Taylor Swift’s new album is predictably at the top of the charts, but some of her most devoted fans are not pleased with her departure into what’s been described as the “trad life.”
“Taylor Swift is handing the conservative agenda on a silver platter to the masses,” TikTok influencer Liittle Debbie said in a lengthy <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@beysus.christ/video/7557367237150035231" target="_blank" rel="noopener">critique</a> of Swift’s newest and much-hyped album, “The Life of a Showgirl.”
“You cannot convince me that the master lyricist of our generation, akin to Shakespeare, that the Easter egg master of our generation, is not aware of what her entire optics and lyrics and album and everything is giving at this very moment,” she added.
In her viral video, the influencer insists the album is not “satirical,” as some desperate Swifties have suggested as a way to explain away Swift’s apparent turn from feminist hero to suburban romantic.
For her part, Swift has described the project as a labor of love.
“We knew that we had to bring the best ideas that we ever had,” she said during her appearance on the “New Heights” podcast, hosted by her fiancé, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, and his brother, Jason. “I also know the pressure that I’m putting on this record by saying that, but I don’t care because I love it that much.”
“This is the record that I’ve been wanting to make for a very long time,” the pop star added.
To some fans, that statement was practically an admission of betrayal. Liittle Debbie accuses Swift of “aligning” her brand with the NFL, “one of the most racist and problematic industries in our country,” she adds, and of “creeping [her] way down the conservative pipeline.”
The proof, in her view, lies in Swift’s high-profile engagement to Kelce.
“She’s aligning herself with him,” the influencer argues, incredulous that the same conservative commentators who once derided Swift as a “childless cat lady” have also celebrated her engagement. To her, this represents a horrifying shift from Swift being a girlboss to a white picket fence proponent.
The TikTok creator points to some of the lyrics in “The Life of a Showgirl” as proof.
In the song “Eldest Daughter,” Swift admits, “When I said I don’t believe in marriage, that was a lie.”
The lyrics to Swift’s new track “Wi$h Li$t” only pour more gasoline on the fire of outrage:
<blockquote>“They want those bright lights and Balenci shades/And a fat ass with a baby face/They want it all./“Hope they get what they want/ I just want you/ Have a couple kids, got the whole block looking like you/ We tell the world to leave us thе f*** alone, and they do, wow/ Got me dreaming about a driveway with a basketball hoop.”</blockquote>
The influencer hears those lines as evidence of something sinister, saying Swift’s supposed desire for a “racially homogenous neighborhood” and a glorification of marriage and motherhood represent abandonment of her childless cat lady fans.
To many observers, the outrage says more about the culture than about Taylor Swift.
For years, progressive fandom has treated female pop stars as symbols of what women should be. The idea that one of them might want to write about — or simply want — domestic life, love, or marriage is being perceived as an attack on that ideology.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>
Longtime Swifties know the singer has been a hopeless romantic for most of her career, and that singing about fairytales and daydreams of being rescued by a knight in shining armor have featured in tracks spanning her entire catalog of music.
In “Starlight” (2012), the singer fantasized about running off, getting married, and having lots of children. “We’ll have 10 kids and teach them how to dream,” Swift sang.
Perhaps this latest album feels more urgent, not just because conservatives are finally back in charge of the government, but also because Swift is closer to that kid-filled happy ending than ever before. After a string of bad relationships, she’s now engaged to a man who is clearly smitten. Her engagement photo announcement was incredibly traditional. This album, coupled with the much-maligned “optics,” likely signals the end of Swift’s girlboss cat lady days.
Her fans, who had bought into embracing eternal singlehood, feel betrayed.
But there are some supporters arguing that Swift’s seeming to head down the trad wife road doesn’t prove she’s an anti-feminist, because true feminism was always about having the choice. And the billionaire singer flat-out said it was “<a href="https://people.com/taylor-swift-shuts-down-theories-about-last-album-marrying-travis-kelce-11824657" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shockingly offensive</a>” that anyone suggested she was quitting music during this next phase of life.
Whether she has the 10 kids and basketball hoop in suburbia and releases a bunch of songs about parenting remains to be seen. But Swifties may want to get used to the fact that their favorite singer is changing — or else find a new cat lady idol to worship.

Taylor Swift

Wife, Or A Showgirl? Taylor Swift’s New Album Is Breaking Liberal Feminists

Wife, Or A Showgirl? Taylor Swift's New Album Is Breaking Liberal Feminists

Entertainment

Feminism

Music

singer

Anyone who watched TV in the 1990s is familiar with the slow-motion “Baywatch” run meant to highlight the enviable physiques of the lifeguards at Malibu beach.
The most famous slow-motion jogger, of course, was Pamela Anderson, who went on to have a public profile laced with several high-profile rock romances, a blonde bombshell image, lots of makeup and tight clothing, and, predictably, a sex tape.
Her long-running sex symbol status is what makes Anderson’s newest iteration so extraordinary. Gone are the over-plucked eyebrows, glittery makeup looks, and skimpy outfits. And instead of simply toning down her look into a more polished yet styled version of the 90s version, the actress did a complete 180 and started walking around with a totally bare face that appears natural and shows signs of aging.
Anderson, 58, now looks more like a kindly grandmother at the grocery store than she does like the <a href="https://www.biography.com/actors/a65563161/playboy-pamela-anderson-against-porn" target="_blank" rel="noopener">record holder</a> for most times posing nude for Playboy (14, if you were wondering). She’s also enjoying what appears to be a later-in-life romance with Liam Neeson, which looks sweet enough to melt even the most cynical hearts.
Anderson has been discussing her change in appearance openly ever since it began. She described her over-styled &#8217;90s look as a “defense mechanism.”
Spurred in part by the death of her longtime makeup artist Alexis Vogel in 2019, the celeb said her decision to ditch the cosmetics was “freeing, and fun, and a little rebellious too.&#8221;
&#8220;Because I did notice that there were all these people doing big makeup looks, and it’s just like me to go against the grain and do the opposite of what everyone’s doing,” she <a href="https://www.elle.com/fashion/a44775298/pamela-anderson-interview-2023/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Elle in 2023.
She also spoke about being confronted with her own reflection, saying, &#8220;I’m kind of laughing at myself when I look at the mirror. I go, ‘Wow, this is really&#8230;what’s happening to me?’ It’s a journey,&#8221; she told the magazine. &#8220;But I feel rooted for. I feel good. I’m in a good place.”
In a Vogue interview about going makeup-free at Paris Fashion Week, she explained that her transformation wasn’t a protest. It was personal.
“I just thought, ‘I’m doing this for all the girls out there.’… This is it.”
&#8220;You kind of have to challenge beauty sometimes,&#8221; she told the outlet. &#8220;You know, if we all chase youth, or we&#8217;re chasing our idea of what fashion magazines [want] and everything, we&#8217;re only gonna be disappointed or maybe a little bit sad. So I feel like this is it.&#8221;
Anderson also discussed her plan to forge a path for other women in her age bracket.
&#8220;I feel as a woman and a woman of my age, and a woman in the public eye&#8230;it&#8217;s also your job to be a model of everything,&#8221; she shared. &#8220;Just all sorts of choices. So I am just being me, kind of who I am, in all these great clothes running around Paris.&#8221;
Other celebrities celebrated the move, with Jamie Lee Curtis calling Anderson’s bare face “an act of courage and rebellion” and Scarlett Johansson saying it was a “powerful message for women to see other women rejecting standard beauty norms.”
It’s true that there’s something especially powerful about the unmasking of a star who once embraced the beauty industry to such an extreme. Anderson also seems to reject Hollywood’s relentless obsession with looking young, saying the pursuit is ultimately “futile.”
It stands in stark contrast to some of Anderson’s contemporaries, who are still dancing, dressing, and acting like they did in their 20s, often with mixed results (ahem, Madonna).
Followers are also rooting for Anderson’s relationship with Neeson, who was seemingly drawn to that same sincerity. Their relationship carries the same refreshing quality as Anderson’s beauty revolution.
That’s saying a lot, considering that Anderson has been married five times.
People started noticing the chemistry between Anderson and Neeson on the set of “The Naked Gun” reboot, where Neeson <a href="https://www.glamour.com/story/pamela-anderson-and-liam-neeson-are-dating-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised</a> Anderson by saying “I can’t compliment her enough, I’ll be honest with you. No huge ego. She just comes in to do the work. She’s funny and so easy to work with. She’s going to be terrific in the film.”
Anderson offered a glowing review of her own, calling her co-star “the perfect gentleman.”
Recently, the pair even pretended to make out on Today as rumors of their romance persisted. Neeson called their connection “lovely,” while Anderson <a href="https://people.com/pamela-anderson-and-liam-neeson-pretend-to-make-out-on-the-today-show-11780821" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> of their connection, &#8220;I think I have a friend forever in Liam. And we definitely have a connection that is very sincere, very loving, and he&#8217;s a good guy.&#8221; So far, the duo has brushed off any attempts to define their relationship, but it’s obvious just by looking at them that their connection is strong.
To be clear, this isn’t about Anderson becoming some sort of saint. She’s still contradictory. The celeb has been criticized for railing against pornography while insisting that posing nude in Playboy is acceptable because it’s “<a href="https://www.biography.com/actors/a65563161/playboy-pamela-anderson-against-porn" target="_blank" rel="noopener">highbrow</a>.” She was married to avid Trump supporter Kid Rock for a year, but she’s also a fervent supporter of PETA and an animal rights activist. And despite <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/pamela-anderson-says-she-once-wanted-to-be-a-nun.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> she once considered becoming a nun and says prayers every morning, Anderson does not openly practice any specific faith.
To sum up, Anderson isn’t becoming a right-wing influencer anytime soon, but her transformation does point to a very Christian concept: redemption.
Pamela Anderson’s transformation from a sex symbol defined by tabloid headlines to an introspective, grounded woman who has openly reflected on her past mirrors, in many ways, the Christian concept of forgiveness of sin. In Christianity, forgiveness isn’t about erasing history, but about redemption: a cleansing that allows a person to step forward no longer bound by who they once were.
Anderson has spoken candidly about her mistakes and struggles, yet her new chapter embodies grace, renewal, and the reclaiming of dignity, which is very much like the believer who, after confessing and repenting, is restored to a new life in Christ.
Her story shows how a person can be fully known, flaws and all, and still be met with compassion, transformation, and a fresh start free from judgement. And that is a truly beautiful thing to behold.

