. It's like if you ordered Chinese food on Uber Eats and the Uber Eats driver came and delivered you pizza instead. And you tried to reject it and he said, well, no, you can't reject it. You ordered food. Well, you're backing away from your order. You agreed to this. You can't cancel your order. No, I'm not canceling my order. That's not what I ordered. That's a whole different food thing. That's a whole different type of food. That's not what I ordered. You can't just do that.

Now, you could talk to me ahead of time and say, oh, I can't get that. Would you like this instead? I guess you could do that, but you didn't do that. So a little bit of an odd analogy, but you get the point. You can't just swap out a whole other person and then assume that the debate is still on exactly as it was originally planned.

And I personally think that Trump should stay firm on the Fox debate proposal. He's not ducking a debate. He's not refusing to debate. He's set a time and place where he'll debate. I think walking into a debate with Kamala on a hostile network would probably be a mistake. And yeah, he agreed to it with Joe Biden. We could argue about whether he should have agreed to it with Biden. Well, obviously, I mean, the first debate, clearly he was right to agree to that because it ended Joe Biden's career. But

agreeing ahead of time to two debates or whatever, but it doesn't matter because Joe Biden's gone. And he agreed to that debate because that's a particular set of circumstances. And I think in that case, the reasoning was, which again turned out to be very good reasoning, that yeah, okay,

We're gonna go to a place where it's hostile territory and that deck is stacked against us. But that's the only way we can get Biden to debate and it's worth the risk here because Biden is senile. And so we just have to get in the same room as him and it'll be obvious that it's like the Trump campaign was thinking to itself, Trump doesn't need to say anything.

Just the simple fact of getting Biden into a room where he has to speak off the cuff and off script for two hours is guaranteed to precipitate a meltdown. That's exactly what happened. Well, now it's a new person. The situation has changed and strategy changes. Kamala is not senile. She's not very smart, but she's not senile. And she's a relatively conscious and sentient creature.

And so she could benefit greatly from a debate where the moderators are on her side and the whole thing is a three on one or four on one tag team against Trump. That's an advantage that you're willing to give to Biden because he's senile, but it would be foolish to give that advantage to anybody else. It's not because Kamala is so gifted. It's just like if someone is at least vaguely competent at being able to communicate, it's foolish. You don't give them that advantage. You're not gonna walk into that.

And we all know that a debate on Fox would actually be fair to both of them. Fox anchors are not going to gang up on Kamala and target her and all of that. We've seen Fox debate, they're not gonna do that. Martha McCallum and Brett Baier, we all know they're not gonna, even the left knows they're not gonna do that. If anything, they would be tougher on Trump just to prove how unbiased they are. And we all know that. So-

There hasn't been a Fox debate where the moderators went out of their way to embarrass the Democrat. It just doesn't happen. And so he is actually proposing, he's not proposing a playing field that's stacked in his favor. It actually is as close to a neutral playing field as you're going to get. All right, what else do we have here? I wanted to mention this.

ABC News reports, a judge on Friday rejected an effort by GOP lawmakers to use the term unborn human being to refer to a fetus in the pamphlet that Arizona voters would use to weigh a ballot measure that would expand abortion access in the state. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Witten said the wording that the state legislative council suggested is packed with emotion and partisan meaning and asked for what he called more neutral language.

The measure aims to expand abortion access from 15 weeks to 24 weeks, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Arizona for Abortion Access, the organization leading the ballot measure, sued the council earlier this month over the suggested language and advocated for the term fetus, which the legislative council rejected. This is why I'll never agree that abortion is a losing issue for us. I know that's the conventional wisdom, even on the right, that it's a losing issue. I'll never agree with that.

And this is a perfect example why. On the other side, they stridently object to you simply calling a human being a human being. It is partisan and packed with emotion, they say, to acknowledge a human being as a human being. And instead they insist on fetus. But the insistence on fetus is very telling. Why? Well, because fetus means, you know, it's not that fetus means something different from unborn child.

