Ep. 1583 - The Left Uncovers The Sinister Conspiracy Pushing Women To Be Healthy And Happy

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media has discovered a nefarious right-wing plot to

encourage women to be thin and fertile. We'll get into the details of this sinister conspiracy.

Also, Facebook officially ends its ban on misgendering. A list of the dirtiest, grossest

cities has been released. Unsurprisingly, they're all run by Democrats.
And an embarrassing scandal

involving sports commentator Shannon Sharp proves again why you should just get married.

All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show. With everything that's happening in the economy, it feels like we're all walking on shaky ground.
Prices are stuck at a really high level, and it seems like nothing is affordable anymore. It's no wonder many are relying on credit cards to cover the gaps.
Credit card debt is skyrocketing, and it's leaving a lot of people stressed out. If you're a homeowner, you don't have to face this uncertainty alone.
My friends at American Financing can help you take control. They can help you access the equity in your home to help you pay down the high-interest credit card debt, giving you peace of mind and real savings.
On average, people just like you are saving $800 a month. Plus, they may close your loan in as

little as 10 days. Don't let the chaos of the economy get the best of you.
Call American

Financing right now. It costs you nothing to get started, and you may be able to delay your mortgage,

to delay two mortgage payments, giving you a cushion in this uncertain time.

Call 866-569-4711. That's 866-569-4711, or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Walsh.

Now, normally, I don't consider myself much of a trendsetter, especially when it comes to the online discourse among middle-aged, cosmopolitan, liberal women. To the extent that these people talk about me at all, it's usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on Dancing with the Stars.
In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren't reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much, or at least I thought.
So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian entitled, Now Comes the Womanosphere, the Anti-Feminist Media Telling Women to be Thin, F, fertile, and Republican. According to this article, the womanosphere is, quote, an organized effort to create an alternative right-wing media ecosystem targeting young female U.S.
audiences, one of the few demographics that has until now lean substantially Democratic. This new womanosphere includes Brett Cooper's channel, as well as lifestyle magazines like The Conservator and Evie, Candace Owens' Club Candace, Alex Clark's Maha, Make American Healthy Again, talk show cultural apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey's Relatable, and swimmer-turned-anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines' podcast, Gaines for Girls, close quote.
Now, before we get into the substance of this article, such as it is, I need to pull up something I wrote online a few weeks ago. And here's what I said at the time, quote, we hear a lot about the manosphere.
I think it's time we start talking about the woman's sphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages. That was from my podcast, also a piece on Daily Wire.
So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone talk about the womanosphere, I was demanding a public conversation about the womanosphere.
All they did was add an O in the middle to change womanosphere to womanosphere. I like my version better.
It flows a little bit better. And then they completely changed the meaning of the word as I was using it.
To me, the woman-sphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. And to them, the woman-o-sphere is a collection of the most normal and pleasant women you'll ever meet.
And of course, the other problem is that no one at The Guardian even knows what the word woman means, of course. But other than that, you can't deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words.

If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I'd start demanding royalties.

But in this case, I'll let it slide.

As the old saying goes, great minds think alike,

and the not-so-great minds just steal everything and pass it off as their own.

But I don't want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me,

even though it's obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article, as with everything else published by The Guardian, is the content.
And the tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We're supposed to see the right-wing womanosphere as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be thin and fertile, as The Guardian puts it.
These two words, thin and fertile, are like kryptonite to the staff of the Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like thin and fertile are just ways of describing someone as healthy.
And it's like if you're a woman of childbearing age, there's like two things that you should be, right?

Unless something has gone wrong or you're unhealthy.

And you might wonder why, you know, wonder what's so bad about the womanosphere encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy.

But all you'll get from The Guardian is this paragraph, quote,

The type of women these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white.