Late Night with Seth Meyers – Season 12

Bombshell Redeemed? Pamela Anderson And The Power Of Grace

Christianity

Hollywod

Pamela Anderson

Women

The National Library of Scotland (NLS) is under fire after Amina Shah, Scotland’s national librarian and the NLS chief executive, opted not to include a pro-women&#8217;s rights book in a centenary display.
The NLS initially asked the public for nominations, calling the display a &#8220;love letter&#8221; to reading and literacy and suggesting that people submit titles that had inspired and encouraged their love of reading — and titles that received a certain number of nominations were to be included in the planned ten-month display.
One book that received more than double the requisite number of nominations was &#8220;The Women Who Wouldn&#8217;t Wheesht&#8221; — a series of essays that chronicled the fight between feminists like &#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; author J.K. Rowling who questioned radical gender ideology and former Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon&#8217;s gender self-identification law. The title comes from their refusal to remain silent — in the Gaelic &#8220;haud yer wheesht&#8221; — while radical trans activists effectively erased women.
Despite meeting the threshold for display, &#8220;The Women Who Wouldn&#8217;t Wheesht&#8221; was banned by the NLS after LGBT staffers complained that it was &#8220;hate speech.&#8221; Shah claimed that she&#8217;d made the decision in light of &#8220;the potential impact on key stakeholders&#8221; who could potentially &#8220;withdraw support for the exhibition and the centenary&#8221; altogether.
Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who edited the book, sent a letter to Shah questioning the decision.
&#8220;We have written to the National Librarian about her decision to remove The Women Who Wouldn&#8217;t Wheesht from the centenary exhibition for the National Library of Scotland, Dear Library, in response to complaints from its LGBT staff network,&#8221; an X post including the letter explained.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We have written to the National Librarian about her decision to remove The Women Who Wouldn&#8217;t Wheesht from the centenary exhibition for the National Library of Scotland, Dear Library, in response to complaints from its LGBT staff network. 1/2 <a href="https://t.co/lQlv2x0tsO">pic.twitter.com/lQlv2x0tsO</a>
— The Frontline (@EthelWrites) <a href="https://twitter.com/EthelWrites/status/1955390550494023958?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The letter reads, in part:
<blockquote>
This is about more than the book. This is the legacy of a decade of political leadership which has demonized and delegitimized people who refused to conform to the approved narrative on sex and gender identity.
The material released also lifts the lid on the network of discrimination and censorship which operates across Scotland’s public institutions with impunity through staff networks and other activist groups, enabled by weak leadership.
</blockquote>
For Women Scotland also issued a statement criticizing the NLS, saying, &#8220;Just when we thought censorship in Scotland couldn&#8217;t get any worse, it emerges that @natlibscot decided to remove WWWW from an exhibition due to tantrums from the staff LGBT group. By caving to this, the library lends weight to their wholly untruthful objections to the book.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Just when we thought censorship in Scotland couldn&#8217;t get any worse, it emerges that <a href="https://twitter.com/natlibscot?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@natlibscot</a> decided to remove WWWW from an exhibition due to tantrums from the staff LGBT group.
By caving to this, the library lends weight to their wholly untruthful objections to the book. <a href="https://t.co/3TJEGV8Hyp">https://t.co/3TJEGV8Hyp</a>
— For Women Scotland (@ForWomenScot) <a href="https://twitter.com/ForWomenScot/status/1955391664215953477?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;The Times reports that &#8216;An earlier decision to include the text was reversed after an internal LGBT staff network claimed including it would cause “severe harm” and threatened to “notify LGBT+ partners of the library’s endorsement&#8221; of it,'&#8221; the statement continued. &#8220;What &#8216;harm&#8217;? Is this book uniquely likely to cause bad paper cuts? &#8216;An internal equality assessment warned that refusing to include the book could be seen as “a form of censorship which undermines our public duty as a national library”&#8217; Well, duh!&#8221;

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald” UK Premiere – Red Carpet Arrivals

Pro-Women’s Rights Book Yanked From Scottish Library Display After LGBT Tantrum

Pro-Women's Rights Book Yanked From Scottish Library Display After LGBT Tantrum

JK Rowling

LGBT

Library

Politics

Scotland

Women's Rights

World

In a culture notorious for rewarding victimization, Sydney Sweeney is going viral for symbolizing something we’ve all been missing: sanity. She’s not loud or radical, and she’s not trying to make a statement. But somehow, just by acting normal, she’s become one.
All she had to do was dress in head-to-toe denim and lean over a car to make the internet go absolutely bananas.
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-sexy-sydney-sweeney-ad-campaign-has-internet-celebrating-the-end-of-woke">campaign</a> in question is a new ad for American Eagle, and anyone who spends any time on social media has certainly seen reactions to it over the past few weeks. The ad is washed in soft nostalgia, with a vibe including a gas station stop, American denim, and a once-ubiquitous girl-next-door look.
Sweeney’s ad is like a love letter to everything American culture supposedly outgrew. And that’s why people can’t stop talking about it.
The ad racked up millions of views in days. It’s the most viral moment of Sweeney’s career, even more than her Emmy-nominated turn on the popular HBO drama “Euphoria.”
In one of the ads, Sweeney says, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue.”
This messaging has led to absolute meltdowns by mainstream media and leftist social media influencers, who insist the Sweeney ads are nothing but “Nazi propaganda.” Backlash got so bad that American Eagle responded, but instead of apologizing, they surprisingly doubled down.
“‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans’ is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story,” the company <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DM0tMjaTBll/?hl=en">posted</a> on their Instagram.
“We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way,” the statement continued. “Great jeans look good on everyone.”
The reaction has been telling. Fans are celebrating the campaign as a breath of fresh air — it’s not just a fashion ad, it’s a vibe shift. In an industry that runs on provocation, Sweeney is quietly proving you don’t have to reject femininity, tradition, or wholesomeness to be relevant. You just have to stop pretending you’re above it.
That shouldn’t be controversial. But in Hollywood today, it absolutely is.
Sweeney grew up far from the glitz of Los Angeles. She was born and raised in Spokane, a small city in eastern Washington, and comes from what the media might call a “conservative” family — though Sweeney has never commented on politics.
But she has alluded to them. Leftists were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/euphoria-actress-responds-after-shes-attacked-for-family-photos-with-pro-police-shirt-maga-like-hat">furious</a> in 2022 when she posted photos from her mother’s 60th birthday party. The pictures, which included a relative wearing a “Blue Lives Matter” shirt and a MAGA-style hat, sparked immediate outrage.
Sweeney didn’t take the same path as many before her by issuing a groveling apology. Instead, she posted a follow-up post on X <a href="https://x.com/sydney_sweeney/status/1563660155425673217" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a>, “You guys, this is wild. An innocent celebration for my mom’s milestone 60th birthday has turned into an absurd political statement… Please stop making assumptions.”
That act of defiance, refusing to apologize, was rare enough. But it’s what she hasn’t done since that’s even more interesting. She hasn’t become a political mouthpiece. She hasn’t branded herself as “anti-woke.” She’s just stayed normal. And for some reason, that drives people crazy.
It’s rare to see a Hollywood star so universally embraced without selling a political message, trauma story, or carefully calculated ideology. But maybe that’s the point.
Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly summed up what many have been saying on a recent episode of her podcast.
“She’s all woman,” Kelly said of Sweeney. “She has a great pair on her that would be the envy of virtually every woman, and they’re obviously natural… and so she’s in some ways, the opposite of a Kardashian,” she added. “She’s petite … she’s buxom, but they’re natural, and her face is not overly prodded or manipulated. She looks normal. She looks like just a pretty American girl.”
Hollywood doesn’t know what to do with someone like Sweeney because she’s not trying to be anyone else. She’s not reinventing herself for every season. She’s not jumping on trends to stay relevant.
It all speaks to a growing hunger for authenticity. It’s not the kind of curated authenticity influencers serve up with a wink and a sponsorship deal. People want real. They’re over the Botox looks that have dominated for years.
That’s the sweet spot Sydney Sweeney has managed to occupy.
Her critics don’t know how to handle it. She’s a reminder that the pendulum is swinging in the hearts of viewers who are tired of being lectured. Sweeney isn’t fighting that culture war directly, but she’s proving that jeans, normalcy, and charm still resonate with most of America.