Okay, so it's not like they're advocating for a term that means something different. No, it means the same thing. And that's the point. Fetus is a Latin word. And in Latin, it means the young while in the womb or offspring. Okay, that's like it could mean either of those things. So if we can call the unborn human an offspring or young in the womb, why can't you say unborn human or unborn child? It means the same thing.

It's the same thing. This is no different than if I punched you in the face and you said, hey, you broke my nose. And I said, no, I didn't stop using partisan language. Actually, I broke your nasus. N-A-S-U-S is the Latin word for nose.

I'm just arbitrarily demanding that in this case you refer to your nose in Latin, okay? Why would I be insisting on that language correction? It's not even a correction, it's the same thing. I'm just demanding that you refer to it in Latin. Well, why would I be demanding that? Is it because the Latin term is more accurate? No, it means the same thing. The only difference is that the Latin term is more obscure. It's less clear.

to most people who hear it. That's the only possible reason a person could have for insisting on the Latin term when there is an English term that means the same thing and is understood by everybody. So that means that they want to make this issue as obscure as possible. I've been preaching this now for weeks. It is a misnomer to say that the left wants to talk about abortion, that they want to campaign on abortion.

that they see abortion as a strong issue for them. That's not true. They are, in fact, terrified of this issue. No one else is going to tell you that, but they are terrified of it. What did we talk about a few minutes ago? Find the things that your enemy doesn't want to talk about and talk about those things. It's a real simple political strategy. Whatever they want to talk about, talk. Whatever they don't want to talk about, talk about that. Whatever they do want to talk about, don't talk about that. Or at least don't talk about it in the same way that they want you to talk about it.

So when it comes to this issue, they want to talk about abortion in a very narrow, specific way using euphemistic language. And you can win the argument by talking about it in ways and using the language that they are afraid of. That's a real quick way to get them to retreat. I mean, they might come charging in super confident. Let's talk about abortion. We're going to get you on this one.

It is not hard to send them running for the hills and changing the subject. If a liberal beats you in an abortion debate, it's because you are tragically stupid, either intellectually or strategically or both, which is why I'm begging. I am begging Trump. And I know there are people in Trump world who follow me. So I'm begging you guys. I don't often beg, but I'm begging on this one.

Assuming there is a debate with Kamala, which I think that there probably will be, when abortion comes up, which it will, early and often, presumably, just if you disregard everything I ever say, just take my word on this. Trump needs to turn to Kamala and just say this. I'd love to talk about this very important issue, but we cannot talk about it unless we're sure that we're all talking about the same thing. So Kamala, do you agree that the unborn child in the womb is a human being?

That's it, that's it, that's all you have to ask. For all the talk about how they love to talk about this issue, they wanna, that is the issue and they don't wanna talk about that. They don't wanna talk about that thing, which is the whole entire issue. It comes down to that, that is the question of the whole, that's the question. Are we dealing with a human being or not? That is the question and it is the question that they don't want to answer. They don't wanna be anywhere near it.

Do you think that Kamala's campaign staff, that they wanna see Kamala Harris up on a nationally televised primetime debate stage talking about the personhood question? Talking about whether unborn children count as human beings? You actually think they wanna see her explain, they wanna hear her explaining why fetus is preferable to unborn child? No, of course not.

That's a loser for them. They lose that argument because they're so totally, completely, obviously wrong. Yes, it's a human being. It cannot be anything else but a human being. It's the only thing it can be. This is a biological fact. There's nothing to debate here. So they don't want to talk about that. But they also, they can't deny it, but they also can't admit it.

Because then if they admit it, now they are openly and explicitly saying, yes, it's a human being, a living human being, but I think sometimes it's okay to kill an innocent human being. Yes, it's an unborn child, but yeah, I think it's okay to kill it. They don't want to say that.

Look, that might be the kind of thing that Bill Maher will say, as he said recently. It doesn't play well. And a Democrat politician is not ever going to say that, ever. And the only reason that the left seems to win on this issue in the court of public opinion is that we allow them to. There are so many winning places to steer this discussion, but Republicans rarely even try to steer it there.