Though they try to avoid overt racism, anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement. Now, just to be entirely clear here, the narrow mold that the Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to men.
They do add that you have to be white as well, but they contradict themselves in the same breath because one of the commentators they attack in the hit piece is Candace, who, last I checked, is not white. So all we're left with is the narrow lane, the narrow lane that literally billions of women through all of human history have fit through.
That's the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet if you don't want to be relentlessly mocked and disparaged by the online womanosphere. The impossible standard is the standard that billions and billions of women have already lived up to without even trying.
Now, we all know why The Guardian believes that only a small subset of the female population can qualify as healthy. For one thing, they believe that men can become women.
So that probably skews their perspective a little bit, given that trans- males aren't usually paragons of physical fitness. And additionally, it's long been established that left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy.
I mean, not too long ago, there was a study from researchers at Harvard and Columbia, which found that, quote, findings from cross-sectional studies conducted in Japan and Europe have reported that individuals expressing a conservative ideology as compared to liberal ideology tend to report better self-rated health. In the USA, it has been reported that Republicans are less likely to report poor health in comparison to Democrats.
Now, these findings shouldn't surprise us because an ideology that doesn't care about personal responsibility is not going to have the healthiest followers.

The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers of The Guardian.

But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that I think is worth thinking about,

which is this, that the left has decided to give the right a monopoly on advocating for healthy

lifestyles. It is true that if someone in this country these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, any of these normal healthy things, then we can assume that they're probably conservative.
All of that has become right-wing coded, but that's only because the left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. You know, the right is not dominating this issue because they're mind controlling women or something.
They're dominating the issue because the left has abandoned it, not just abandoned it, but militated against it. As this article continues, the Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make being healthy sound like an act of terrorism.
At one point, they quote a piece from Evie, and then they have a coronary over it. So here's the line from Evie, followed by The Guardian's meltdown, quote, our reproductive organs are made for just that, creating new life, not warding off sperm and altering our insides to make conception close to impossible, read a recent Evie piece.
Though some young women may recoil when conservative men like J.D. Vance and Elon Musk opine on birth rates and fertility, outlets like Evie are able to repackage a similar message in a more approachable way.
Maggie Bullock, a women's magazine veteran who co-writes The Spread, a newsletter about the industry, said that she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a gateway drug into more extreme conservative ideologies. Like, we're pretty nice, and we're pretty, and we're not that radical.
Don't worry. We're just telling you the truth, she said.
It feels like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Yes, these are the women who are saying, like, it's okay to have babies.
They're the wolves in sheep's clothing. So here we have Evie magazine stating that women's reproductive organs are intended for reproduction.
And the Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous that statement is, even though it's probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert, a women's magazine veteran, to establish that Evie magazine is a gateway drug to extremism because they don't think women should sterilize themselves.
Now, what's especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Ali Bestucki, Alex Clark, and others is that, first of all, the article, again, wants us to see these women as this dark and sinister force. But as someone who knows all of them, Ali I've known for years, Riley I've met a few times, I went on Alex's show a few months ago, Brett and Candace are both friends.
And they're some of the nicest, most cheerful people you'll ever meet. The article uses the word scary to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point or the vantage point of anyone who's watched any of their shows.
Although I will say that Alex forced me to drink raw milk when I was on her show, and that was deeply disturbing and also injurious to my health, I still maintain. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience until the milk came out.
The other thing is that all of them, of course, have jobs. And yet the Guardian concludes that all of these women in reality want women to be nothing but submissive homemakers, quote unquote, who never leave the home for any reason, I guess.
Quote, while the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender essentialist worldview, women as submissive homemakers, men as strong

providers. Now, first of all, anytime you hear a phrase like gender essentialist being used unironically, you can immediately stop paying attention to the person who says it.
The term is nonsense because everyone in a sane world is a gender essentialist. Everyone understands, everyone should understand, that gender is an essential concept, or at least sex is, and they use the term interchangeably.
This is an essential concept because it's what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way.
So if somebody calls you a gender essentialist, the appropriate response is, yeah.

