This is the FCB Podcast Network.

Just listen to yourself presents.

I'm just saying with Cura Davis.

Daily Wire commenter Matt Walsh is in hot water, again, for recent comments on the expectations of romantic relationships.

In a social media post, Walsh said,

Why should the man play the traditionally masculine role of paying for the meals if the woman is not going to play the traditionally feminine role in return?

Naturally, many are offended by his comments, but not me.

I think most upset people are filtering

his comments through the lens of misogyny they have already placed on him. But I understand exactly

what Walsh is saying. I say it to women, often myself. Walsh isn't saying men pay so women put out.

And I don't even think he's defining what a feminine role might be. What he is

suggesting is that regardless of how we individually express our gender roles, we do indeed have

roles. These roles are uniquely designed. They are puzzle pieces and when placed together properly,

they restore a full picture of relationship.

The modern progressive movement has created a generation of women who expect men to fulfill

their desires without being men. They see romantic relationships as transactional. This

creates an atmosphere of selfishness, in which the relationship is seen as a commodity rather than an experience.

The paying for meals thing is simply the analogy Walsh chose to explain a bigger concept.

We have the instinct to ask men to pay for dates, meals, etc.

Because it is a small, subtle signal that a man might be a provider,

and also that he is valuing his time with a woman.

And that's great. But what does a woman signal and how does she do it? A woman signals, again,

...