Um, and I think as we all saw with, with other issues, as we saw with, um, you know, the trans issue, gender ideology, uh, in our, it's something that we are full, you know, I'm not going to say that the battle is one, it's still ongoing, but we are winning. They are running away scared, uh, to the, you know, I mean, to the point that

Kamala Harris has not talked. She's not gonna she doesn't want to talk about it. She definitely doesn't want to talk about that She's not talking about trans rights. She's not talking about that. She does not want to talk about it All these things happening in the Olympics right now. Maybe she's addressed it You know Pat and in passing or very briefly. I'm not even sure if she has but she doesn't want to have that she doesn't want to talk about that and How do we get to a point where we were winning so thoroughly on that issue was many different factors all working together but a lot of it is

was just simplifying the issue and figuring out what is the fundamental question that we're arguing over. And as we know, when it comes to trans, the fundamental question was, what is a woman? What is a man? Like, what does this word mean? You're saying that a quote unquote trans woman is a woman. What do you mean by that? Right. And the moment that we were we simplify it down to those basics, you win.

It's an unanswerable question for the other side. It's a question that they certainly can, if they answer it honestly, they automatically lose. And the thing that frustrates me to no end with the abortion debate is that there is a very similar, very basic question. And this is one that at least pro-lifers have been asking and pointing to for long before I even existed. They've been talking about this. So it's right there. It's very obvious.

What is the unborn child? Is it a person or not? We can't talk about it. This conversation cannot go forward until we answer that. Sorry, it can't. Trump could say that. Say, look, we could talk about this. We could spend the whole debate talking about it if you want to. Fine. You know, that's your moderator. It's your prerogative. Go ahead.

We cannot move forward until we answer first this question. We just can't. And so I'm saying the unborn child is a human being and a person. That's what I say. We got to get an answer from her or this conversation cannot continue, unfortunately. I would love to see that. I would pay money to see that. Daily Wire is about to make history with its first ever theatrical film, and it's going to be a hilariously rude awakening for the woke.

From the same white guys that brought you What is a Woman? comes America's next great question, Am I racist? coming to theaters on September 13th. You know, if you've seen the preview, you know that I went undercover into the heart of the DEI madness, surrounded by professional race baiters and diversity grifters and generally the worst people in the world. The things I witnessed were shocking and absurd. You have to see it for yourself, but also fascinating.

in a very dark way, hilarious. Now here's what you need to know. Pre-sale tickets go on sale August 15th. So make sure to mark that date on your calendar. Don't worry, I will keep reminding you. Watch the official trailer now at www.miracist.com and get a taste of a comedy to DEI for. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. ♪

Now, since I last spoke about the two males who are competing in women's Olympic boxing events, both of them have now clinched in at least a bronze medal. That's the bare minimum that they'll walk away with. And of course, they'll likely win more. Iman Khalif of Algeria is predictably dominating the welterweight class and Lin Yuting is

Taiwan has done the same in the featherweight class now Lynn advanced to the semis by defeating a woman named Svetlana Staniva of Bulgaria in the quarterfinal yesterday by unanimous decision as the fight ended Svetlana protested by making a double X hand gesture Apparently referencing her 2x chromosomes watch Now final decision as

Now, Svetlana didn't answer questions from reporters after the fight, probably to avoid being dogpiled for saying the truth. This is the extent of the protest that's allowed at the Olympics. Men are pummeling women, and in response, the women are flashing hand gestures. There are also reportedly letters of protest being sent around. Meanwhile, the insanity, though, is allowed to continue unabated.

The semifinals are coming up later this week. Iman's next fight is on Tuesday. Lin's is on Wednesday. In all likelihood, it's only because Lin and Iman are in separate divisions that we won't see two men competing for the gold in the women's boxing this year. Now, I've outlined, but I'm sure that will happen next Olympics.

I've outlined the specifics of this farce before, but because there's a lot of confusion about what exactly is happening at the Olympics, I'll restate some of the basics very quickly. Last year at the World Boxing Championships, both Lin and Amman were disqualified from competing against women. The International Boxing Association says that it determined by DNA tests that both Lin and Amman have XY chromosomes, meaning they're men. That's the designation you get when you have a Y chromosome, by definition.

And for good measure, the International Boxing Association determined that in addition to having male chromosomes, both have high testosterone levels. Now, Lynn did not appeal the decision. Iman initially appealed and dropped it. So the decisions were binding. But over a year later, the International Olympic Committee now says that Lynn and Khalif are indeed women. Now, it's not clear why they think that. Actually, it's not clear what they think at all or if they have any idea what's happening in their own competition at the moment. They appear to be in a state of total confusion and chaos. The IOC just tweeted this out, for example, quote,

In today's IOC Paris 2024 press briefing, IOC President Bach said, but I repeat here, this is not a DSD, disorder of sex development case. This is about a woman taking part in a women's competition. And I think I have explained this many times. What was intended was, quote, but I repeat here, this is not a transgender case. This is about a woman taking part in a women's competition. And I think I've explained this many times. So that's them correcting what the president said.

He said that this isn't a case of sex development disorder, and then they corrected that line. So the implication is that it is indeed potentially a case of a sex development disorder. These two male athletes could very well be men who have some differences in normal sex development, whether that means they're intersex or have some other chromosomal issue. But we really have no clue because they have not come out and justified any of this.

And as Colette reported in a very comprehensive piece on this topic, the IOC isn't interested in bringing any clarity to that question. Quoting from Colette, In other words, the IOC decided that men should be called women if they identify as women. Period.

And that's what we're seeing now. If a male boxer says that he's a strong, independent Arabic woman, then who are we to disagree? Let him beat up the women. That's the idea. And anyone who disagrees, the IOC has determined, is guilty of committing hate speech. An IOC spokesman has attacked the International Boxing Association, claiming that their DNA test was, quote, arbitrary and flawed.

The Odyssey spokesman never said exactly how the DNA test was arbitrary or flawed. The entire point of a DNA test is that it's not arbitrary. Arbitrary is when anyone can pick their gender at will and change it at a moment's notice. That's arbitrary by definition. But a DNA test is objective. I mean, it's like the least arbitrary thing you can do. You either have the Y chromosome or you don't. And if you have it, you're a man. If you don't, you're a woman. Then the Odyssey spokesman rejected the idea of conducting any kind of gender tests whatsoever.

He warned that it would be a catastrophic slippery slope if gender tests were implemented, quote, needless to say, if we start acting on the basis of suspicions against every athlete for any reason, then we're going down a very bad road. First of all, anyone who looks at Lin or Iman knows immediately that they're male. I mean, that's the real argument against gender tests is that they aren't necessary. Anybody with a working set of eyes knows that these athletes are male. This is

The part of the farce that we're all expected to participate in, this idea that we all can't naturally identify men from a mile away. We're supposed to pretend that thousands of years of human biology is null and void, and it's just impossible to have any reasonable suspicion that the huge hulking athlete might possibly be a male. If you think that, then you'll have to gender test a whole bunch of people because there are so many athletes in the Women's Olympics events who look like men. I mean, that's what the argument is anyway.

Of course, even if we do end up with that outcome, if the Olympics do gender test a few more athletes, it's not really clear what bad road we'd be going down exactly. Nor is it clear how that road could possibly be any worse than the road we're on now, which involves men beating women in a boxing ring so badly they have to quit the fight after 46 seconds, crying and saying they've never been hit that hard in their life. That's what Iman Khalif just said to, just did to Angela Carini. And how is letting women get violently assaulted in any way preferable to DNA testing?

and actually determining these things for sure. Thomas Bach, the president of the International Olympic Committee, doesn't have an answer to that question. This weekend he came out in defense of the males who are pummeling female athletes. He's the one who misspoke in that press conference I mentioned earlier, but it's worth looking at some of his comments in full. So here we have a man coming out to bravely tell women to shut up and take their beatings. Here it is. The thing now is that some women

want to own the definition of who is a woman. And there I can only invite them to come up with a scientific-based, a new definition of who is a woman and how can somebody being born, raised, competed and having a passport as a woman cannot be considered a woman.

If they are coming up with something, we are ready to listen, we are ready to look into it, but we will not take part in a politically motivated, sometimes politically motivated, cultural war. And allow me to say that what is going on in this context in the social media

with all this hate speech, with this aggression and abuse, and fueled by this agenda, is totally unacceptable. So it's always the people who have no idea what they're talking about who turn around and tell everyone else to shut up, with total sincerity saying that there's no scientific way to define what a woman is, so the best we could do is check their passport. Really, whatever's printed on the passport determines whether you can get pregnant or not, I guess.

You thought the passport office was about, you know, as significant as the DMV, but no, it has supernatural powers as it turns out. The passport office determines whether you're male or female. They get to decide whether you can bear children. Now, to be fair, he does say that if anyone can think of a better idea, he says that he's all ears. But actually, he's not all ears because he attacks his critics in the same breath. He says they're politically motivated and he asserts that anyone who says that it's wrong for a dude to beat up a woman in the boxing ring is guilty of hate speech.

Quote, some want to own the definition of who is a woman. I can only invite them to come up with a scientific new definition of who is a woman. How can someone who was born, raised, competed, and has a passport as a woman not be considered a woman? The answer to this question is that a woman is an adult human female. You can use a DNA test to figure that out if you need to. So we've already solved that problem for you.

That's the simple and scientific definition of the word woman that is always held true. It's the only workable definition that exists. Females have no Y chromosome. People with XX chromosomes are female. People with XY chromosomes, by contrast, are males. Females are the only sex that can bear offspring. Being a woman does not mean the passport clerk thinks you're a woman. It doesn't mean that you were raised as if you were a woman. That's like saying someone's a monkey if they were raised as a monkey. It's completely nonsense. Now, everyone knows this.

None of the people participating in the sham really think differently. But in many cases, people are cowed into saying what they're told to say. They're worried about being accused of hate speech, so they stay quiet. And that includes Angela Carini, finally, who was just beaten in the ring the other day by Iman Khalif. Carini said that it was the hardest she'd ever been hit. As we mentioned, she had to end the fight in just 46 seconds. Well, this weekend, Angela Carini issued an apology to the man who assaulted her. Like many victims of violent abuse, she blamed herself.

Quote, all this controversy makes me sad. I'm so sorry. I'm sorry for my opponent, too. If the IOC said she can fight, I respect that decision. When she was asked why she didn't shake her male opponent's hand, Karini said, it wasn't something I intended to do. Actually, I want to apologize to her and everyone else. I was angry because my Olympics had gone up in smoke. I don't have anything against Khalif. Actually, if I were to meet her again, I would embrace her.

All right. This is exactly why the issue has not gone away. It's why men are still invading women's sports, even though public opinion is widely, wildly against that at this point. The problem is that many of the female athletes themselves just don't have the courage and fortitude to stand firmly against it. The women themselves need to stand up firmly against it, but the vast majority of them won't.

And if they won't, it will continue. Nobody can put a final end to this madness but the women in these sports. And as long as they put up with it, it will continue. It's just that simple. Now, when I made that point on Twitter the other day, people responded very angrily at me. And they said that I was being harsh and unsympathetic, you know, because I also I took Angela Carini to task for apologizing. And people were very mad at me for that. Even people that are, you know, ostensibly on my side when it comes to this issue.

They said, I need to sympathize more with the woman. And I can't understand. I don't understand what it's like to be in her spot and to be getting all this pressure and everything else. No, I do understand. And I do sympathize with the women in these positions.

And in fact, I have been the target of the LGBT lobby's ire many times in recent years. They have dragged me through the mud. They have tried to ruin my reputation. I have been the target of many different efforts at character assassinations. I've been slandered and defamed. I've been doxxed. I've been threatened. All of that. I get it. I understand why people are hesitant to provoke this crowd.

and why they're tempted to fold so quickly in the face of this kind of pressure. I do sympathize, I do understand. I understand better than most when it comes to this issue. But the fact remains that ultimately only women can protect women's sports. This became a problem in the first place because the women failed to stand up. It continues to be a problem because they are still failing to do so. We can have all the sympathy we want, but that's still what it comes down to.

Either the women athletes will put up with this or they won't. And if they'll put up with it, it will continue. There's only so much that we on the outside can do. And some of us on the outside have done everything we possibly can think to do to help you on this thing.

But there's only so much we can do. We're not there. We're not the ones in the boxing ring. We're not the ones on the court, in the pool, right? We're not there for that. We can't be. So when push comes to shove, it's like the people in the arena, the man in the arena. Well, you got the woman in the arena.

But there are some arenas where you can't blame other people for not being down in the arena with you. I can't be in that arena. If I tried to get into the boxing ring and make a point, I'd be dragged out and arrested. I'm not invited there. So not enough women are speaking up. Now, notable exceptions, obviously, Riley Gaines, for example, notable exceptions apply here. But those women are the exceptions, and they shouldn't be the exception. There's no reason for any woman to fight these men in the semifinals.

participating in the farce only legitimizes it. They should demand a female opponent because they're in the women's league. The moment that women find the courage is the moment men will no longer be allowed to assault them during sporting events and rob them of the victories that they worked their whole lives to attain. But the more that women apologize and grovel and backtrack, the more of this we'll see.

So it does come back to the women. There is no way around it. It takes courage to be a female athlete standing against this madness. I get that. It takes sacrifice to refuse, you know, for all the female competitors to band together and protest. That takes a lot. You have to be willing to sacrifice a lot. Okay. Sometimes courage and sacrifice is necessary in life. I don't know what to tell you. And you get to a certain point where if you're not going to do that, then I guess you just got to stop complaining about it.

And that's why I'm afraid to say Angela Carini and any other female athlete who apologizes to the mob is 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.

Republicans or Nazis, you cannot separate yourselves from the bad white people. Growing up, I never thought much about race. It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me. Am I racist? I would really appreciate it if you left. I'm trying to learn along this journey. If I'm going to sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.

♪ They gonna say I'm racist ♪ - Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert. - Here's my certification. - And what you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness. This is more for you than this for you. - Is America inherently racist? - The word inherent is challenging there. - I'm gonna rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument. - America is racist to its bones. - So inherently. - Yes. This country is a piece of . - White. - Folks. - White. - Trash. - White supremacy. - White woman. - White boy. - Is there a black person around here? - There's a black person right here. Does he not exist?

Hi, Robin. Hi. What's your name? I'm Matt. I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful. I never read too careful. In theaters September 13th, rated PG-13.

There's not much I love more than a day of fishing out on the lake, except maybe a day of shooting out on the range. I have a question for any gun owners out there. When's the last time you went to the range? Gun ownership is not only your right, it's also your responsibility. You got to get those reps in. Fortunately, my new partners over at Silencer Shop can help make going to the range a lot more enjoyable. They offer the largest selection of top brand silencers, which makes shooting significantly quieter and cut out a lot of that recoil and concussion. Their dedicated team will help you find the

perfect fit for your firearm. Silencer Shop has helped more American gun owners get suppressors than anyone else because they make the process so much easier than anyone else. They handle the hard part. They'll help you submit all your paperwork. You can get your suppressor from the comfort of your home at silencershop.com slash Walsh. These guys really know what they're doing.

They're huge advocates of your Second Amendment rights. Silencer Shop doesn't just support your Second Amendment rights. They fight for them. They spend a lot of time and money aggressively lobbying, fighting lawsuits, and supporting pro-Second Amendment legislation across the nation. You've got to check them out. Let Silencer Shop help you make your guns better. Go to silencershop.com slash Walsh and let Silencer Shop help you make your guns better. That's silencershop.com slash Walsh.