And by the way, the left is also gender essentialist, albeit in a completely demented way. They don't understand the concept, but they certainly obsess over it, as you may have noticed.
They take their fake genders extremely seriously over there. It is an essential concept in their worldview, just in a very confused way.
And the other irony here is that it's the Guardian that wants these women like Brett and Candace to be silent, apparently. They've written a gigantic article about how all these women should, I guess, shut up and stop expressing their views.
Apparently, they can't grasp the idea that, as I've said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I've gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families.
Men should prioritize providing for their families. That's the system that's been in place for thousands of years.
It works pretty well. That doesn't mean that women should never have jobs under any circumstances.
And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article would agree with that statement because they all have lucrative careers of their own. And we could go on for the next hour, you know, picking apart the article, but it's honestly not worth the time.
It is worth noticing, though, one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn't talk about and that, you know, this side, the feminist side, never talks about. throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn't do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the womanosphere has already been tried, and it has completely and utterly failed.
The alternative to the quote-unquote narrow lane espoused by Brett Candace and company is the lane of left-wing secular feminism, where women find their purpose in the workplace and either reject family and marriage altogether or place it second in importance to the pursuit of professional success. It's the lane where a woman doesn't submit to her husband, but instead submits to her employer, who, as it happens, is often also a man.
It's the lane where a woman is so committed to her independence and to her supposed autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion. Now, we've tried this approach, the feminist approach, for a few generations.
It is actually the new thing. It is the trendy thing, the narrow thing.
And, well, how has it worked out? We don't need to speculate. I mean, we've got two approaches here, broadly speaking, and they've both been tried.
We could take a look at them and see how they've worked out. So how has feminism worked out? Divorce rates have skyrocketed.
The institution of the family is in shambles. And by all available metrics, including the prevalence of antidepressants, women and men are miserable.

Here's just one indicator.

For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they're happy with how they're being treated

by society, whatever that means exactly.

And in 2022, Gallup recorded the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began

asking the question.

Yes, after all the alleged advancements in women's rights over the last 20 years, women seem to believe that they're more oppressed than ever. But you don't need Gallup to tell you that.
You can either talk to women who made the decision to enter the workforce, or you can go on TikTok. Every day there's another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary and depressing and demoralizing.
I mean, that's a whole genre. We've talked about it before on TikTok is women complaining about the fact that they have to work.
So we've seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families, and it has been a disaster. We got millions of broken homes, millions of dead children, and millions of extremely depressed but allegedly liberated women to show for it.
Now, the traditional approach has thousands of years of success under its belt. The new approach crashed and burned 30 seconds after takeoff.
The Guardian is using the lame new womanosphere branding to suggest the opposite. They want to suggest that this is some dangerous, new, trendy, right-wing ideology, but it's not.
It happens to be the ideology, the approach, not even an ideology, the approach that clearly works best for everyone, including women. And's the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it to thrive for millennia up until the last several decades.
Now, the Guardian might not know what women are or what they want, but these women do. And the more the left mocks them for wanting to be healthy and to raise families, the more I think women will turn away from leftism,

just as so many men have, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on.

I mean, that's the Democrat Party's absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article

like this one, the nightmare for Democrats, otherwise known as progress to the rest of us,

is becoming more and more real by the day. Now let's get to our five headlines.
Have you checked your home title lately? Most homeowners never do, but with the growing amount of digital scams targeting property owners, it's more important than ever. With modern technology, criminals have found an alarming way to steal your home equity.
They simply forge your signature on a document, add a fake notary stamp, pay a small county fee, and just like that, your home title gets transferred without your knowledge. Once they control your title, they can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property entirely.
The worst part, that you may not discover anything's wrong until you receive an unexpected collection notice or a foreclosure letter. My producer, Sean, uses Home Title Lock to help protect his home and loves their service and the peace of mind they provide.
Don't wait until it's too late. Take a moment right now to verify your home title status and protect what's likely your biggest investment.
Use promo code Walsh at hometitlelock.com to make sure your title is still in your name. You'll also get a free title history report, plus a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.

That's 24-7 monitoring every title, urgent alerts to any changes,

and if fraud should happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it.

Go to hometitlelock.com now.

Use promo code Walsh.

That's hometitlelock.com, promo code Walsh.

Daily Wire reports Facebook's parent company, Meta, said that two posts that include misgendering, quote-unquote, were not a violation of its policies in a case that appears to have involved content from The Daily Wire. The social media giant's oversight board ruled that two posts about trans-identifying males do not violate the company's hate speech rules.
The oversight board said in a statement, Despite the intentionally provocative nature of the post Which misgender identifiable trans people

In ways many would find effective hate speech rules. The oversight board said in a statement, Back in September, Meta's oversight board announced it was looking into two posts from last year that involved videos of trans-identifying males.
One of the posts appears to be a video posted by Libs of TikTok on Instagram that shows an Oregon high school boy getting booed by the crowd when he finished first place in the girls' 200-meter race. Here's a boy who thinks he's a girl.
Libs of TikTok captured the post. Around the same time, The Daily Wire posted the same video on Instagram using male pronouns for the trans-identifying high schooler.
And this apparently is the video that they were looking into. So finally, it's been officially ruled after months of deliberation that misgendering is not hate speech.
And of course, misgendering is also not misgendering. What they call misgendering is actually correct gendering.
It's just gendering. But in any case, quote unquote, misgendering is no longer hate speech, apparently, on Facebook.
This is, I guess, a new development officially. Facebook is the first platform outside of X to officially say, as far as I know, that they will no longer ban or censor you for so-called misgendering.
But in reality, this is a shift that started months ago. Every platform, as far as I know, maybe with the exception of TikTok, has pulled back pretty significantly on the censorship campaign that it was waging against basic biology.
And soon this will be

a distant memory. Soon people won't be able to believe that it even happened.
They won't be able to believe that in the 2017 to 2023 era or thereabouts, every single major social media platform would not allow you to point out that a man in a dress is a man. And it's one of several episodes over the past five or six years that nobody will want to admit that they were a part of or that they supported.
Now, we've talked a lot about the collapse of the trans agenda, the fact that gender ideology is losing, and it is. It still exists.
It's still a problem that needs to be dealt with, but it is losing, and this is probably the nail in its coffin. The platform's making it legal, you know, to just speak honestly about the subject.
This is not what turns the tide because they're making these changes in response to the tide turning. But now that it has turned and you're allowed to just be honest about the topic again, the trans activists are even more screwed than they already were because this was always their only hope.
They cannot compete on a level playing field. They know that.
They can't win or have any hope of winning if the rules are not rigged in their favor. Because our position is so obviously correct, so incontrovertible, so palpably, plainly true, that there's no way to compete with it except to just shut it down.
They can only win the argument by not allowing the other side to make an argument. And even in that case, as we've seen, they still didn't win.
I mean, think about that. There was a period of years when we weren't even allowed to make our arguments in most of these public forums, and yet we still won the argument.
We had tape over our mouths and two hands tied behind our backs, and we still won the fight. And now the tape is mostly off, and at least one hand is free, and so they're in big trouble.
Postmillennial reports, a new study has revealed that Baltimore, Maryland is the dirtiest city in the country. In determining the nation's dirtiest cities, House Fresh reviewed 12.3 million sanitation-related complaints to 311 over the past year.
Cities that had over 250,000 residents were ranked based on the number of sanitation-related reports, such as garbage, waste, and recycling per 100,000 residents. And they came up with this list of the dirtiest cities.
So Baltimore is the dirtiest city. No big surprise there.
Here's another thing that's not a surprise. Let's go down the list of the dirtiest cities and see what they all have in common.
So we'll look at the city and then also who runs the city. And we'll see if we can notice any patterns emerging.
Baltimore, Maryland, number one, Mayor Brandon Scott, Democrat. Sacramento, Mayor Daryl Steinberg, Democrat.
Charlotte, Mayor V. Lyles, Democrat.
Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass, Democrat. Memphis, Mayor Paul Young, Democrat.

Boston, Mayor Michelle Wu, Democrat.

San Antonio, Mayor Ron Nierenberg, Democrat.

Chicago, Brandon Johnson, Democrat.

Philadelphia, Jim Kenney, Democrat.

Houston, Sylvester Turner, Democrat.

All down the list until we get to Las Vegas.

Carolyn Goodman, who's a Republican apparently.

So of the 15 dirtiest cities, 14 are run by Democrats.

And what that tells us is that the Democrat Party fails at the most basic level of civilization. And that's why I think this is worth talking about for a moment.
because this is actually, even before crime, before safety, this is the first step, the first thing, really, I think, that distinguishes a first world nation from a third world nation. This is the first test of several.
Can you get your trash off the street? Waste management. Can you maintain some level of sanitation? If you go to a third world country, this is the first thing you notice is that it's dirty.
Everything is filthy. They leave their trash strewn all over the place.
I mean, the The ancient Roman Empire, 2,000 years ago, figured out waste management.

And yet, there are modern countries who have not figured it out. So this is the first test of civilization.
What do you do with your trash? Human beings create a lot of trash. They create a lot of waste.
In spite of that, can you have a bunch of humans living together and still keep the trash off the streets?

Third world countries fail this test.

They all do.

It's one of the main things that makes them third world countries.

Which is what tells you that third world countries will, most of them, always be third world countries.

They are, for the most part, I'm afraid to say, basically hopeless cases. Because when it comes to the most basic things, they are literally thousands of years behind the civilized world.
But the tragic thing is that lots of American cities also are increasingly failing this test. Because they have third world populations, thanks in part to mass migration, and they have leadership that lacks the will or even the ability to maintain basic levels of sanitation.
And so everything is filthy. I mean, I'll never forget the first time I went back to Los Angeles.
I'd been there like 15 years ago and didn't go back for a while. And then I went back for the first time maybe three or four years ago.
And I'll never forget driving from the airport to our hotel downtown and just driving past this sea of trash, just trash everywhere.

And it reminded me of driving through Kenya.

It reminded me of our five or six hour car ride from Nairobi down to where the Maasai

tribe lives when we were filming What is a Woman?

And we drive past town after town that had these giant piles of garbage

just sitting there in the middle of the town.

And, you know, traditionally back in the, you know, you go back to like the Middle Ages

and churches were always built in the middle of the town.

Each town was built up around a church, which served as the focal point,

the literal centerpiece of public life. And I remember thinking about that as I'm driving past all these towns, how instead of a church at the center of the town, they had this temple of trash, this monument of garbage and waste.
And now a lot of American cities are exactly the same. And this to me is the number one thing that makes city life these days incredibly unappealing.

It's not even the crime primarily. I mean, that's number two on the list.
That's also important, and it's not the cost of living. It's the trash.
It's the garbage. It's how dirty and depressing it is, how bad it smells, just all of that.
How can you live that way? You have to be, To live that way, you have to be spiritually broken. You just have to be a spiritually, mentally broken down person to live among this filth, to just walk around every day and just see garbage and smell it.
Human beings are not meant to live that way. And it doesn't have to be that way.

You know, you can have a highly populated city that is also clean. There's plenty of examples in the world.
Tokyo is famously a very clean city. I've never been to it, but this is what you hear.
It's a very clean city. How do they achieve that? Well, for one thing, Tokyo is like 95% ethnically Japanese.
So they're not importing third world immigrants who have a culture of just throwing their trash on the ground. Also, in Tokyo, you can go to prison for five years for illegal dumping, for disposing of your trash improperly.
They even got rid of most of their trash cans, most of their public trash cans, and they just make the residents bring their trash home with them. And then they put in place these potentially very severe punishments and fines and even jail sentences for littering.
But the truth is that they could probably get rid of those penalties and they'd still be extremely clean because that's their culture. They have a culture of cleanliness.
Dumping trash on the ground, drinking a can of soda and just throwing it on the sidewalk is not something that most Japanese people would ever do, even if they were allowed to do it. And there are still places in America that are like that, where there's a culture of cleanliness and orderliness.
They're rapidly vanishing, but they do exist. I used to live in a small town out in the country, and I remember once at the gas station, we had one small gas station in the town, and I remember a trash can had somehow tipped over at the, I don't know, whatever, it tipped over, and it was like the trash was spilling on the ground.
And like four different people, the guy that works there and three other customers, myself included, went over immediately to help clean the trash up. Just, you know, just clean it up.
And they took the bag out and put a new bag in. So it's a small thing, no great act of service, right? We're not heroes.
But my point is that in Baltimore, that's not happening. You know, in Baltimore, the trash spills over and everyone just leaves it there.
Certainly, you're not going to get all customers at the gas station chipping in unprompted to help clean up the mess. It's just not going to happen.
Because it's a culture of disorder. It's a culture of waste.
It's a culture of, again, when you're in the city and you're walking down and you see just some bag of trash or some whatever piece of litter on the sidewalk, that means obviously, right, that somebody was walking along and they just threw the thing on the ground. Think about what kind of mentality.
It seems like such a, this is why I'm at, even though I'm not much of an environmentalist, I am on this point. When it comes to littering, I'm like an extreme environmentalist when it comes to litter.
I, honest to God, would be fine if we had five-year prison sentences for littering. Because I think that that behavior is so, it's such an attack on civilized society.
It says so much about you. It tells me immediately that you are a person who we don't need living in society, that you would drink something and throw it on the ground and just keep walking.

I can't even wrap my head around that, the total disregard for everybody else around you.

I'd be in favor of ratchet up the penalties times 100 for that. I'd be in favor of it.
Even here in Nashville, that's why you can't go to the, I love to fish. You can't go fishing a lot of the lakes here that are close to the city because you just find this trash floating in the water.
People, they just throw their trash, whole bags of trash. It's like I was at one of these lakes last year.
It's a bag of McDonald's. It's like a McDonald's bag.
Someone had McDonald's and threw it in the water. Okay? How about 10 years in prison for that? I swear to you I would support it.
I don't care who it is. Find whoever that was that threw that in there.
Ten years in prison. But in some ways, it's like you're, even if you tried to do that, you're fighting this kind of losing battle because you're in these communities that have a culture of, as I said, disorderliness and waste.
All right. Here's something not worth talking about at all.
Meghan Markle sat down with Time Magazine to talk about how she introduces little moments of magic into her life with flower sprinkles. And this is, I don't know, it's pretty inspiring.
I thought this was inspiring. It's like a good little,

some good advice. This is what she is now.
She's a sage. She's a guru of sorts.
Well, I don't know what exactly she is. That's what I wanted to talk about.
But first, here's the clip of Meghan Markle giving some important life advice. All things to be talking about for Time 100.
Let's talk about flower sprinkles. but let's because I think it speaks to the tiny moments of joy that are so effortless and just create a little bit of magic that we're all craving in our everyday.
They're tiny little flower petals that are dried. I started putting them on salads.
I started putting them on scrambled eggs. It didn't actually matter on a yogurt parfait.
The level of charm that you find people have when they see these tiny little dried petals is something I can't fully wrap my head around, but I appreciate that there is a love for the detail. So flour sprinkles, that's where it's at.
And, you know, if I had a dime for every time I've sprinkled my food with some flower petals, I'd have no dimes at all. But if Megan wants you to do that, that's fine.
For me, the question with Megan Markle, she's actually kind of fascinating. Not fascinating in the way that she wants to be, in the way that she tries to be, but in a different sort of psychoanalytical way.
Because to me, the question is, what is Megan, what is she trying to be? Who does she think she is? It would be one thing if Megan gave up the royal life, came back to America, started acting in movies or something, maybe started a talk show on a network TV channel somewhere. And then you'd say, okay, well, she wants to be an actor.
She wants to be a TV star. That's not really it.
She has her various failed Netflix shows or failed podcasts, but she doesn't seem committed to any of those paths specifically. What she wants to be, clearly, is royalty.
She wants to be the first American princess. She essentially wants to have the job that the royal family has in the place that she dragged her husband away from.
But it doesn't work, because as much as I might make fun of the royal family in the UK, at least there's a history there. At least it's rooted in a deep kind of ancient tradition.
We don't have that tradition here. So we're supposed to embrace Meghan as our princess, our royalty, based on what? Based on her winning personality, I guess.
There's a mystique that surrounds the royal family. There's no mystique with Meghan Markle.
She's the most mystique-less person, if that's even a word, that I've ever seen. Now, you can have a job in this country of just being famous.
I think those jobs are maybe a little bit harder to come by now than they were at the peak of the reality TV show era. That's what the Kardashians are or were.
But if you want that job, if you want that job in this country, you have to be willing to be a sideshow freak. The Kardashians were glorified circus clowns.
The whole family's a freak show. So she could do that, do some kind of reality show where she debases herself and gives people something to gawk at.
That's how you become royalty in this country, I guess. But it is interesting.
It's an interesting case. Meghan Markle is a very boring person, but she's an interesting case.
And I think the history books will find her more interesting than we do because her story is tragic and fascinating that she rejected a life of actual royalty in favor of, you know, seeking fame and admiration in the U.S. And instead she was reviled and mocked and she's despised by basically everyone.
Are there any Meghan Markle fans? When's the last time you met someone who has a positive view of her? This is one of the few bipartisan issues that still exists in this country is Meghan Markle, that everybody hates her. And even with, there are very few people in this country that everybody can agree on.
You know, on the other side too, there's like almost nobody who's universally beloved anymore. I think Alex Trebek was probably the last one.
Alex Trebek was the last universally beloved person who was not, quote unquote, problematic, according to either side. And he's dead, so there's no one left.
All we have now is we can't agree on who we admire, but we can agree on hating certain people. That's the only place where we can find.
we don't have universally admired, but we do have universally reviled. And Meghan Markle is one.
It seems like Katy Perry is another one, interestingly enough. And so that's what she ended up with.
She gave up the life of royalty and she was, ended up being universally, basically universally reviled and relegated to the C-list. So in a way, it's a tragic story.
Not that I'm shedding any tears of her. As Doge continues to surgically cut the fat from decades of bloated government spending and corruption, Pure Talk, the cell phone company that I use for business, is cutting the fat from the wireless industry.
That's right. Pure Talk says, I don't think so, to $100 a month cell phone plans.
That's just wasteful. It's irresponsible.
Instead, they're offering America's most dependable 5G network at America's most sensible prices. Listen to this.
Unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data, plus mobile hotspot for just $35 a month. And the best part, right now you get a free one-year membership of Daily Wire Plus.
And with Pure Talk's U.S. customer service team, you can switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes.
You don't need Doge to cut the fat from your wireless bill. You need Pure Talk.
I've been using Pure Talk for about two or three years now, and I cannot recommend it enough. If you want to be a part of Pure Talk, go to puretalk.com

slash Walsh. Switch to Pure Talk at puretalk.com slash Walsh and get a year of Daily Wire Plus for

free with a qualifying plan. Pure Talk, wireless by Americans for Americans.
At the Daily Wire,

we ask the hard questions and we go get the answers. That's why Ben Shapiro went to Ukraine,

a nation under fire, for an exclusive sit-down with President Zelensky. From U.S.
aid and

corruption to Putin's ambitions and the battle for religious freedom, nothing was off limits. This isn't spin.
This is clarity in the fog of war. Part two of the Ben Shapiro-President Zelensky interview drops today, an all-new episode of The Ben Shapiro Show streaming now on Daily Wire+.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. If you don't spend much time following celebrity drama, then you are a healthy person and you should be proud.
It also means that you may not have heard about the controversy surrounding prominent sports commentator and former NFL star Shannon Sharp. Shannon has, as of yesterday, stepped away from his role on ESPN just a few days after a $50 million lawsuit was filed alleging sexual assault.
Now, the allegations are coming from an OnlyFans model named Gabby, who also apparently goes by Carly, but we'll just call her Gabby. Shannon has stridently denied any wrongdoing and claimed that his relationship with Gabby was entirely consensual.
But things took a turn earlier in the week when a phone call was

released. And in the call, you can hear Shannon threatening to choke this woman Gabby.
Listen.

I'm not really interested in getting choked, so I guess we're going. Yeah, I might choke you in public.
Big black guy chose small white woman. It's not a good look, Shannon.
Not a good look that you did what you did to me. Okay, now Gabby is obviously recording the call.
We don't know what was said earlier on the call or before the call was made. She was clearly recording it for a reason.
But even so, telling a woman that you're going to choke her is very bad. There's no context that makes that okay.
It does not, however, prove that he's guilty of rape. Now, there is apparently some kind of video, a sex tape, that Shannon's legal team has alluded to a few times.
They claim that Gabby is using this video to blackmail Shannon and that it's been taken out of context, possibly edited to make the sexual encounter look non-consensual when it is, in fact, they say consensual. And attempting to get ahead of this, his team also released a collection of extremely graphic text messages sent by Gabby to Shannon over the course of several months.
And now I can't read any of them to you. Even if I could read them, I still wouldn't.
They're very sexual. They're very graphic in nature.
Gabby repeatedly says that she wants to be abused, wants to be choked, and she wants to have other things, unspeakable things done to her. Some of these texts were sent after the alleged rape occurred.
I think she alleged two incidents, and this was after one of them. Now, Shannon claims that, you know, if he did, in fact, rape this woman, then she wouldn't be sending him graphic texts weeks and months after the fact, saying, among other things, that she wants Shannon to put a, quote, big black baby in her.
So what's the truth here? Did Shannon Sharp rape this woman? I have absolutely no idea. If I had to guess, if I was just guessing, I'd say probably not.
I mean, assuming that the texts are legitimate, it's hard to believe that a woman who was actually the victim of a violent rape would be texting her rapist and begging for him to come back and violate her again. Although it wouldn't shock me all that much if he was evil enough to do that awful thing and if she was twisted enough to start sexting with her rapist.
So I have no idea. I, you know, I cannot personally reach a verdict on this

allegation, and that's not my job to. So that's the good news.
All I know is that whatever happened,

it was weird and bad and gross, and I wish I didn't know about it, but I do, and now so do you.

This whole thing, of course, was very avoidable. You know, false accusations can happen, and they're always terrible, assuming that these accusations are false, which they may or may not be.
But the fact is that a great many, not all, but a great many false accusations and questionable accusations could have been very easily avoided. And here's how you avoid them.
Get married to one woman. Stay married to that woman.
Have zero sexual encounters outside of your marriage. In fact, don't even spend time alone in the same room as any woman who is not your wife or a family member.
When it comes to women of low character, such as one that you would find

on OnlyFans, for example, don't have any interaction with them at all. Don't speak to them.
Don't befriend them. Don't text them.
Don't call them. Don't have them in your life in any capacity, period, at all.
And it's not hard to put these boundaries up. These are the boundaries that I live within, that many married men live within.
It has not intruded on my life or even caused the slightest inconvenience ever. It's very easy for a grown man to not get mixed up with the Gabby's of the world.
It's very easy to put yourself in a situation where Gabby could simply never credibly accuse you of anything. Of course,

anyone can accuse you of anything, but you'll have a much easier time clearing your name if you can point out that you've never interacted with this person in any capacity at any point in your entire life. Now, Shannon Sharp's story, though gross and embarrassing, is in a way helpful because it demonstrates two things.

And first of all, it reveals that there is a risk of staying single. We often hear about the risks of marriage, the risks like you can end up divorced, you can lose half your stuff, you can lose custody of your children, if you're the man anyway.
And all of that can happen, of course. I mean, there are lots of things you can do to greatly reduce your risk of winding up in that position, but it does happen.
We all know that. And the fear of that result is what leads some men to avoid marriage entirely.
But as Shannon Sharp and many other men have demonstrated, the other option is not without very significant dangers. I mean, unless you plan to be single and also celibate for your whole life, then you'll be getting involved with a succession of women you don't know and who don't love you or necessarily even care about you in the slightest.
And that will make you very vulnerable and susceptible. And same goes for the woman, of course, on the other side.
There's vulnerability and susceptibility and dangers of a different kind that perhaps if the allegations are true, this woman fell victim to. But either way, this is the point.
We talk about the dangers of getting married, dangers for men, dangers for women. Many, many dangers involved in not getting married.
Second, Shannon has shown us how pitiful and sad this kind of lifestyle is, even if he isn't a rapist, even if he isn't. He's still a pathetic, ridiculous man.
I mean, Shannon Sharp is 56 years old. This woman would have been, I guess, about 20 when this relationship, if you can call it that, started.
So this is a 56-year-old man hooking up at best with a 20-year-old OnlyFans prostitute. This is a man who, at his age, should be sitting at his house with his wife, watching his grandchildren play, maybe having a beer with his adult son.
But instead, he's wrapped up in an embarrassing, disgraceful public feud with a 20-year-old girl. He should be reading his grandchildren a bedtime story.
Instead, he's reading us his sex messages with a chick from OnlyFans. And now he's been disgraced and his career is destroyed.
And when he dies, he'll be remembered mostly for this, not for anything he did before it. And whether he's guilty or not, he brought all of that on himself.
And that is why he is today canceled. That'll do it for the show today.

Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.
Talk to you on Monday. Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.