Sydney Sweeney

The World’s Most Dangerous Blonde? Sydney Sweeney And The Threat Of Normalcy

advertising

Culture

Hollywood

The Left’s successful rebranding of masculinity as “toxic” didn’t just rewrite a dictionary entry — it rewired the cultural DNA that once produced great men.
In 2018, the American Psychological Association updated its Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, effectively declaring stoicism, risk-taking, and competitiveness — the building blocks of masculine virtue — “<a href="https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf">psychologically harmful</a>.”  
Within months, Gillette aired its infamous &#8220;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYaY2Kb_PKI">We Believe</a>&#8220; commercial, scolding ordinary dads at backyard barbecues while implying every son harbored a bully within. Seemingly overnight, &#8220;toxic&#8221; became the default adjective attached to manhood.
But this cultural ambush was decades in the making. It has its roots in second-wave feminism, which in the 1960s began reframing male strength as patriarchal oppression. By the ’80s and ’90s, freshly-minted gender studies departments were churning out theses that branded healthy male assertiveness “hegemonic.”
On television, the upstanding patriarch of “Father Knows Best” gave way to the beer-bellied, weak-willed Al Bundy. When clickbait culture arrived in the 2000s, every societal ill — from climate change to mass shootings — found a convenient culprit in “<a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/17/gun-violence-masculinity-216321/">traditional masculinity</a>.”
C.S. Lewis foresaw the danger. “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise,” he warned in The Abolition of Man — adding the <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/113211-we-make-men-without-chests-and-expect-from-them-virtue?utm_source=chatgpt.com">punchline</a> our era can’t escape: “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”
The cultural costs are no laughing matter. Today, 17.6 million American children — nearly one in four — <a href="https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic">grow up without a father in the home</a>. Their odds of suffering are grim: Barack Obama, citing Census data in 2008, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094?">noted</a> that such children are “five times more likely to live in poverty… nine times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”
If only he did something about it. 
Almost 60 years earlier, Daniel Patrick Moynihan <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Moynihan%27s%20The%20Negro%20Family.pdf">sounded the same alarm</a>, saying, “the deterioration of the fabric of &#8230; society is the deterioration of the &#8230; family.” At the time, he was dismissed as an alarmist. The empty chairs around dinner tables prove him prophetic.
Classrooms reveal the next domino. The same ideology that pathologized masculine energy has left boys academically stranded. On the <a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/reading/2022">2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress</a>, 8th-grade girls outread boys by nine scale points, continuing an unbroken gender gap that dates to 1992. Overall scores for both sexes hit the lowest level on record. 
College quads tell the same tale. Men have fallen to just <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/18/fewer-young-men-are-in-college-especially-at-4-year-schools/">44% of American undergraduates</a>, a gap that’s widened every year since 2011. UNESCO, surveying 140 countries, now calls boys’ lagging literacy a “<a href="https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/leave-no-child-behind-global-report-boys-disengagement-education">growing global crisis</a>.” Christina Hoff Sommers <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9334744-boys-today-bear-the-burden-of-several-powerful-cultural-trends">captures the cultural headwind:</a> a school climate that “valorizes feelings and denigrates competition and risk…views masculinity as predatory. Natural male exuberance is no longer tolerated.” 
Why did “toxic masculinity” stick? Because it performed a linguistic jujitsu: attach a moral defect to the identity you want to erase, then offer “liberation” through re-education. Courage degenerates into “aggression,” leadership into “oppression,” fatherhood into “patriarchal privilege.” The outcome is predictable: abolish the virtues that civilize male strength, then lament the violence or apathy that follows.
Yet the data refuse to cooperate with the narrative. Children with involved fathers are <a href="https://www.lakeconews.com/news/community/commentary/56433-delcol-happy-father-s-day">40% less likely to repeat a grade</a>, more likely to earn As, and far less prone to behavioral problems. Even the <a href="https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf">APA guidelines</a> — often cited as proof of masculinity’s hazards — concede that male risk-taking can be “harnessed for good” when directed toward service and innovation.
Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child <a href="https://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/The-Science-of-Resilience2.pdf">summarizes</a> decades of research showing that self-regulation and disciplined resilience — traits once labeled stoic — buffer children from stress and reduce lifetime mental-health risk. In other words, the same virtues our culture now brands “toxic” are the ones empirical science says we need.
Trust the science.
Conservatives bear some blame for this inversion. While we tallied marginal-tax victories, Hollywood and higher ed rewrote the story of manhood. Institutions we once guided — churches, Scouts, civic clubs — sat vacant as HR departments filled the void. The cockpit was empty. The Left merely climbed in and took control.
We didn’t arrive here by accident. The cultural collapse around masculinity wasn’t inevitable — it was permitted. While conservatives focused on policy wins and economic metrics, the Left waged a full-spectrum cultural campaign that redefined manhood itself. They infiltrated the classroom, the newsroom, and the writers&#8217; room. They turned moral virtue into pathology and repackaged fatherhood as oppression. And we let them. Not out of malice, but out of misplaced trust — that truth would prevail unaided, that tradition could defend itself, that boys would become men by default.
Now, we stand in the wreckage of that assumption. A generation of boys has been raised to doubt their instincts, to apologize for their strength, and to see their fathers as liabilities rather than legacies. This is not just a political failure — it’s a civilizational one. But it also means the stakes are finally clear. If the conservative movement wants to conserve anything worth passing down, it must begin with this: the restoration of masculine virtue. Not nostalgia. Not anger. But clarity. The recognition that the war on manhood is really a war on order, on protection, on the nuclear family.
We’re not at the end of this story — we’re at the hinge. The institutions may be hollow, the narratives poisoned, but the hunger for truth remains. And in that hunger lies our moment. Not to manage decline, but to name it. Not to tinker around the edges, but to tell the truth loudly enough that our sons can hear it. Before we rebuild, we must remember who we are — and what we allowed to be stolen in the dark.
Masculinity is not toxic — it’s virtuous. When we reclaim that distinction, we invite our sons to stand tall instead of apologizing for existing — and we give civilization the allies it deserves.
Gates Garcia is the host of the YouTube show and podcast &#8220;We The People.&#8221; Follow him on Instagram and X @GatesGarciaFL.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

silhouette of man in cowboy hat at dusk

How The Left Hijacked Masculinity — And Why That’s Bad For Society

fatherhood

Leftism

Masculinity

Toxic

Normally when some influencer posts a video that I find annoying and I feel the need to respond to it, I save it for my Daily Cancellation segment. Today, however, I am going to break that rule. I am going to begin with a video from an allegedly conservative influencer named Emily Wilson.
What makes this video relevant, aside from the fact that it just simply annoys me, is that it echoes a message we’ve been hearing with increasing frequency from women on the Right with, in some cases, very large platforms. Emily’s platform isn’t very large, but it is sizable enough. She has half a million followers on Instagram. I’m sure she’s a nice person. I don’t know her and have no issue with her personally. But she represents a growing, or at least increasingly evident, problem on the Right. The problem, in a word, is feminism.
Feminism is not compatible with any meaningful definition of conservatism. Whatever conservatism is trying to conserve — like marriage, the family, western civilization itself — feminism militates against. And yet many feminists have become mouthpieces in the movement, and are accepted as such, as long as they wear a MAGA hat and say that they don’t like illegal immigration or whatever.
So with that in mind, let’s listen to just the latest submission to the ever expanding conservative feminist genre:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Not to pick on <a href="https://twitter.com/emilysavesusa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@emilysavesusa</a> because I’ve been seeing a lot of girls on the right counter signaling the ‘trad’ stay at home mom lifestyle lately also, but I think this message is ridiculous.
Being a SAHM is not being ‘trapped’ by a man. That’s feminist BS. It’s also not… <a href="https://t.co/2iiwnYCb0T">pic.twitter.com/2iiwnYCb0T</a>
&mdash; Sarah Stock ✟ (@sarahcstock) <a href="https://twitter.com/sarahcstock/status/1917844165893018047?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Well, I am cringing. But not because of the trad wives. I’m cringing at this lame, half-baked attack on stay-at-home moms. And I’m cringing even more at the fact that women with these kinds of views are still embraced as “conservative.”
Try to imagine the opposite of this. Imagine a Left-wing influencer who advocates for every Left-wing policy under the sun but then comes out one day and says, “You know what? I think a woman’s proper place is in the home, raising her children.” It’s impossible to conceive of any Left-wing woman ever saying such a thing. And if she did, she would be immediately excised from the movement. That’s because leftists understand that supporting so-called traditional gender roles is fundamentally antithetical to their worldview. You literally cannot be a leftist and hold that view.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1588-member-exclusive?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
The same is logically true in the reverse. Attacking gender roles is fundamentally leftist. Which means you cannot be conservative if you hold fundamentally leftist views. You have every right to express those views. But you should not be embraced as a conservative, much less listened to as a spokeswoman for the movement. 
Now let’s go through some of the specifics here. Emily says that a woman should have a job and her own income so that she isn’t “trapped” by a man. She envisions the relationship between husband and wife as inherently competitive. Marriage is a zero sum game where both husband and wife are competing for control. Again, this is a fundamentally leftist conception. It is a recipe for divorce. There is nothing in and of itself wrong with a wife earning money. As I’ve conceded many times, a family may feel that they need two incomes in order to survive. Or they may want a second income. Or the wife might have a job that doesn’t require leaving the house and going to an office every day. But if she’s earning money as an escape hatch because she doesn’t want to be “trapped,” that is a very bad sign.
If you want to understand why it’s a bad sign just imagine how it would sound if a man adopted this philosophy. A woman on X commented yesterday that a wife needs a “backup in case their man can’t fulfill his providing roles.”
Well what if a man decided to have a back up in case his woman didn’t fulfill her wifely duties? Most people would find that objectionable, for good reason. The whole point of marriage is that you are devoting yourself entirely to your spouse. Two become one flesh. It is not possible to make that level of commitment while at the same time actively building yourself a nest egg just in case you want to leave. Saying the vows and pledging yourself to your betrothed means not having an exit plan. It means you burn the boats like Cortés and turn towards that wilderness and journey into it together, come what may.
She also says that men want to be mentally stimulated. The implication is that stay-at-home moms are too stupid to provide that sort of stimulation because all they think about is their “sourdough bread.”
This is absurdly dismissive and insulting to millions of good, godly, intelligent women who, while staying home with the children, are also capable of having intelligent conversations with their husbands. It also assumes that a woman who sits in a cubicle all day will somehow have more interesting things to say to her husband at the end of the day. Having a job as a woman does not make you smart or interesting. I hate to break it to the working women of the world, but your husband is almost certainly not intellectually stimulated by your job or your stories about your job. If he was able to choose between listening to a story about your office drama or listening to a story about what you did with the kids that day, he would prefer to hear about the latter. This is the sort of thing you would know about men if you listened to them when they try to tell you what they want, instead of declaring what you think they should want.
But the biggest problem — and the objection you hear most often from these feminist types — is the claim that somehow the stay-at-home mom arrangement is implausible, or even impossible. Emily declares that your chances of finding a man who can provide for you while you stay home and raise the children are, “Slim to none. Actually none,” she says. There&#8217;s no chance that it works out for you. There’s no chance that it works out for you or anyone you know. And yet it has worked out for countless people. It’s worked out for my wife. It’s worked out for many families that I know personally. It’s worked out for billions of human beings across the globe and through history since the dawn of civilization. Emily has written off the most normal and historically common practice as not just difficult but, according to her, literally impossible. And not just impossible, but also absurd and grotesque.
There’s a lot of this kind of thing going around. During my conversation with Tucker Carlson this week, we talked about the absurdity of gay adoption and gay parenthood.
Here&#8217;s a clip of that exchange that Tucker&#8217;s team posted:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Should gay couples be able to adopt? Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson discuss. <a href="https://t.co/q3I5vRRzVF">pic.twitter.com/q3I5vRRzVF</a>
&mdash; Tucker Carlson Network (@TCNetwork) <a href="https://twitter.com/TCNetwork/status/1918058750692180235?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Plenty of people on the Right, or Right-adjacent, took great exception to this. Glenn Greenwald is one of them. He tweeted in response: 
<blockquote>One has to be morally deranged — or totally ignorant of the grim realities of kids lingering without parents in orphanages, shelters and foster care, only to be expelled at 18 with no support — to believe that that dark hell is better for kids than being adopted by gay couples.</blockquote>
Morally deranged, he says. The view that two men should not be allowed to adopt children was held by nearly everyone in this country, and everyone across the world, until very recently. Barack Obama was against gay adoption when he first ran for president. So was every other elected Democrat. Any elected Democrat over the age of 50 was probably, at one point, opposed to both gay marriage and gay adoption. In fact, gay adoption was so obviously wrong to so many people for so long that it wasn&#8217;t even discussed. It wasn&#8217;t debated. It was just intuitively understood that children need a mother and a father. We won’t let two men adopt children for the same reason that we wouldn’t let a polyamorous polycule adopt a child. Children need a mother and a father. We are not going to deliberately put a child into a disordered environment where he is not only deprived of a mother or a father, but the role of mother or father has been replaced in an unnatural and confusing way.
This was always understood. Now, in the blink of an eye, what was always understood is &#8220;morally deranged.” The thing that everyone believed forever until approximately last Tuesday is not just wrong but shocking and upsetting and baffling. This is the game that&#8217;s played. And I, for one, am entirely sick of it.
Not everything that is old or traditional is automatically good, of course. Slavery is old and traditional — and still practiced in non-western countries. It&#8217;s also very bad. But there are basic truths about how human society is fundamentally structured. Truths that have withstood the test of time. Truths that have, while civilization held fast to them, it flourished and advanced in remarkable and seemingly miraculous ways. Truths that, minutes after our society abandoned, immediately led to decline and chaos and confusion. One of those truths is that a child needs a mother and a father. Only a man and a woman can have a baby, or should. Another one of those truths is that men and women are different, and so have different roles in the home and in society. This was an idea so basic that there wasn&#8217;t even a term for it. We only started labeling it &#8220;gender roles&#8221; at the moment that we decided to abandon it. And I would say that the results of that decision have not been good. Divorce, broken homes, declining birth rates, 60 million dead babies. And those are just the early returns.
That’s why we cannot be embarrassed to hold to a system that is ancient and timeless, and proven, tested, and vindicated by the testimony of our ancestors and by thousands of years of human experience beyond that. As conservatives, if that is not worth conserving, then nothing is.

Three businesswomen walking together in an office

Why ‘Conservative Feminism’ Is A Total Lie

Why 'Conservative Feminism' Is A Total Lie

Chemotherapy

Conservatives

Family Values

Fathers

Husband

Marriage

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Parenting

Social Media

Modern dating is not in a good place right now.
A big part of the problem is that we’ve reached peak feminism in 2025, with so many women opting out of dating entirely and not even pretending to want to settle down with a husband and children. According to a recently published Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/relationships/american-women-are-giving-up-on-marriage-54840971" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a>, this is mostly because they’re unhappy with their prospects.
“I’m financially self-sufficient enough to do these things [house hunting, having babies] myself,” one Boston-based single told the outlet. “I’m willing to accept being single versus settling for someone who isn’t the right fit.”
But what is “the right fit?” According to these women who are quick to swipe left on any man who isn’t 100% on board with their career ambitions, it requires an absolutely perfect meshing of interests, values, and goals, plus physical attraction, earning potential, and of, course, height. There is no room for compromise from these perfection-seeking women who say they’re just as content to live solo and brunch with their friends on weekends.
A Washington-based firefighter told WSJ she doesn’t want to be financially tied to a man. “If I need companionship, I volunteer at the dog shelter,” she said. 
While the article mostly focused on women and their plight to find the ideal, it left out one key piece of the equation: men. The men on the dating sites who are found wanting are hard-working and, in many examples, are looking for a life partner who is willing to take on the traditional role of caretaker of the home.
One woman said she ended her last relationship because “he wanted the white picket fence and me at home with the kids,” which conflicted with her career goals. The article also noted that women with college degrees prefer men with the same education level, and since fewer men are getting bachelor’s degrees, their dating pool is even more limited.
A game cannot solve all these issues. But it can help make a first date – or even a second or tenth date – a lot more productive. 
In this apocalyptic dating scene, there is no time for questions about the weather or favorite types of cheese. Get to the heart of the matter with the <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/yes-or-no-dating-relationships-expansion-pack" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yes or No Dating and Relationships Expansion Pack</a>, the newest addition to the best-selling Yes or No: The Game! It includes more than 125 new cards to help gauge your potential partner’s stance on love, relationships, and modern dating topics.
These cards will help prompt serious conversations, with topics such as:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Are interfaith marriages doomed to fail?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Is watching porn cheating?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Are “fur-babies” replacing children?</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Is it okay to date multiple people at once when you’re not “exclusive”? </li>
</ul>
…and so much more. 
It’s 2025, and while the nation is slowly healing from years of Democrat control, the mentality of single women couldn’t be further from sane. Every first date should include at least twenty minutes of playing this revealing game, both for entertainment’s sake and to ensure no one is wasting their precious time.
It’s a wild world out there. Make sense of it the only way you can by picking up the <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/yes-or-no-dating-relationships-expansion-pack" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yes or No Dating and Relationships Expansion Pack</a> and maybe, finally, you can find the love of your life.
<a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/yes-or-no-dating-relationships-expansion-pack" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-913759 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-4.01.30%E2%80%AFPM-828x576.png" alt="" width="828" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-4.01.30%E2%80%AFPM-828x576.png 828w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-4.01.30%E2%80%AFPM-300x209.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-4.01.30%E2%80%AFPM-768x534.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Screenshot-2025-04-29-at-4.01.30%E2%80%AFPM.png 1242w" sizes=" (max-width: 828px) 100vw, 828px" /></a>

Broken heart, dating

Love In The Time Of Feminism: How The Dating Scene Became Apocalyptic

Daily Wire Shop

Dating

Normally, I don&#8217;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&#8217;s usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on &#8220;Dancing with the Stars.&#8221; In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren&#8217;t reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much.
So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">entitled</a>, &#8220;Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican.&#8221; According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this article</a>, the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; is: 
<blockquote>&#8220;An organized effort to create &#8230; an alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.
This new &#8216;womanosphere&#8217; includes Brett Cooper’s channel as well as lifestyle magazines like the Conservateur and Evie, Candace Owens’s Club Candace, Alex Clark’s Maha (“Make America Healthy Again”) talkshow Culture Apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey’s Relatable, and swimmer turned anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines’s podcast Gaines For Girls.&#8221;</blockquote>
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. <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907550102605946958" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Here&#8217;s what I wrote</a> at the time: 
<blockquote>We hear a lot about the &#8216;manosphere.&#8217;I think it’s time we start talking about the womansphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages.</blockquote>
So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone start talking about the &#8220;womanosphere,&#8221; I was demanding a public conversation about the &#8220;womansphere.&#8221; All they did was add an &#8220;o&#8221; in the middle, to change womansphere to woman-o-sphere, and then they completely changed the meaning of the word, as I was using it. To me, the womansphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. To them, the womanosphere 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 knows what the word &#8220;woman&#8221; means. But other than that, you can&#8217;t deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words. If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I&#8217;d start demanding royalties. But in this case, I&#8217;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&#8217;t want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me, even though it&#8217;s obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article — as with everything else published by The Guardian — is the content. The tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We&#8217;re supposed to see the Right-wing &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be &#8220;thin and fertile,&#8221; as The Guardian puts it. These two words — &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; — are like kryptonite to the staff of The Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like &#8220;thin and fertile&#8221; are just ways of describing someone as &#8220;healthy.&#8221; And you might wonder what&#8217;s so bad about the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy. 
But all you&#8217;ll get from The Guardian is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">this paragraph</a>: 
<blockquote>The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism. &#8230; Anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement.</blockquote>
Just to be clear here, the &#8220;narrow mold&#8221; that The Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to males. (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 this hit piece is Candace, who last I checked is not white). So all we&#8217;re left with is the &#8220;narrow&#8221; lane that literally billions of women throughout all of human history have fit through. That&#8217;s the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet, if you don&#8217;t want to be &#8220;relentlessly mocked and disparaged&#8221; by the online &#8220;womanosphere.&#8221;
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1583-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
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 bit, given that trans-identifying males aren&#8217;t usually paragons of physical fitness. Additionally, it&#8217;s long been established that Left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy. 
Not too long ago, there was a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893220/#:~:text=Findings%20from%20cross%2Dsectional%20studies,report%20better%20self%2Drated%20health." target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> from researchers at Harvard and Columbia which found that: 
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
These findings shouldn&#8217;t surprise us, because an ideology that doesn&#8217;t care about personal responsibility isn&#8217;t going to have the healthiest followers. The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers for The Guardian. But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that&#8217;s worth thinking about, which is this: The Left has decided to give the Right a monopoly on advocating for healthy lifestyles. It&#8217;s true that if someone these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, et cetera, then we can assume that they&#8217;re probably conservative. All of that has become Right-wing coded. But that&#8217;s only because the Left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. The Right is not dominating this issue because they&#8217;re mind-controlling women. They&#8217;re dominating the issue because the Left has abandoned it.
As this article continues, The Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make &#8220;being healthy&#8221; sound like an act of terrorism. 
At one point, they quote a piece from &#8220;Evie,&#8221; and then they have a coronary over it. So <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here&#8217;s the line</a> from Evie, followed by The Guardian&#8217;s meltdown:&#8220;&#8216;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 JD Vance and Elon Musk opine on birthrates 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 she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a &#8216;gateway drug&#8217; into more extreme conservative ideologies. &#8216;Like, we’re nice and we’re pretty and we’re not that radical, don’t worry, we’re just telling you the truth,&#8217; she said. &#8216;It feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.'&#8221;
So here we have Evie magazine stating that women&#8217;s reproductive organs are intended for reproduction. And The Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous this statement is, even though it&#8217;s probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert — a &#8220;women&#8217;s magazine veteran&#8221; — to establish that Evie magazine is essentially a &#8220;gateway drug&#8221; to extremism, because they don&#8217;t think women should sterilize themselves.
What&#8217;s especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes — against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Allie Beth Stuckey, Alex Clark, and so on — is that, first of all, the article wants us to see these women as a dark and sinister force. But I know all of them. Allie I’ve known for years. Riley I&#8217;ve met a few times. I went on Alex’s show a few months ago. Brett and Candace are both friends. They are some of the nicest, most cheerful people you&#8217;ll ever meet.
The article uses words like “scary&#8221; to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point. Or the vantage point of anyone who has 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 dangerous to my health. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience.
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 &#8220;submissive homemakers&#8221; who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women">never leave the home</a> for any reason: 
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
First of all, any time you hear a phrase like &#8220;gender-essentialist&#8221; 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 &#8220;gender essentialist.&#8221; Everyone should understand that gender is an essential concept, because it&#8217;s what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way. So if someone calls you a &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; the appropriate response is &#8220;yes, I am.&#8221; And by the way, the Left is also &#8220;gender essentialist,&#8221; albeit in a completely demented way. They don&#8217;t understand the concept of gender, 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.
The other irony here is that it&#8217;s The Guardian that wants these women — like Brett Cooper and Candace Owens — to be silent, apparently. They’ve written a gigantic article about how all of these women should shut up and stop expressing their views. Apparently they can&#8217;t grasp the idea that, as I&#8217;ve said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I&#8217;ve gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families, and men should prioritize providing for their families. That doesn&#8217;t mean that women should never have a career under any circumstances. And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article, would also agree with that statement, because they all have lucrative careers of their own.
We could go on for the next hour picking apart this article, but it&#8217;s honestly not worth the time. But it is worth noticing one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn&#8217;t talk about. Throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn&#8217;t do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; has already been tried. And it has completely and utterly failed. The alternative to the &#8220;narrow&#8221; 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&#8217;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 autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion.
We&#8217;ve tried the feminist approach for a few generations. It is actually the new thing. The trendy thing.The narrow thing. And how has it 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&#8217;s just one indicator. For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they&#8217;re happy with how they&#8217;re being treated by &#8220;society,&#8221; whatever that means exactly. And in 2022, Gallup <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/numbers-women-society" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recorded</a> the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began asking the question. Yes, after all of the alleged advancements in &#8220;women&#8217;s rights&#8221; over the last twenty years, women believe they&#8217;re more oppressed than ever.
But you don&#8217;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&#8217;s another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary, depressing, and demoralizing. We’ve seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families. 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.
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 &#8220;womanosphere&#8221; branding to suggest the opposite — they want to suggest that this is some dangerous new Right-wing ideology. But it&#8217;s not. It happens to be the ideology that clearly works best for everyone, including women. It’s the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it thrive for millennia, up until the last several decades. 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 women will turn away from Leftism, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on. That is the Democrat Party&#8217;s absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article like this one, that nightmare for Democrats — otherwise known as progress to the rest of us — is becoming more and more real by the day.

The Guardian Newpaper To Stop Using Elon Musk’s Social Media Platform

The Left Uncovers The Sinister Conspiracy Pushing Women To Be Healthy And Happy

Brett Cooper

Candace Owens

Leftists

Riley Gaines

The Guardian

Traditional Marriage

Men and women are different. This biological reality was once universally understood. Now, however, radical activists are trying to bully women into believing that merely a public declaration of your gender makes you a woman. Thankfully, we are coming to a tipping point. More and more brave, strong, authentic women are rising to the bizarre challenge of our day.
Women like <a href="https://x.com/i/trending/1907525406108098676" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stephanie Turner</a>. At a collegiate fencing competition last weekend, she removed her mask and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/video-female-fencer-booted-from-tournament-after-refusing-to-compete-against-male-opponent" target="_blank" rel="noopener">took a knee</a> before her bout, refusing to compete against a male who had competed on the men’s team just a year earlier. USA Fencing responded by immediately disqualifying and expelling Turner from the tournament. Turner’s decision to stand up and publicly shoulder this fight required immense strength. Strength that her male counterpart didn’t possess, or he’d still be training to succeed is his own division.
It’s the same kind of strength Maine Representative Laurel Libby showed when she <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-will-not-be-silenced-democrats-censure-maines-laurel-libby-for-calling-out-trans-sports-policy?row=0&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;author=Amanda+Prestigiacomo&amp;title=%E2%80%98I+Will+Not+Be+Silenced%E2%80%99%3A+Democrats+Censure+Maine%E2%80%99s+Laurel+Libby+For+Calling+Out+Trans+Sports+Policy&amp;category=News" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spoke out</a> against the injustice of a biological male student dominating girls’ pole vault at the Maine State Class B Championship. The student had previously placed fifth in the boys’ division just one year before. Like Turner, Libby’s refusal to go along with the gender activists’ takeover was met with punishment. When she tried to defend herself, the male Democratic Speaker of the House, Ryan Fecteau, cut her microphone and shut down the live feed. Libby stood before the dais with a stoic strength. Strength her male Democratic counterpart didn’t possess, or he’d be able to defend his position on the merits.
Oddly, the same people who silenced Laurel Libby, who disqualified Stephanie Turner, who took a medal from Riley Gaines, and who named MJ Rodriguez “woman of the year,” are the same individuals who scream about feminism. These are the same “feminists” who think my daughters should change their swimsuits beside men at the YMCA.
To the “feminists” who cannot define a woman, anyone can be a woman, so everyone is a woman. Those who don’t nod their head, put pronouns in the email signature, and quietly follow along are bullied like the women above.
Thankfully, Turner and Libby aren’t so easily intimidated. They add their names to a growing list of strong women undeterred by the powerful forces who seek to take their voices away. Each woman who stands up makes a difference, especially for the generation of girls behind them. Though these brave acts may seem small in isolation, together they cannot and will not be ignored.
Turner and Libby are two women at the forefront of a fight that should have never needed to be fought. It’s a sad reality that defending the very concept of womanhood has become a radical act, but it is that radical act by these women who are inspiring others to stand up unapologetically and demand girls’ spaces be returned to them. And parents, we must continue to do our part in our towns, schools, and local sports leagues.
Girls’ spaces should be sacred, and their rights should not be subject to ideological whims. We must ensure that the next generation of girls grow up knowing they deserve a world where they are protected and respected.
While this fight is far from over, these women have set the stage for the movement afoot to take hold. Parents across the country are stepping forward at school board meetings and standing up to the governing boards of local sports leagues. We must continue to harness this momentum to protect our daughters and reaffirm the biological reality that somehow slipped from the cultural collective sense.
* * *
Alleigh Marré is the Executive Director of the American Parents Coalition and a mother of four.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-04-Apr-2025-12-34-PM-9888

Why Protecting Girls’ Spaces Should Never Be Up For Debate

Why Protecting Girls' Spaces Should Never Be Up For Debate

Gender

gender ideology

Girls

Maine

Sports

Transgender Athletes

Women's sports

It’s been a rather ignominious couple of weeks for liberal women on the internet. Of course it’s been an ignominious last several decades for liberal women in general — on the internet or otherwise. But these past couple of weeks have given us one viral moment after another where this demographic is thoroughly embarrassing itself. For the sake of brevity, I won’t even include all of the many videos of liberal women vandalizing Teslas and shrieking at their drivers. The anti-Tesla brigade is, after all, almost exclusively women and gay men. These two groups also make up the core of the Democratic voting base. We’ll get back to that point in a moment.
But leaving the Tesla chaos to the side for now, this latest rash of viral humiliation started two weeks ago with footage of an altercation between a woman and a young man on a New York City subway. The woman was upset about the young man’s MAGA hat, which she demanded that he remove from his head. She attempted to take matters into her own hands. But the problem is that she apparently has all the speed and agility of a baby panda. Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
NEW: The woman who face planted outside a New York City subway has been identified as luxury brand specialist Alberta Testanero, according to the New York Post.
The 55-year-old has become radicalized, according to a former colleague.
Testanero works with luxury brands including… <a href="https://t.co/WAYUnmovox">pic.twitter.com/WAYUnmovox</a>
&mdash; Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) <a href="https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1905984158138298556?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
That was the glorious sight of the woman chasing a young man to steal his MAGA hat, only to trip and face-plant in the middle of the subway station. Thanks to some crack reporting from the New York Post, we now know that this woman’s name is Alberta Testanero and she is a “luxury brand specialist.” Which is exactly the kind of nonsense job that you’d expect a liberal woman in New York to have. I don’t even know what a “luxury brand specialist” does, but I know that this woman seems like the type to do it, whatever it is.
The following week, a woman who appears to be in her late 60s or 70s went viral with this public service announcement about her dating life:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Liberal says she will no longer be dating White men. Fellas, how do you feel about this? <a href="https://t.co/CU3CesygSw">pic.twitter.com/CU3CesygSw</a>
&mdash; Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) <a href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1906363322238202198?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
I know there are a lot of single young men out there who feel incredibly demoralized by the dating scene. If you’re in that category, I don&#8217;t mean to add to your frustrations. But if you’re looking for an elderly feminist grandma — if that’s your type — I’m sad to say there’s one less fish in the sea available to you. Unless you aren’t white. Then you might still have a chance. 
At the same time, another video has been making the rounds. This is a significantly younger woman named Zoe, telling the story of how she broke up with her boyfriend because he committed the unforgivable sin of being Republican:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Zoe’s cats are going to find her body when she dies. 
 <a href="https://t.co/uKyhkX9Unx">pic.twitter.com/uKyhkX9Unx</a>
&mdash; Former Congressman Matt Gaetz (@FmrRepMattGaetz) <a href="https://twitter.com/FmrRepMattGaetz/status/1906361021557579793?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
She broke up with him. That’s the end of the story. Why any man would ever date a woman like this in the first place is the greater mystery. Everything about her is aggressively unappealing. She’s the human embodiment of nails on a chalkboard.
She’s the type of woman who would no doubt describe herself as having a “big personality,” because she’s loud and obnoxious and uses the f-word a lot. But in truth she has no personality at all. She has an anti-personality. She speaks in internet lingo and has all of the mannerisms and affectations — not to mention the value system and political beliefs — of every other 20-something woman on TikTok. She professes the value of “doing your own research” but, I can guarantee, has never done anything resembling research in her life. Her research consists of watching TikTok videos.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1566-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
That said, she’s not wrong about her basic point: The relationship wasn’t going to work. It wasn’t going to work because their values were not aligned — to the extent that either one of them have values at all. And it wasn’t going to work because she is a raging narcissist and a deeply unpleasant person, who, barring some kind of miraculous personal transformation, will never have a functional and meaningful romantic or even platonic relationship with another human being in her life.
We joke about the fact that these kinds of women are always cat ladies. Indeed, in a follow up video this woman confirmed that she does have at least one cat. But the cat lady thing isn’t really a joke. There’s a reason why liberal women really do almost always end up alone with their cats. They prefer cats because cats require almost nothing from them. Change the litter box and pour some more food in the bowl, and that is the extent of the work and effort you have to put into your relationship with your cat. Feminists love cats because cats provide some measure of affection and fellowship without needing much of anything in return. No need for sacrifice or compromise or personal improvement. Successful human relationships require those things. A relationship with your cat does not. Of course the trade off is that you’ll never have anything approaching the depth of love and companionship that you could have with another person. You’ll also never have a family or children. You’ll die alone and your cherished cat will eat your carcass without a second thought.
Anyway, there is one more video in this tour. The singer Chappell Roan appeared on the Call Her Daddy podcast. As we know, Call Her Daddy is the number one podcast in the world for women. Which is a troubling fact, because the show, like its host Alex Cooper, is insipid, gross, and morally and intellectually bankrupt. It’s mostly just 95 IQ women sitting around talking about sex. There’s a reason you’ve never seen a viral clip from this show where someone says something interesting or intellectually provocative. The Joe Rogan podcast &#8212; the number one podcast in the world for men — has those kinds of moments all the time. Joe frequently talks to archeologists, astronomers, biologists, and all manner of interesting people about a wide range of academic, political, and cultural topics. Alex Cooper talks to women about sex. And that’s pretty much it.
In this viral clip, Chappell explains why she doesn’t want to have kids. Listen:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Chappell Roan: &quot;I don&#39;t know anyone who is happy with kids&quot; <a href="https://t.co/vQx6XI20at">pic.twitter.com/vQx6XI20at</a>
&mdash; End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1906169065334272497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
People with kids don’t have light in their eyes, says the dead-eyed consumerist zombie. The two dullest, least vibrant women you’ve ever seen in your life are concerned that people with kids don’t have light in their eyes.
Needless to say, Chappell is completely wrong. It’s not entirely her fault. I’m sure she probably does have some young mothers in her life who constantly complain about their kids. This is one of the dangers of venting, and why all of us — women especially, who are much more inclined to vent — should be doing a lot less of it. Using someone else as a sounding board for all of your frustrations is selfish, and enormously unpleasant and frankly pretty boring for the person forced to listen to your litany of complaints. Even worse, if that person is not in the same stage of life, you will be giving them a skewed, unfairly bleak impression of it. That’s why parents should only complain — if they’re going to complain at all — to each other. But mostly they should just stop complaining. It’s not that we’re trying to hide some deep, dark secret from the childless. It’s that a childless person has no context. They might not understand that, although you’re annoyed that your toddler woke you up at 4:00 am,  you are still filled with deep, abiding joy that you have a child to wake you up at all. It is possible to hold frustration and joy in your heart at the same time. But that is a depth that someone like Chappell Roan has never reached, cannot understand, and likely will never reach nor understand.
The point is that getting married and having kids will increase the daily annoyances and inconveniences in your life by a very sizable margin. But it also increases — not just increases, but reveals for the first time — a kind of meaning and purpose that you never had before. Meaningful pursuits will always increase your annoyances and inconveniences. Which is why you will never do anything meaningful in your life at all if your primary goal is to avoid inconvenience. Embrace inconvenience, or live a pointless, empty life. Those are your two options. There is no third option.
Of course, the opinion of some random pop star wouldn’t matter at all if they were being expressed in a vacuum. Unfortunately, they’re part of a much larger pattern, and a much grander agenda. All of the videos we’ve talked about are part of — or a result of — that agenda. In fact they represent the great cultural battle that will define and determine our future. That is the effort to convince women to abandon marriage and family life. The feminist agenda. Which of course isn’t new. But now it lies at the core of nearly all of our political and cultural divisions. As most people know at this point, the Democrat Party’s core constituency by far is unmarried women. Even in the last election, a landslide loss for Kamala Harris, she still won unmarried women by a margin of 61% to 38%. The continued existence of the Democrat Party, and their entire political program, rests on this demographic.
I’m not saying that Chappell Roan or Zoe from TikTok are paid agents of the Democrat Party, sent to go out into the world and convince women to reject marriage and family life. Although, who knows, they might be. What I am saying is that we’re about to see a whole lot more of this kind of messaging. This is the future of the culture war, and its past. And we have to be ready to fight back.

Elton John AIDS Foundation’s 33rd Annual Academy Awards Viewing Party – Press Conference

Pop Star Makes The Case For Why Women Shouldn’t Have Kids. Here’s Why She’s Wrong.

Pop Star Makes The Case For Why Women Shouldn't Have Kids. Here's Why She's Wrong.

Democrats

Liberals

Relationships

Tesla

A few years ago, a group of researchers and academics embarked on a bold experiment. They wanted to answer the following question: “Is it possible that people with no Ph.D. in any field could write a paper in that field every two weeks and get it published?”
In other words, they wanted to know whether they could write complete gibberish, and still have it published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed academic publication.
What they found was that, indeed, it is quite possible. In fact, it&#8217;s very easy.
For example, the researchers wrote one published <a href="https://newdiscourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/HootersPublished.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paper</a> that explored the conundrum of why straight men might like to eat at Hooters. The paper delved into a fake two-year study concerning a &#8220;thematic analysis of table dialogue&#8221; at Hooters, as well as the concept of &#8220;breastaurant masculinity.&#8221; Yes, &#8220;breastaurant masculinity.&#8221; They use the term about ten times in the paper, and apparently, every time, the editors loved it.
Another hoax paper discussed &#8220;rape culture and queer performativity&#8221; at dog parks in Portland. That one sailed past the editors as well. But maybe the hoaxers&#8217; most impressive work was their article entitled &#8220;Our Struggle Is My Struggle,&#8221; which lifted passages from “Mein Kampf” and placed them in a feminist journal of social work, totally undetected.
The whole exercise was pretty entertaining. And of course it proved its point, which is that peer-reviewed publications will publish anything that sounds like something a Left-wing intellectual would write. And then the experiment ended, and the hoaxers went about their normal lives.
Or at least, that&#8217;s the official story. A <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-024-09934-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paper</a> that was just published in the peer-reviewed journal &#8220;Springer Nature,&#8221; out of Germany, has a lot of people questioning whether yet another hoax may be unfolding in the world of academia. To be clear — for reasons I&#8217;ll outline in a moment — it doesn&#8217;t look like a hoax. But a lot of people are hoping it is, because the alternative is just too depressing to contemplate.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
A Ph.D. named Colin Wright first drew attention to the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-024-09934-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paper</a> the other day on social media. The paper is entitled, &#8220;Loving the Brine Shrimp: Exploring Queer Feminist Blue Posthumanities to Reimagine the ‘America’s Dead Sea.'&#8221;
The paper is written by someone named &#8220;Ewelina Jarosz,&#8221; who uses &#8220;she/they&#8221; pronouns and holds the position of Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Research at &#8220;UKEN,&#8221; Poland.
Here&#8217;s what &#8220;she/they&#8221; came up with. The paper&#8217;s abstract <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-024-09934-0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">states</a>, 
<blockquote>The article aims to transform narratives surrounding Utah’s Great Salt Lake, often referred to as &#8216;America’s Dead Sea,&#8217; by reimagining how brine shrimp are perceived in science, culture, and art. It introduces the concept of hydrosexuality to bridge these realms, thereby enriching feminist blue posthumanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy. &#8230; The hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive system of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology and culture. &#8230; this cultural analysis draws inspiration from low trophic theory and Queer Death Studies.</blockquote>
The paper goes on to explain that &#8220;hydrosexuality&#8221; is a term that emphasizes the &#8220;more-than-human sensuality and sexuality emphasizing fluidity and relationality&#8221; and &#8220;deploys watery thinking to dissolve&#8221; the &#8220;hegemonic notion of the autonomous and bounded human subject.&#8221;
At this point, you can see why people thought that the Hooters guys had struck again. But then Colin Wright noticed that, in this article, the authors referenced something called a &#8220;postmedia environmental performance&#8221; that they had recently performed in the Great Salt Lake in Utah. The performance was called, &#8220;Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp.&#8221; The performance, according to the authors, was intended to &#8220;express their human love towards the vulnerable yet tough brine shrimp,&#8221; by means of &#8220;a communal bath in the GSL, which some of us, including myself, perceived as making love to the lake.&#8221;
So, naturally, Colin Wright and his followers went looking for the footage. If they could find it, it might demonstrate that these authors weren&#8217;t playing a prank — or if they were, they were really, really committed to the bit.
What Colin Wright and his followers found appears to confirm that this paper is, indeed, real. And the video is very much worth watching.
To be clear, normally, I wouldn&#8217;t subject you to extended footage of eco-sexuals doing their thing. But it&#8217;s been about eight months since I last talked about eco-sexuals, in the context of that show &#8220;Naked Attraction.&#8221; So we&#8217;ve had enough of a cooling-off period, I think. And if this footage is any indication, things are deteriorating very, very quickly in that community.
Here&#8217;s how the &#8220;Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp&#8221; begins. You&#8217;ll notice that the Mystery Science Theater guys have been overlaid to the front of the footage for comedic effect, by one of Colin&#8217;s followers. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d0uSwtZGlEQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So it begins normally enough. The eco-sexuals announce their intent to marry the brine shrimp. We&#8217;ve all been there. And then, out of nowhere, we hear the voice of the &#8220;Spiral Jetty.&#8221;
That&#8217;s apparently a piece of &#8220;land art&#8221; that was constructed in 1970 by Robert Smithson in the Great Salt Lake. And as you heard, the Spiral Jetty apparently felt the need to insert himself and his personal problems into this wedding. He&#8217;s apparently dry and exposed, and he thinks that&#8217;s relevant to the wedding between these people and these brine shrimp.
So he doesn&#8217;t shut up. He keeps going and going. And eventually he devolves into reciting land acknowledgements. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="004 Vally Native History" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W1tK-d-lPiE?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No one thinks about getting rid of this guy at any point. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s really incredible about this. Imagine you&#8217;re getting married, and out of nowhere, some effeminate voice pipes up, and starts reciting a land acknowledgement. And then he tells you all about how your wedding will benefit him. Even if you&#8217;re an intersectional feminist, it&#8217;s enough to make you root for global warming to accelerate a little bit and ruin the whole beach.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a></h3>
But eventually the land art quiets down, and they&#8217;re allowed to recite the vows. And then there&#8217;s even more drama, because someone interrupts once again. This is a theme of these eco-sexual weddings, apparently. None of these people can shut up. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 Vows To Bride Shrimp" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hzwyE6FMi5U?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So they ask the shrimp for psychic consent. And one of them says, &#8220;I don&#8217;t hear no. &#8230; My sense is not all of them, but most of them.&#8221;
And apparently, that&#8217;s good enough for these people. They subscribe to the Harvey Weinstein school of ethics over there in Poland&#8217;s eco-sexual community, I suppose. So the marriage takes place, although there&#8217;s a caveat. As the paper puts it: &#8220;To avoid potential harm to living critters, vows were made to the brine shrimp’s exponentially enlarged augmented reality image, which popped up at the lake’s shore above the humans’ heads.&#8221;
And then they consummated the marriage by walking into the water with their hands in the air. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 Married To Bride Shrimp" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0JqF0U4jUuk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
At this point, I have to come clean. 
I have to admit that I don&#8217;t have much of a grand overarching point to make about the wonders of feminist blue post humanities and hydrosexuality. These people are so far gone that you legitimately can&#8217;t tell if they&#8217;re mocking the very concept of humanities.
Let me simply state: We have clearly reached the logical end point of wokeness. Every &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; argument conservatives made for the past 50 years has been vindicated. When feminists are marrying the brine shrimp while a talking sculpture recites land acknowledgements in the background, it&#8217;s abundantly clear that wokeness has jumped the shark. (Although I hesitate to make that statement, because the next video might actually involve these people trying to jump some sharks. And that footage would, in all likelihood, be even more disturbing to watch than this &#8220;Cyber Wedding to the Brine Shrimp.&#8221;)
But all the same, these people (or their survivors) would probably be able to find some peer-reviewed publication to publish the footage anyway. After all, there is no bottom to modern-day academia. There are just queer women getting married to brine shrimp, all the way down. The hoaxers have become indistinguishable from the serious, credentialed feminist eco-sexual professors. And that is why eco-sexuals, peer-reviewed publications, and feminist academics who marry shrimp are canceled.

MixCollage-18-Dec-2024-12-53-PM-5371

These Feminists Married Shrimp. I’m Serious.

Fish

Lesbian

LGBTQ

Sexuality

Utah

Woke Culture

This year, Americans have much to be thankful for—especially the rights and freedoms women are reclaiming, even as the mainstream media keeps them hidden from view.
In the 2024 election cycle, Democrats spent over <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/05/democrat-tv-ads-abortion-spending-00187234">$175 million</a> on Senate race ads focused on abortion, with tens of <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-super-pac-abortion-advert-donald-trump-1952890" target="_blank" rel="noopener">millions more</a> in the presidential and down-ballot races. For decades, the party has polarized this deeply personal issue, using it as a wedge to divide Americans. Despite this massive investment in manipulation, women across the country are waking up to a fundamental truth: woke feminism is not the same as women’s rights.
For too long, fear-mongering and emotion-driven campaigns have misled women into believing their most critical right is access to abortion. Amplified by the media, influencer campaigns, and endless advertising, these tactics have created chaos and division—clouding the fact that most Americans are more united on this issue than these campaigns would have us believe.
Biblically, we are taught to choose between living in fear or hope. Fear and hope are powerful motivators, and Democrats have harnessed fear to steer women toward emotional, single-issue voting. They’ve painted a <a href="https://www.vox.com/2019/4/10/18295513/abortion-2020-roe-joe-biden-democrats-republicans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">false narrative</a> that rights are being stripped away, ignoring actual laws and policies. This strategy has succeeded in flipping races, even in areas where abortion access isn’t at risk, thanks to relentless messaging.
For decades, Democrats have targeted women specifically, playing to emotional instincts to manipulate their votes. They want us to believe that abortion defines our freedom and identity. They ignore the truth: that women are multifaceted, powerful decision-makers who care deeply about issues like the economy, education, public safety, and the future of our families. These are the real priorities for most women, and yet, the Left insists on reducing us to a single-issue bloc to exploit at election time.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 gave Democrats an opportunity to weaponize this issue during the midterms, catching Republicans off guard. The results were sobering, but they also gave conservatives a wake-up call about the effectiveness of this emotional manipulation.
In 2024, women finally saw through the lies. Ads encouraging women to lie to their husbands about their votes backfired. The fact that 45% of women voted for President Trump reflects a historic narrowing of the gender gap — once thought insurmountable. Women rejected fear, spoke out, and refused to be pawns in a manipulative game.
This Thanksgiving, I encourage women to reject fear and embrace hope. As a mother of three young boys, I’m profoundly grateful for the direction our country is heading. It’s time to focus on the rights we are gaining and the brighter future that lies ahead.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
I am grateful for an administration dedicated to protecting our children’s health, exposing corruption in our food and health systems, and prioritizing freedom for future generations. The Biden administration has failed to address these issues meaningfully, allowing powerful corporate interests to take precedence over the well-being of American families. That will change.
I am thankful for education leaders who support school choice, returning curriculums to basics, and empowering parents to raise children who can thrive in a global economy without compromising their values. I want my children to grow up in a nation where education builds confidence and opportunity—not a system that undermines families or imposes radical ideologies.
I am relieved that we will have a Department of Justice prosecuting criminals — not political opponents — and a Department of Homeland Security committed to ending illegal immigration. To our daughters, nieces, and sisters: be grateful for leaders who prioritize family safety, ensuring tragedies like the one experienced by Laken Riley’s family become a thing of the past.
I am grateful for leaders who will strengthen our military, so young men and women can serve with honor without the shadow of endless wars. I am thankful for competent economic leadership that will restore prosperity, making it possible to feed our families and achieve our dreams.
Above all, I am grateful for America itself. This great nation has the potential to thrive under America First principles, restoring unity and ensuring that the freedoms we cherish endure for generations.
This holiday season, let us choose hope over fear. Let us celebrate the rights we are gaining and reject the manipulation that seeks to divide us. We are not a nation to be controlled by fear, nor are we a people who accept lies in place of truth.
President Trump has promised to restore the Golden Age of America. This Thanksgiving, I am grateful for that vision—and for the rights and freedoms we will uphold to make it a reality.
* * *
Erica Knight, President of Knox Strategies, is a distinguished political and crisis communication expert. She has collaborated with leading political figures nationwide, expertly steering strategies for numerous high-profile campaigns. Knight is also a respected authority in conservative media, frequently sought for her insights and expertise.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu