FEM vs. TRAD MARRIAGE
What Do Most Men Want?
Speaking on behalf of conservative Men, who hold to tradition (and dare we say: Biblical Values), Matt Walsh defends the progressively unpopular veiwpoint, that “Good Men” are not looking for an ambitious, high powered, overly defensive, otherwise pre-occupied wife–to settle down and start a family with.
It becomes apparent, that Megan Kelly, is offended by and openly attacks Walsh’s viewpoint.
[Can someone say “triggered?”]
Below is the kind of situation Mike Walsh is trying to avoid:
What type of bride would you believe was most worthy of your complete lifelong dedication? One who would completely dedicate their lives to serving their husbands, as all believers are commissioned to serve Christ with all their heart? Or one, who was divided in her interests between you and developing her own separate career trajectory? What if you knew that when push came to shove: Your wife’s career would be more important to her than your family commitments together?
Please note that marriage is not a man-made construction. It is God’s divine design. It works well and miraculously so, when God is the center of the marriage. It immediately begins to fall apart as soon as God is no longer the center of the marriage.
Our modern culture, including our modern marriages, and our modern families, have departed from having the divine design of God, and the heavenly authority of God, and the training, and the miraculous and holy leadership provided by God within the covenant of marriage. What is the natural result? The destruction of our culture and especially the family.
Who is to blame? Those who chose to turn away from following God’s design.
That includes our culture. Our public education. Our entire legal and political system. Our church organizations, our family devotions. Our religious leadership and training institutions. Our entertainment institutions. Our social climbing nature structure.. They are all to blame. Right? No, not really. The only person we can truly blame is ourselves.
The only way to solve this problem, is to turn ourselves over to God–one by one–to submit to him once again, and submit to one another out of reverence for Christ, and to lay down our lives–doing the WILL of the FATHER.
We must rId our lives of our own idols, our own plans, our own ambitions, our own addictions, and take up our cross and follow him only.
Here’s a summary on 7 of the most striking diferences why Feminists Simply No Don’t Understand,
Nor Care about, and are often hostile towards—as you will see below—the Values of Traditional Conservative Men …
”Megyn Kelly Thinks I Don’t Understand Women, But Does She Understand Men?” in 7 key bullet points with timestamps:
Here’s a full recap of all the expanded sections from Matt Walsh’s video commentary in his debate with Megyn Kelly:
1. (03:31–05:32) – Kelly’s Past Critique of Walsh
This section replays a previous segment from Megyn Kelly’s show where she critiques Matt Walsh’s views. She expresses frustration with what she sees as a judgmental attitude toward women who pursue careers. Kelly accuses Walsh of attempting to guilt women into traditional roles, framing his message as one that undermines women’s autonomy and fails to recognize the diverse ways women contribute to society. She challenges his perceived attempt to police or limit women’s choices, positioning herself as a defender of women’s right to self-determination, including the pursuit of professional success alongside family life.
2. (06:24–09:10) – Kelly Laments Conservative Men’s Disinterest in Career Women
Walsh plays a more recent clip from Kelly’s show in which she criticizes conservative men for not wanting to marry ambitious, career-driven women. She calls this mindset “sad” and frames it as a serious issue on the political right. In her view, it represents a kind of regression—an unwillingness to adapt to the modern world where women are both successful professionals and committed mothers. She suggests this narrow view of womanhood limits not just women, but men as well, potentially keeping them from meaningful relationships with equally accomplished partners.
3. (09:45–12:34) – Walsh Responds: Who’s Really Imposing Guardrails?
In response, Walsh flips the script and argues that it’s Kelly who is enforcing “guardrails”—by judging men’s preferences for more traditional women. He contends that men are being criticized simply for honestly expressing what they find attractive. Walsh clarifies that while he believes a woman’s primary role should be centered in the home, he’s not categorically against women working. He stresses that family should be the priority, and that work can complement but not replace that. His broader point is that the natural order of relationships has been distorted by modern ideology, and men are unfairly shamed for adhering to traditional values.
4. (13:09–15:36) – Men Aren’t Attracted to Ambition?
Walsh dives into the psychological dynamics of attraction, arguing that most men are simply not drawn to professional ambition in a woman. He explains that men tend to be biologically and culturally wired to value femininity, softness, and nurturing qualities, which they see as complementary to their own roles. When women emphasize ambition, dominance, or career focus, Walsh argues it can come off as competitive rather than complementary. He’s careful to say this isn’t about restricting women’s choices—but rather about acknowledging male preferences and rejecting the feminist idea that men should be “retrained” to desire something different.
5. (15:02–16:50) – Thought Experiment on Gender Preferences
To make his point more tangible, Walsh offers a thought experiment: imagine a man says he prefers a traditional, family-oriented woman. In today’s culture, he suggests, that man would likely be called sexist or regressive. But if a woman says she wants a man who’s ambitious, high-earning, and a provider, that’s considered completely normal—even empowering. This double standard, according to Walsh, reveals how deeply the culture has been shaped by feminism: it’s acceptable for women to have selective preferences, but men’s traditional preferences are stigmatized. The thought experiment is meant to expose the inconsistencies in how society talks about gender, choice, and attraction.
6. (17:56–19:06) – Feminism as the “Fad”
Here, Walsh reframes the conversation by arguing that feminism—not traditionalism—is the modern “fad.” He claims that feminism has only recently and superficially redefined societal expectations, but it hasn’t rewired human nature. While the culture may pressure men to value strong, independent, high-earning women, he believes most men haven’t been “reprogrammed” to desire that. Instead, they still long for deeply ingrained, time-tested dynamics, and the disconnect between these inner desires and external messaging leads to confusion and dissatisfaction. In his view, feminism offers a shallow, fleeting vision that doesn’t align with lasting human instincts.
7. (19:06–20:22) – Final Message: Men Want Wives, Not Colleagues
In his concluding remarks, Walsh delivers his core message: men are naturally inclined to want wives, not colleagues or partners in the corporate sense. They’re seeking relationships rooted in complementarity, emotional intimacy, and family building—not competition or shared ambition. He warns that men are becoming disillusioned and demoralized by a culture that suppresses and mocks these traditional desires. By invalidating their preferences, society creates a hostile environment where men feel they must suppress who they are in order to be accepted. Walsh closes with the argument that traditional values offer clarity and fulfillment, while modern norms sow confusion and resentment.
42 SECONDS
For those who like more detail:
Here’s an expanded version of Section 1. (03:31–05:32):
1—Expanded Summary (03:31–05:32):
In this segment, Matt Walsh revisits a past critique made by Megyn Kelly on her show, where she offers a pointed and emotionally charged response to his views on gender roles. The clip, which Walsh plays in full, captures Kelly expressing clear frustration with what she perceives as Walsh’s rigid and judgmental stance on women who choose to prioritize their careers over traditional domestic roles.
Kelly accuses Walsh of trying to shame or guilt women who decide not to become stay-at-home mothers. She argues that his message suggests a kind of moral superiority associated with women who embrace homemaking and motherhood as their central identity. To her, it sounds like Walsh is implying that women who pursue ambitious careers are somehow less feminine, less virtuous, or less valuable, which she strongly rejects.
Throughout the clip, Kelly defends the idea that a woman can be fulfilled, responsible, and family-oriented while also having professional goals. She pushes back against what she interprets as Walsh’s binary framing: that women must choose between career and family, and that choosing the former is inherently selfish or culturally corrosive. In Kelly’s view, that framing isn’t just impractical—it’s demeaning and controlling.
Her tone throughout the segment is both assertive and personal. She speaks not only as a media personality but also as a woman who has herself navigated the tension between a demanding career and motherhood. Kelly frames Walsh’s position as part of a larger conservative blind spot—a tendency, in her view, for some on the right to promote traditional values in a way that alienates modern women, even those who might otherwise share many conservative ideals.
By airing this critique, Walsh sets the stage for the rest of his video, using it as a launching point to clarify, defend, and expand on his beliefs—particularly the claim that men’s preferences are being unfairly pathologized or dismissed simply because they don’t align with modern feminist expectations.
Here’s an expanded take on that section from (06:24–09:10):
2—Expanded Summary (06:24–09:10):
In this portion of the video, Matt Walsh plays a recent segment from Megyn Kelly’s show in which she expresses frustration and disappointment with a trend she’s observed: conservative men showing little interest in marrying women who are highly career-driven. Kelly finds this dynamic troubling and even labels it as “sad”, suggesting that it reflects a shortcoming within the conservative movement itself. She implies that it’s a kind of internal cultural conflict—where women on the right are ambitious and successful, yet feel alienated by the men who supposedly share their values.
Kelly argues that it shouldn’t be a contradiction for a woman to be both career-oriented and aligned with traditional or conservative values. She sees this disconnect as a “problem on the political right,” where some men continue to expect women to adhere to outdated roles that don’t account for women’s personal ambitions or the evolving nature of modern relationships.
Walsh pauses to critique this framing. He takes issue with Kelly’s suggestion that it’s a societal failure or flaw in men when they express a preference for women who are more home-focused. He interprets Kelly’s lament as a subtle attempt to shame or pathologize traditional male preferences, framing them as regressive or immature. In his view, the real issue isn’t men’s preferences, but rather modern feminism’s push to redefine female success primarily in terms of career achievement, often at the expense of family or traditional values.
He sees Kelly’s complaint as part of a larger cultural narrative where traditional masculinity is under constant scrutiny, and where even personal preferences—like a man wanting a stay-at-home wife or a woman who prioritizes motherhood—are seen as problematic. Walsh is preparing the audience for his rebuttal by emphasizing that men’s preferences aren’t the problem; rather, the issue is how society reacts to those preferences when they don’t align with feminist expectations.
This section sets the stage for the broader philosophical disagreement between Walsh and Kelly: is it regressive for men to prefer traditional women, or is that preference itself a valid expression of natural gender roles?
Here’s an expanded version of that section from (09:45–12:34), where Matt Walsh responds to Kelly’s criticism and clarifies his position:
3—Expanded Summary (09:45–12:34):
During this part of the conversation, Matt Walsh pushes back against Kelly’s accusation that he is trying to impose “guardrails” or strict limitations on women’s roles in society. Kelly suggests that Walsh’s view of women—especially his emphasis on domestic roles—reflects a kind of social policing, one that boxes women into a specific lifestyle. She argues that feminism aims to liberate women from such constraints by allowing them to choose their own path, whether it’s in the home, the office, or both.
Walsh, however, flips that criticism around, arguing that Kelly is the one enforcing guardrails, but in a different way. He suggests that judging men for having traditional preferences—such as wanting a wife who prioritizes home and family—is itself a form of constraint. In his view, feminism often frames these men as backward, misogynistic, or insecure, simply for holding a view that deviates from the modern progressive narrative.
He explains that he isn’t trying to force women into the home or strip them of career opportunities. Rather, he believes that a woman’s primary role, especially once she becomes a mother, should be centered around the home and raising children, because he sees that as deeply valuable and aligned with natural gender roles. At the same time, he makes clear that he’s not fundamentally opposed to women working—as long as their careers don’t come at the expense of their family responsibilities. In other words, he supports a complementary model, where a woman might work part-time, pursue personal interests, or have a career while still embracing her identity as a mother and homemaker.
He’s careful to say that his view is not about legal restrictions or mandates but rather about what he believes is ideal or healthiest for families and for society. He presents this as a counterweight to what he sees as feminism’s push for women to prioritize career and self-actualization above all else, even if it leads to the neglect of family life.
In short, Walsh argues that traditional gender roles are not oppressive but natural, and that the criticism of men who prefer traditional women reveals a kind of ideological rigidity within modern feminism itself.
Here’s an expanded summary of the section from (13:09–15:36) where Matt Walsh argues that most men are not attracted to a woman’s professional ambition:
4—Expanded Summary (13:09–15:36):
In this segment, Matt Walsh challenges a core message of modern feminism—that women should prioritize career advancement and ambition as a defining part of their identity and appeal. He argues that while this may be empowering for women in a societal or economic context, it doesn’t align with what most men actually find attractive in a romantic partner.
Walsh states plainly that a woman’s professional ambition—her resume, job title, or career drive—is not typically what draws men to her. In fact, he says, these traits often don’t matter at all to men, or can even be a turn-off if they come at the expense of traits men value more—such as warmth, kindness, femininity, nurturing qualities, and the desire to build a family.
He emphasizes that this isn’t a reflection of men being intimidated or insecure. Instead, it’s that male attraction is guided by different criteria than female attraction. A woman might be impressed by a man’s ambition or earning power because those traits are historically tied to security and provision. But men, Walsh claims, are generally looking for a partner who is emotionally available, physically attractive, kind, and interested in family life, rather than someone who is chasing promotions or boardroom power.
Walsh critiques the feminist push to reshape women into something more traditionally masculine—career-oriented, assertive, independent—without acknowledging that this version of womanhood is not necessarily appealing to the men they may want to marry. He implies that feminism has sold women a lie: that becoming more like men is the path to both empowerment and love, when in reality, it can be alienating to the very men they hope to attract.
This part of his argument serves as a foundational lead-in to his later thought experiment, where he compares two hypothetical women—one ambitious and one traditionally feminine—to further illustrate what he sees as the male preference for domestic, nurturing qualities over career success.
Here’s an expanded summary of the section from (15:02–16:50) where Matt Walsh presents a thought experiment to illustrate the differences between what men and women generally find attractive:
5—Expanded Summary (15:02–16:50):
Matt Walsh presents a hypothetical scenario to emphasize his argument that men and women are fundamentally different in what they value in a romantic partner.
He asks the audience to imagine giving a man two choices:
- A kind, sweet, feminine grocery store cashier who earns $13 an hour and dreams of becoming a mother.
- A rich, ambitious, assertive corporate “girl boss” whose ultimate goal is to become a CEO.
According to Walsh, most men would instantly and confidently choose the first woman—not because she’s poor or lacks ambition, but because she embodies traits like kindness, femininity, nurturing instincts, and a desire for motherhood. These qualities, he argues, are far more appealing to men than career ambition or professional success.
He then reverses the roles, asking how women would respond to a similar choice:
- A quiet, unambitious man working a register.
- A highly-paid, successful man climbing the corporate ladder.
In this scenario, Walsh suggests that many more women would opt for the second man—the ambitious, successful one. He stresses that this doesn’t mean women are “gold diggers,” just that they are drawn to providers and protectors, which has been biologically and socially consistent throughout human history.
Walsh emphasizes that this isn’t a judgment, but rather an observation of enduring gender differences in what each sex typically seeks in a partner. He concludes this section by arguing that a man isn’t looking for a colleague or professional peer—he’s looking for a wife, a mother for his children, a helpmate—someone who embodies traditional femininity, not a mirror image of himself.
Here’s an expanded version of section 6. (17:56–19:06):
6—Expanded Summary (17:56–19:06):
In this segment, Matt Walsh pivots to a broader cultural critique, arguing that feminism—not traditional gender roles—is the modern “fad”. He challenges the notion, implied by Megyn Kelly and others, that traditional values are outdated or regressive. Instead, Walsh asserts that it’s feminism that has imposed a recent and radical shift in societal norms, especially regarding the role and expectations of women. He suggests that traditionalism has existed for thousands of years, deeply rooted in biology, religion, and human nature, while feminism is a relatively new ideology that attempts to override these longstanding norms.
Walsh’s core point here is that feminism has tried to reprogram women’s aspirations—telling them that fulfillment is found primarily in careers, independence from family structures, and rejecting traditional femininity. But while women have been encouraged (or pressured) to adopt this new model, men, he argues, have not been similarly reprogrammed. Their biological instincts and desires have remained relatively constant: most men, Walsh claims, are still naturally attracted to women who are nurturing, family-oriented, and who embrace more traditional roles.
He frames this mismatch as a kind of cultural dissonance—feminism has changed what many women want, but it hasn’t changed what most men are drawn to. As a result, both sexes end up confused and frustrated: women don’t understand why men aren’t interested in their ambitious, high-achieving personas, and men are criticized for wanting something that feminism deems outdated.
Walsh emphasizes that this tension isn’t due to men being immature or afraid of “strong women,” as is often claimed in feminist rhetoric. Rather, it’s because biological and emotional attraction can’t be dictated by ideology. In his view, you can’t force men to want something they don’t—no matter how loudly the culture insists that they should.
This part of his argument underlines his belief that nature is ultimately more powerful than ideology, and that feminism, despite its cultural dominance, is fighting an uphill battle against human nature.
Absolutely! Here’s an expanded version of Section 7 (19:06–20:22):
7—Expanded Summary (19:06–20:22):
In the final moments of his video, Matt Walsh offers a conclusive summary of his argument, aiming to drive home the core message behind his critique of modern gender dynamics. He states that, at a fundamental and natural level, most men are looking for wives—not professional partners, teammates, or colleagues. By this, Walsh means that men are drawn to traditional conceptions of family and relationship roles, where the wife’s identity is rooted primarily in nurturing the home, raising children, and providing emotional support, rather than building a career.
He suggests that this desire is not socially constructed but instinctive, and yet modern society—influenced heavily by feminism and progressive values—discourages men from expressing or acting on it. According to Walsh, men are told that such preferences are outdated, sexist, or even misogynistic. This cultural pressure, he argues, leads to a deep sense of demoralization among men, particularly those who feel alienated by a dating landscape that no longer reflects their values or priorities.
Walsh’s tone in this conclusion is somber and pointed. He paints a picture of a generation of men whose traditional desires are invalidated or mocked, and who are left without a clear place in a society that increasingly prioritizes gender equality in ways that, he believes, conflict with male nature. For him, this isn’t just a matter of personal preference—it’s a symptom of broader cultural confusion and upheaval, where natural roles have been blurred and redefined, often to the detriment of both sexes.
In closing, he positions traditionalism not as a form of oppression but as a source of clarity, purpose, and fulfillment—a worldview that resonates with many men but is increasingly dismissed in mainstream discourse.
Let’s dig into the contrast between Matt Walsh’s and Megyn Kelly’s perspectives, section by section, to highlight their core disagreements and the deeper ideological divide:
1. Worldview Clash: Traditionalism vs. Modern Conservatism
- Walsh’s View: He stands firmly in traditionalist conservatism, where gender roles are biologically rooted and family-centered. He believes the natural order places women in nurturing, home-centered roles and men as protectors/providers. To him, feminism is an ideological deviation from what works.
- Kelly’s View: She represents a modern, professional conservative feminism—believing that women can be both ambitious professionals and committed mothers. She doesn’t reject traditional values entirely but thinks they should be adaptable rather than prescriptive.
“I’m not saying women shouldn’t raise families,” Kelly implies, “but why can’t I also anchor a news show while doing it?”
2. On Judging Preferences
- Walsh’s Argument: Men are simply being honest when they say they prefer women who prioritize family over career. He insists this preference is natural and should not be judged or moralized.
- Kelly’s Rebuttal: She sees this preference as limiting and dismissive. When men say they’re turned off by a woman’s ambition, she hears a subtle attempt to confine women to a narrow role. For Kelly, “Why should my success make me less desirable?” is a central question.
Key Clash: Walsh views attraction as biological and fixed; Kelly views it as partly cultural and evolvable.
3. Thought Experiment: Double Standards
- Walsh: He uses the thought experiment to reveal what he sees as a double standard: women can demand “high-value men,” but men are mocked for wanting “traditional women.” He sees this as proof that feminism only goes one way.
- Kelly: While she doesn’t directly address this thought experiment, her larger message implies: “Yes, women have standards—but so do men. The difference is we’re asking men to evolve with the times.” She likely sees Walsh’s framing as overly black-and-white and missing the nuance of personal compatibility beyond roles.
4. Feminism vs. “The Natural Order”
- Walsh: Claims feminism is a “fad” that cannot override biological truth. He argues it has reshaped expectations, but not men’s nature.
- Kelly: Embraces some feminist gains—particularly the freedom to choose. She doesn’t reject tradition but resents Walsh’s assertion that women are only fulfilled in the home. Her perspective is that modernity has expanded options, not erased instincts.
Key Divergence: Walsh sees feminism as corrosive; Kelly sees it as empowering when balanced with family values.
5. What Do Men Actually Want?
- Walsh: Concludes that men don’t want “colleagues” or “career partners”—they want wives in the classical sense: homemakers, nurturers, feminine complements.
- Kelly: Argues that the idea men are turned off by accomplished women is not a feature of masculinity, but a failure of modern masculinity. She believes truly strong men aren’t threatened by successful women—they’re drawn to capable, multi-dimensional partners.
In Kelly’s view: “Being a good mother and being successful are not mutually exclusive.”
6. Emotional Tone: Condemnation vs. Frustration
- Walsh’s Tone: Calm but stern; focused on prescriptive norms and what should be.
- Kelly’s Tone: Frustrated, even emotional at times; focused on defending lived experience and pushing back on cultural shame directed at working moms.
In Summary:
