In the midst of the #MeToo hysteria, when everyone was fixating on Aziz Ansari&#8217;s bad date and Brett Kavanaugh&#8217;s phantom gang rape trains, researchers at Morgan Stanley had a very different focus. They were concerned, as you might imagine, about the financial ramifications of the modern feminist movement. So they sent an analysis to their corporate clients looking into the economic impact of this new wave of feminism that was overtaking the country. Here was their top-line conclusion: &#8220;By 2030,&#8221; Morgan Stanley wrote, &#8220;more than 45 percent of working women aged 25 to 44 in the United States will be single.&#8221; If that prediction holds, it would be the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/29/economy/single-women-economy/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">highest percentage</a> of single working-age women in this country&#8217;s history.
The economic impacts, Morgan Stanley predicted, would be significant. Morgan Stanley <a href="https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-economy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">quoted</a> one researcher as saying: &#8220;We find that single women outspend the average household, shifting spending profiles toward categories most poised to benefit from the demographic growth in single women with rising incomes.&#8221; Those categories include apparel, automotive, entertainment, and dining.
Like most research that consultants charge millions of dollars to produce, none of that&#8217;s terribly surprising. When women don&#8217;t get married, they tend to climb the corporate ladder, where they earn money that they don&#8217;t have to spend on kids. But there is one line of the Morgan Stanley report that stands out. It&#8217;s the part where Morgan Stanley specifically urges its corporate clients to encourage women to pursue this unmarried lifestyle because it will make the corporations a lot of money. &#8220;For corporates and investors that embrace these trends, there are numerous benefits, from more nuanced corporate governance and performance to bottom-line growth.&#8221;
The Morgan Stanley report, and several others like it, put all the big brands on notice that they should take a proactive role in ensuring that more women become career-driven, instead of getting married and having kids. And predictably, over the past few years, we&#8217;ve seen various initiatives along these lines. Facebook, Apple and other big tech companies began <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/apple-facebook-offer-freeze-eggs-female-employees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offering</a> to freeze the eggs of female employees. That&#8217;s not for any medical reason; they&#8217;re offering it purely so that women don&#8217;t get pregnant and take maternity leave. Many companies have also started <a href="https://katiecouric.com/news/major-u-s-companies-covering-abortion-travel-costs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">paying</a> for out-of-state abortions. That&#8217;s all been widely reported.
What hasn&#8217;t been covered is the extent to which influencers and celebrities — most of them beholden to large corporations — are now openly campaigning, all at once, for women to remain single, or to become single again if they made the mistake of getting married. You can choose to believe this is all an accident, or maybe you think it&#8217;s coordinated. Whatever the case, it&#8217;s clearly happening. There have never been more famous people telling young women to stop making commitments to men. You may have seen this recent video from the actress and model Emily Ratajkowski, for example. She has around 2.6 million followers on TikTok, where she posts videos <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@emrata/video/7199679187463032107" target="_blank" rel="noopener">telling</a> random couples that their relationships won&#8217;t last, and <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@emrata/video/7160115132058602798" target="_blank" rel="noopener">encouraging</a> women to dress like prostitutes on Halloween. In her <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@emrata/video/7275780895607491882" target="_blank" rel="noopener">latest video</a>, Ratajkowski extols the benefits of getting divorced by the age of 30, so that women can party and have fun while they&#8217;re still young and beautiful:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Emily Ratajkowski (who has a personal net worth of at least 8 million dollars) is glamorizing divorce and says marriage is a &quot;fantasy&quot;
Completely out of touch and delusional 
Sadly, women look up to her <a href="https://t.co/4OaYQLYar2">pic.twitter.com/4OaYQLYar2</a>
&mdash; 🌴 Josh Lekach 🌴 (@JoshLekach) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshLekach/status/1699510925030490564?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 6, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The caption on that video reads, &#8220;personally i find it chic to be divorced by the age of 30.&#8221; It&#8217;s extremely popular on the platform; more than 130,000 people have liked it. This video appears to be a message of support for Sophie Turner, who I didn&#8217;t know existed, but apparently is a famous actress who is now getting divorced from one of the Jonas brothers because she felt &#8220;trapped&#8221; by marriage and motherhood and wanted to go party instead.
What Emily and Sophie are doing — getting divorced in a very public fashion, for avowedly selfish reasons — follows a pattern recently of famous women advising other women to either stay single and childless or get divorced, tear their families apart, and act like they’re childless even if they have children.
Mia Khalifa was another one, as shocking as it was to hear bad relationship advice from a porn star. Here&#8217;s how Mia spoke to her <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@miakhalifa/video/7262135829320125742" target="_blank" rel="noopener">37 million followers</a> about the importance of getting divorced — multiple times, if possible:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Mia Khalifa is back in the news. This time for giving women marriage advice. 
As a quick track record, Mia Khalifa was married at 18 years old, divorced at 21 years old. Then married again at 25 years old, divorced at 28 years old. <a href="https://t.co/2NgHMQZh67">pic.twitter.com/2NgHMQZh67</a>
&mdash; Colourful trending visual 🦋🐦🦜 (@colourfultrend) <a href="https://twitter.com/colourfultrend/status/1697090616382144839?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 31, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
At this point you&#8217;re probably noticing a theme, which is that none of these women display even a modicum of interest in sacrificing anything to make their relationships — their marriages, in many cases — work out. Instead they&#8217;re adopting, without exception, what psychologists call an external &#8220;locus of control.&#8221; Everything that happens to their relationship is someone else&#8217;s fault. It can&#8217;t possibly be related to them. They can&#8217;t conceivably do anything that might salvage their marriage. So they move on. Not to belabor the point, but this is the message that young people are seeing all over the place. 
To give one more example, there was also the country star Kelsea Ballerini who talked about leaving her marriage because the &#8220;glitter wore off&#8221; and it would be a &#8220;disservice to herself&#8221; to stay in the marriage. Here it is:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Country Star Selfishly Ends Her Marriage" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bI0FsNiR_qU?start=75&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If there&#8217;s not enough &#8220;glitter,&#8221; just bail, go party. Whatever you do, don&#8217;t think about putting in any kind of effort. Hollywood and the media have been pushing this message for a long time. They&#8217;re doing it with maximum intensity. That&#8217;s why I&#8217;ve been talking about the insane levels of backlash I&#8217;ve received for criticizing an influencer who promoted the &#8220;childfree&#8221; lifestyle as a path to happiness. It was a relentless barrage of media coverage, all over one tweet I made on the subject. That’s because they’re very invested in promoting this lifestyle, which means that anyone who criticizes it must be furiously dogpiled and shut down. 
The point is that there&#8217;s a large-scale effort underway to convince young people — especially young women, but not just young women — to be as shallow and selfish as possible, even if it means abandoning their marriages and wrecking their families. Lots of wealthy people and powerful forces are invested in pushing this message. 
In fact, the government is pursuing it as well. The National Bureau of Economic Research <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w30159/w30159.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">crunched</a> the numbers on this last year. They looked at federal and state taxes, along with benefit programs. And found that, in effect, there&#8217;s a massive &#8220;marriage tax&#8221; in this country. People who decide to get married, especially low-income people, end up sacrificing roughly two years of income to the government simply because they got married. The researchers found that, &#8220;Absent the tax, 13.7 percent more low-income, single females with children would marry annually and 7.5 percent more would be married by age 35.&#8221; The researchers also found that the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — imposes a &#8220;substantial marriage tax,&#8221; because people who get married stand to lose a lot of subsidies under that law. 
You never hear anyone talk about that, but it&#8217;s true. The government is punishing people who want to get married, especially low-income people. That&#8217;s a legacy of Barack Obama that&#8217;s never mentioned. And of course the current administration is continuing what Obama started. Last year, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, testified that abortion is good for the economy, because it means more women are working for large corporations, instead of getting married and raising kids:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Abortion: Ending Roe Would Hurt US Economy, Yellen Says" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zlSa4WpJM-k?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Abortion leads to &#8220;increased labor force participation,&#8221; therefore it&#8217;s good. Put aside the fact that aborting tens of millions of children certainly shrinks the labor force over time — not to mention amounts to a holocaust of human beings on a scale previously unknown to mankind. Still, that’s the treasury secretary of the United States saying that women should kill their children and pursue a career at some soulless Fortune 500 company because, in her estimation, it will boost the GDP.
There&#8217;s no doubt that some of the videos we began the show with are just women who are rationalizing their own self-destructive choices. But it&#8217;s a mistake to dismiss what we&#8217;re seeing as the idle narcissism of a few famous ditzy women on TikTok. There are forces that profit immensely by creating a society full of self-centered automatons who seek connection and fulfillment from pop culture and social media rather than family life. These forces include Morgan Stanley&#8217;s clients as well as the federal government.
What are the consequences for regular Americans? For women, it&#8217;s not great. And it used to be that you could say this publicly. It used to be conventional wisdom that it&#8217;s bad to encourage most women to be single. This is a Harvard Business Review <a href="https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-having-it-all" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> from 2002: &#8220;At midlife, between a third and a half of all successful career women in the United States do not have children. In fact, 33% of such women &#8230; in the 41-to-55 age bracket are childless—and that figure rises to 42% in corporate America. These women have not chosen to remain childless. The vast majority, in fact, yearn for children. Indeed, some have gone to extraordinary lengths to bring a baby into their lives. They subject themselves to complex medical procedures, shell out tens of thousands of dollars, and derail their careers—mostly to no avail, because these efforts come too late. In the words of one senior manager, the typical high-achieving woman childless at midlife has not made a choice but a &#8216;creeping non-choice.'&#8221;
Two decades later, that &#8220;creeping non-choice&#8221; has been rebranded as a positive. You could never get any article remotely like that one published in the Harvard Business Review today. As disastrous as this transformation has been for women&#8217;s happiness and fulfillment, it&#8217;s probably even worse for men. As we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/traditional-masculinity-is-the-solution-to-the-male-loneliness-epidemic-not-the-cause" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a> on this show, men are now using more drugs, and killing themselves, more than they ever have in recorded history — and at rates that far exceed women. We shouldn&#8217;t be surprised by that. When all of society reorients to promote girl bosses and to demean the institution of marriage, yes, women make more money in the short-term. Men also have fewer opportunities to start families, and have fewer opportunities to make a living.
In polite company you&#8217;re not supposed to say any of that. You&#8217;re not supposed to think about the ramifications of the social engineering that&#8217;s underway in this country. But whether it&#8217;s acceptable or not to point it out, none of this is an accident. From every angle, women are being told that the key to happiness is being narcissistic and abandoning marriage. At the same time, men are being told that, simply by virtue of their gender, they&#8217;re members of a patriarchy that needs to be destroyed. That is a destructive combination if there ever was one.
In both cases — for men and women — the power centers are saying, essentially, &#8220;you&#8217;re just a passive observer.&#8221; Women are being told that, if their marriage isn&#8217;t appealing, then they don&#8217;t have to do anything about it. They should just leave. Men are being told that, no matter what they do, they&#8217;re sexist bigots. This passive approach, this total denial of personal responsibility, is unsustainable. As we&#8217;re seeing, again and again, no marriage can survive it. That&#8217;s now abundantly clear.
 What we&#8217;ll soon find out, if this continues, is that no society can survive it either.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Matt Walsh

Why The Most Powerful Forces In Society Want You To Be Single, Childless, And Selfish

Abortion

divorce

Feminism

Readers Pass

TikTok

Women

After her son, the president of the Spanish soccer federation, was suspended because he kissed a member of Spain’s women’s team on the mouth after the team won the Women’s World Cup, the elderly mother of the president locked herself into a church and went on a hunger strike.
Spanish football chief Luis Rubiales had kissed women’s team member Jenni Hermoso on the lips, prompting FIFA, the soccer world’s governing body, to provisionally suspend him.
Rubialies’ mother Angeles Bejar — who has locked herself in the Divina Pastora church in Motril, east of Malaga — called the treatment of her son an “inhumane witch-hunt” while initiating an “indefinite, day and night” hunger strike until “justice is served,” The Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12452761/Spanish-FA-chief-Luis-Rubiales-mother-locks-inside-church-goes-HUNGER-STRIKE-stop-inhumane-treatment-son-tells-Jenni-Hermoso-tell-truth-amid-kiss-gate-suspension.html">reported</a>. She stated she wanted Hermoso, who had stated the kiss was not consensual, “to tell the truth” and “maintain the version she had at the beginning of the events,” according to <a href="https://www.marca.com/futbol/2023/08/28/64ec63b846163f05b58b459e.html">Marca</a>.
Bejar opined there was “no sexual abuse as there is consent on both sides, as shown in the images” and wondered “why are they being cruel to him” and what was “behind all this story” as her son was “incapable of harming anyone.”
Rubiales had told Spanish officials that he had asked permission to kiss Hermoso and she said he could give her “a little peck.”
Hermoso responded on <a href="https://twitter.com/Jennihermoso/status/1695155154067087413">Twitter</a>, “I feel obliged to report that Mr. Luis Rubiales&#8217; words explaining the unfortunate incident are categorically false and part of the manipulative culture that he himself has generated. I want to make it clear that at no time did the conversation which Mr. Luis Rubiales refers to in his address take place, and, above all, was his kiss ever consensual. I want to reiterate as I did before that I did not like this incident. The situation shocked me given the celebrations that were taking place at the moment, and with the passage of time and after delving a little deeper into those initial feelings, I feel the need to report this incident because I believe that no person, in any work, sports or social setting should be a victim of these types of non-consensual behaviors. I felt vulnerable and a victim of an impulse-driven, sexist, out of place act without any consent on my part.”
Rubiales&#8217; cousin Vanesa Ruiz Bejar spoke to reporters outside the church where his mother was staying, saying, “The statement I&#8217;m about to make is extremely difficult. &#8230; There&#8217;s a campaign of harassment occurring that is very unfair. Luis&#8217; mum who is a very religious person has sought refuge in God and started a hunger strike. She doesn&#8217;t want to come out of the church. We are all suffering a lot because of what&#8217;s happened to Luis which doesn&#8217;t seem at all fair to us.”
“He’s been condemned already without being tried,” she continued. “It&#8217;s not normal. &#8230; The facts speak for them, there are videos, there are audio recordings.”
Turning to Hermoso, she said, “Jenni, say the truth. Why has she changed her version three times? We have suffered a lot, we have had to leave our homes because of the harassment we&#8217;re suffering.”
She added of Bejar, “She&#8217;s an elderly lady whose health is very delicate and she&#8217;s suffering a lot. She&#8217;s crying all time and is not able to sleep and is not eating. The person that spends five minutes with Luis knows he&#8217;s a really good person with a big heart. He&#8217;s a very noble person.”
Asked how long the hunger strike would last, she responded, “Until that woman speaks and tells the truth. I&#8217;m not saying who&#8217;s the baddie and who&#8217;s the goodie here, but I just want Jenni to tell the truth.”
Spain’s federation (RFEF) said it would take legal action against Hermoso, releasing a statement claiming Rubiales&#8217; claim that Hermes lifted him off the ground before the kiss was accurate. As The Athletic <a href="https://theathletic.com/4807367/2023/08/26/jenni-hermosos-luis-rubiales-legal-action/">reported</a>, they showed four photos of Hermoso and Rubiales embracing, then stated, “the facts exposed by Mr. President are absolutely true and that he is not lying. &#8230; The evidence is conclusive. Mr. President has not lied. The RFEF and Mr. President will demonstrate each of the lies that are spread either by someone on behalf of the player or, if applicable, by the player herself. The RFEF and the president, given the seriousness of the content of the press release from the Futpro Union, will initiate the corresponding legal actions.”
Olga Carmona of the Spanish women’s team, who scored the winning goal, stated, “I am not going to let anyone cloud the fact that we have been world champions. I am going to refrain from any kind of comment, I am going to focus on enjoying the moment and on everything that is coming after achieving that title and nothing else. It is already a reality that we have won a World Cup. We are already landing and we already know what we have achieved and the caliber and repercussion of being champions.&#8221;
“I wrote a tweet in which I supported Jenni Hermoso but once again, in this case I don&#8217;t want to get involved or make any kind of comment. It&#8217;s all in the hands of those in charge,” she concluded.

Spain v England: Final – FIFA Women’s World Cup Australia & New Zealand 2023

Elderly Mom Of Spanish Soccer Chief Starts Hunger Strike After He’s Suspended For Kissing Women’s Star Player

Soccer

Spain

Sports

In the era of celebrities, feminism and Hollywood are locking hands and leading the cultural message: “We females must stick together! Men are trash!” That cultural messaging got to Taylor Swift, Beyoncé has had her own feminist moments, and Ariana Grande has taken the lead with it. Grande is a self-proclaimed feminist, and yet her recent actions suggest that she is far from believing that women should stick together and support one another. 
So how feminist does Ariana Grande claim to be? For starters, she included the song “God Is a Woman” on her fourth album (which, if that’s true, we’re all in trouble). She attended the infamous Women’s March of 2017 where 4 million ladies took to the streets to breathe new life into an already powerful movement of women to protest the patriarchy. That same month, <a href="https://www.globalcitizen.org/es/content/ariana-grande-quotes-feminism/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20are%20not%20objects%20or%20prizes.&amp;text=Ariana%20Grande.&amp;text=Grande%20has%20been%20on%20the,girl%20power%20above%20everything%20else." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Global Citizen</a> wrote a piece about her praising her girl power: “Grande has been on the front lines of the fight against the patriarchy for years, and her contributions to feminism have largely flown under the radar. In an era of scandals and feuds, Grande has consistently preached solidarity and girl power above everything else.” Her mother and grandmother were with her at the march, three generations of strong lady feminists. She spoke about her mother when an ex-boyfriend publicly accused her of cheating, responding, “I’m going to be the lady my mother raised and carry myself with class and dignity, but I will never be any man’s press opportunity.” How very feminist of her.
However, this was not the only time she has been accused of cheating or getting involved in other people’s relationships. “Glee” actress Naya Rivera, who sadly passed away in 2020, wrote a book in 2017; in it, she told about her relationship with fiancé Big Sean. Toward the end of their time together, he was not answering her phone calls, so she went to his house. When she got there, he was sitting on a couch next to Grande. While we cannot speculate whether the two had been hooking up, we do know they began a highly publicized relationship after his split with Rivera.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/candace" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Candace Owens</a></h4>
A similar story surfaced recently involving Ethan Slater, who played SpongeBob SquarePants in the Broadway musical. Ethan has been married to his wife, Lilly Jay, for ten years; they were high school sweethearts. Lilly Jay celebrated her first Mother’s Day just three months ago, and Slater made a really heartfelt post about her on that day. When he was cast for “Wicked” alongside Grande, the three started spending time together. While they were all hanging out, Lilly Jay was postpartum because her son was born in August 2022. As with anyone postpartum, she was dealing with new changes, unknowns, and concerns. Any postpartum mother really relies on her partner during this time. But Lilly Jay’s partner decided in all this, he didn’t want to be together anymore. 
So, Slater went from writing a happy first Mother’s Day “to the most loving caring and wonderful mom/person in the world” post about her to filing for divorce. What could have happened? Well, two days before this news went public, Slater apparently came clean to his wife, who had no idea anything had been going on between her husband and Grande. He confessed he was in a relationship with Grande, who had just filed for divorce herself — the same Grande she had allowed to hold her infant child, the woman she had spent time getting to know, the woman who claims to be a feminist supporting other women. 
Women who tend to testify the loudest about feminism, who love to preach about girl power, often have deep-seated issues. My hypothesis was that Grande has daddy issues plaguing her from her childhood. Sure enough, after doing some research, I found evidence of those issues, which explains why she likes to pursue men who are in stable relationships — and rip those relationships apart. Her father divorced her mother when Grande was eight, he left, and their relationship has been sporadic ever since. In her song “Thank U, Next,” Grande says, “One day I’ll walk down the aisle holding hands with my mama. I’ll be thanking my dad cause she grew from the drama.” There is no question that she is broken from these earlier father issues. And hurt people, hurt people. 
Grande is not the only party at fault. It’s very clear Ethan Slater is also at fault. It’s obvious. He’s a dweeb. This is the first time he thinks he’s ever punched above his weight, and he’s completely lost his mind. He’s a dweeb and he’s weak. One girl so much as glanced at him, and he has ruined his entire life — and not just his life. He’s ruined the life of his child as well as the woman who has loved him for the last ten years. Furthermore, he will not be able to keep Ariana Grande. They’re definitely not skipping off into the sunset because that’s not what she does. This is sports to her. The high for her is breaking up the relationship, not standing by him because he’s already committed to divorcing his wife. The game is over for her. 
Feminism is a game for broken women, women who feel failed by men in some capacity and want to seek revenge. It reeks of all of the reasons why I always say we should not follow Hollywood’s lead. Because in reality, what we are facing today is a crisis of too many women that are acting like an Ariana Grande.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Candace_416x9 copy 25 (1)

When Feminists Turn On The Women They Support

Ariana Grande

Candace Owens

Marriage

Opinion

Much has been said about Greta Gerwig’s fantasy comedy film, “Barbie,” with most conservatives agreeing it’s an annoying, nonsensical feminist screed and most liberals claiming it’s a glittering pink cinematic masterpiece. 
Either way, one of the most hotly debated topics of the day is the ending. 
Warning: spoilers ahead.
The basic premise of “Barbie” is that the lead character, Stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) becomes skeptical of the perfect Barbie Land she’s been living in and starts thinking about the inevitability of death. After experiencing physical symptoms of her existential crisis including her normally arched feet falling flat, she ventures out into the real world and experiences negative emotions for the first time. Just like that, Barbie realizes that not everyone sees her as perfect. 
In the end, Barbie must decide whether to return to her fake, albeit perfect existence or join the real world with its ups and downs. She chooses the latter and ends up visiting a gynecologist, ostensibly because in becoming “real,” she now has real female body parts to maintain.
“I’m here to see my gynecologist,” Barbie says at the end with a big smile before the movie cuts to black.
Gerwig discussed how she came up with the idea for the ending.
“With this film, it was important for me that everything operated on at least two levels,” the director <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2023/07/22/barbie-moving-ending-spoilers/70429263007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> USA Today about coming up with the final line. “I knew I wanted to end on a mic drop kind of joke, but I also find it very emotional. When I was a teenage girl, I remember growing up and being embarrassed about my body, and just feeling ashamed in a way that I couldn’t even describe. It felt like everything had to be hidden.”
“And then to see Margot as Barbie, with this big old smile on her face, saying what she says at the end with such happiness and joy,” Gerwig continued. “I was like, if I can give girls that feeling of, ‘Barbie does it, too’ – that’s both funny and emotional. There are so many things like that throughout the movie. It was always about looking for the levity and the heart.”
Gerwig also talked about being “at a loss for words” after seeing how quickly the film took off in popularity. “It’s been amazing to walk around and see people in pink,” she said. “Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine something like this.”
The movie earned $337 million worldwide on opening weekend, shattering box office expectations. 
Ben Shapiro, Editor Emeritus of The Daily Wire, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ben-shapiro-shreds-barbie-in-epic-full-review">didn’t hide his feelings</a> about the movie. He called it a flaming piece of dog s*** piled atop an entire dumpster on fire piled atop a landfill filled with dog s***” and “one of the worst movies” on “every possible level.” 
Shapiro hated <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-left-freaks-out-because-i-hated-the-barbie-movie-heres-the-real-reason-why" target="_blank" rel="noopener">every aspect</a> of “Barbie” except for the costume and set design. But one particular moment he called out was the “transphobic” ending, which based all of Stereotypical Barbie’s status as a woman on her genitals. 
Interestingly, there’s also been pushback from members of the LGBTQ community that the film wasn’t overtly “queer” enough. Barbies and Kens were asexual, with jokes about it the whole way. One of the Kens (Ryan Gosling) and Barbie plan a sleepover but wonder what they should do there. The Kens joke about “beaching each other off,” but no one seems to understand the implications.
A lot of fuss was made about the casting of Hari Nef, a transgender-identifying star who plays one of the Barbies. But besides that inclusion, no references to changing gender or celebrating being trans are made throughout the film.
“For a movie that spends so much time dissecting gender norms and highlighting the importance of diversity, I really wish ‘Barbie’ had openly acknowledged queer people,” associate entertainment editor at Parade magazine Matthew Huff told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pop-culture/turns-barbieland-isnt-gay-queer-fans-hoped-rcna95541" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC News</a>.
“Barbie is like a drag performance of heterosexuality; it’s so exaggerated that it exemplifies the ways that heterosexuality itself is constructed and performed,” digital creator Alex Avila told the outlet. “I think queer people latch on to that heterosexual image because we can poke fun at it. We can reclaim it and use it in ways that show that heterosexuality is constructed and put into place by forces beyond us — and not universal.”
Even though “Barbie” isn’t “queer” enough for some, many viewers saw the messaging as overtly political and preachy. 
The movie “has a heavily political message,” Shapiro said. “It is explicitly designed to divide men from women. It has these negative messages directed at kids. It’s supposed to be a kid’s movie, it’s rated PG-13. It is not marketed to PG-13. It is marketed to PG. It is marketed to moms who are going to skip the PG-13 rating and bring their daughters there anyway. It’s a culturally relevant moment, a very culturally relevant moment.”
He mentioned how the movie was targeted toward children as evidenced by previews at the screening he attended. 
“I find it upsetting when material is based on children’s IP and marketed to little girls actually ends up being angry feminist claptrap that alienates men from women, undermines basic human values, and promotes falsehood all at the same time,” he continued. “I think a lot of people are gonna have a right to be mad.”
Gerwig responded to critics coming down hard on her movie, sidestepping directly mentioning the feminist messaging. 
“Certainly, there’s a lot of passion,” she <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/greta-gerwig-barbie-potential-sequel-film-criticism-1235545212/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in response to the criticism. “My hope for the movie is that it’s an invitation for everybody to be part of the party and let go of the things that aren’t necessarily serving us as either women or men. I hope that in all of that passion, if they see it or engage with it, it can give them some of the relief that it gave other people.”

The European Premiere of Barbie in London

‘Barbie’ Movie Ending Causes A Controversy, Gerwig Insists It Was ‘Mic Drop Kind Of Joke’

'Barbie' Movie Ending Causes A Controversy, Gerwig Insists It Was 'Mic Drop Kind Of Joke' 

Hollywood

LGBTQ

Movies

Unlike the media, I have not exactly been fawning over the huge box office numbers this past weekend. But even I must admit that it’s rather fascinating to see this kind of success for a film that centers around one of the most devastating and deadly inventions in the history of the human race. Indeed it is not every day that audiences flock to see a movie about a weapon of mass destruction. And of course lots of people also went to see “Oppenheimer.” 
But “Barbie” was the bigger film, and it tells the story of a vastly more destructive force. I don’t mean the Barbie doll, but rather feminism. Not every man-made weapon of mass death is as obvious as a nuclear bomb. Mushroom clouds are easy to comprehend; the significance is obvious. But the more abstract, intangible threats to human life can be far deadlier than nukes.
With that in mind, a few days ago, I tweeted this factually true statement. Here it is:
<blockquote>&#8220;This is a good time to remember that feminism has killed far more people than the atomic bomb. It is perhaps the most destructive force in human history. Trans ideology, its offshoot, is competing for the title.&#8221;</blockquote>
That&#8217;s what I wrote. Predictably, there was outrage from the Left. That was always going to happen, of course, no matter what I said. I could tweet something really obvious like “two plus two equals four” or something really innocuous like “I enjoy pancakes” and they’d still call me a bigot and report my account, demanding that I be deplatformed. So it was no surprise that this admittedly slightly more provocative statement meant that I would trend on the site for multiple days as the outraged masses had a series of temper tantrums about it. 
I don’t need to give you examples of their responses. They’re exactly what you expect. “Matt Walsh is a fascist. He hates women. He’s a misogynist.” Etcetera and so forth. The only mildly interesting feedback came from the so-called “gender critical” feminists — the feminists who oppose trans ideology — who reacted to my statement as if it was some kind of deep betrayal. We are on the same side on the trans issue, which means that I am apparently required to pretend that feminism is good. This is a contract I didn’t realize I signed. But we’ll return to the gender critical set in a few minutes. 
Let’s get, first, to the substance of my claim. As far as that goes, feminism’s status as a historically destructive force in human history is as clear as day. To begin with, if you accept that unborn babies are human beings (which obviously they are, because they can be nothing else), then we can directly blame feminism for 60 million deaths in the United States alone. When I pointed this out, Martina Navratilova, tennis legend and outspoken feminist, responded: 
<blockquote>“A fetus is not a baby, what a moronic thing to say. You spout about language used by the trans lobby and then do the same calling embryos babies! Hypocrite much?”</blockquote>
Well, Martina, I guess I need to ask you an even more basic question than the one I ask trans activists: what is a human? Can you answer that, Martina? I bet you can’t. I guarantee you cannot come up with a coherent definition of “human” that excludes unborn children. You cannot coherently define “human” or “person” in a way that allows you to be one, but leaves unborn humans out in the cold. The word “fetus,” Martina, simply means “offspring.” You are pretending that there is some sort of innate, definitional distinction between “offspring” and “baby” — a distinction that you believe is so important that it gives us the moral right to destroy “fetuses” en masse. But a baby is the young offspring of two human parents. They mean the same thing. The only thing that the word “baby” does is stipulate which stage of development the offspring is currently going through. A human in the womb is in a stage of human development. A 6-month-old outside the womb is in a stage of human development. Same for teenagers and middle-aged former tennis players. These are stages of development, they are ages. If you say it is okay to kill “fetuses” but not babies you might as well say it is okay to kill 41-year-olds but not 42-year-olds. The position makes no sense.
We are left with the harsh reality that abortion has killed 60 million human beings — a death toll that can be laid squarely at the feet of feminism, since feminism has made the defense and promotion of this atrocity into one of its core tenets. That already puts it at least in the running for &#8220;most destructive,&#8221; competing perhaps only with communism. But the distinction between feminism and communism is not absolute. These are related ideologies. Marx and Engels called for the abolition of the nuclear family, just as many modern feminists do. We&#8217;ll get into that soon.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1191-why-feminism-is-one-of-the-deadliest-and-most-destructive-forces-in-human-history-member-exclusive">WATCH: Why Feminism Is One Of The Deadliest And Most Destructive Forces In Human History</a></h4>
In the past century, feminists have succeeded in destroying the nuclear family to a degree that American communists could only dream of. According to a study from Child Trends, just 9% of children lived with single parents in the 1960s, before the rise of modern feminism. By 2012, that number had increased to nearly 30%. In 2019, Pew found that the United States has the highest rate of children living in single-family homes of any country in the world.
Divorce is a major factor driving these numbers. From the 1960s to the 1980s divorce rates in the U.S. more than doubled. You&#8217;ll often see studies showing that, in the last few years, divorce rates are down — but that&#8217;s because many people aren&#8217;t bothering to get married in the first place anymore. Given what we&#8217;re seeing, it&#8217;s impossible to argue that the family unit hasn&#8217;t been dramatically weakened due to the influence of feminism. If you accept that the family is an essential building block of civilization, then we&#8217;re left with an ideology that has murdered enough children to fill 800 football stadiums and eaten away at the very fabric of civilization in the process.
Feminism&#8217;s defenders, even on the Right, will point out that in spite of all of this, feminists gave us women&#8217;s suffrage and allowed women to take out mortgages and credit cards. But even if I agree that we needed feminism, specifically, to bring about these changes — and I don’t — they still don&#8217;t begin to outweigh the cost. If I could trade in women’s suffrage to get back the 60 million humans that feminism killed, I would do it in a heartbeat. 
Another defense you&#8217;ll hear from feminists, and many on the Right, is that &#8220;first wave feminism&#8221; was good, and the second wave was okay — but the others were where it went off the rails. These people will attempt to argue that the first and second waves of feminism are somehow distinct from the modern incarnations. All they cared about, supposedly, were basic human rights. This is a common misconception. Even the blessed &#8220;first wavers&#8221; were generally anti-man and anti-family.  
Mary Wollstonecraft, considered one of the founders of the feminist movement, had so much disdain for marriage that she <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> two novels about it. 
Jane Addams, another much-celebrated first-wave feminist, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Addams" target="_blank" rel="noopener">supported eugenics</a>.
Margaret Fuller, one of the most widely cited first-wave feminists, wrote extensively about marriage. But she also argued that unmarried life leads to a greater connection with the divine. Here’s a passage from her book “Woman in the 19th Century,” in which Fuller praises unmarried women, who she calls “old maids,” because they aren’t shackled to their husbands.
<blockquote>“Not needing to care that she may please a husband, a frail and limited being, her thoughts may turn to the center, and she may, by steadfast contemplation enter into the secret of truth and love.” </blockquote>
There are many more examples, but really, all you need to do is look at what happened after &#8220;first-wave&#8221; feminism. Just a few short decades later we got the legalization of baby murder nationwide, as well as overt calls for the abolition of the nuclear family.
They weren&#8217;t exactly subtle about it. One of the most famous second-wave feminists, Kate Millet, is known precisely because she wanted to destroy marriage and the traditional family unit. That was her whole pitch. Here&#8217;s a quote from Millet&#8217;s dissertation &#8220;Sexual Politics.&#8221; 
<blockquote>&#8220;A sexual revolution would require &#8230; an end of traditional sexual inhibitions and taboos, particularly those that most threaten patriarchal monogamous marriage: homosexuality, illegitimacy, adolescence, pre and extramarital sexuality. &#8230; The goal of revolution would be a permissive single standard of sexual freedom, and one uncorrupted by the crass and exploitative economic bases of traditional sexual alliances.&#8221;</blockquote>
Millet goes on to admit, in the understatement of the century,
<blockquote>&#8220;It seems unlikely all this could take place without drastic effect upon the patriarchal proprietary family.” </blockquote>
She also argues that the nuclear family is an obstacle which precludes a “woman&#8217;s contribution to the larger society” and complains that “the traditional method of child care” — i.e. a mother taking care of her own children — is “unsystematic” and “inefficient.” This is feminism, 50 years ago, outwardly opposed to the nuclear family, the very foundation of human civilization itself.
It goes without saying that Millet was also a big proponent of abortion; she said she considers the legalization of abortion to be one of the great achievements of the feminist movement. This is the belief system that virtually all second-wave feminists endorsed — destroy the family, and kill children. 
Now, ask yourself this question: If feminism was such an obvious good in its original incarnation, then how in the hell could it have devolved into an anti-family, pro-abortion feeding frenzy in the span of a few decades? It&#8217;s like saying the Bolsheviks had the right idea, but who could have predicted the gulags?
If most people will agree that every wave of feminism was a disaster except for the first one, then a thinking person must start to wonder whether that first one was really so great after all. A thinking person might start to see that even in its first wave there were the kernels, the poisonous seeds, that would soon sprout into this hideous, deformed tree that we all see today. A tree with many branches, and one of those branches is trans ideology.
The &#8220;gender critical&#8221; feminists, mentioned earlier, are critical of trans ideology but they don&#8217;t understand how their own movement created it. The feminists are the ones who first argued that men and women are basically the same aside from meaningless anatomical differences. They are the ones who declared that most sex differences are &#8220;social constructs.&#8221; They don&#8217;t want to admit any of this, of course. So, some gender critical feminists have tried to flip this around and say that those of us with “traditional” views on sex have been the ones to set the stage for trans ideology. The feminist writer Helen Joyce made this argument last year when she was asked about my film “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What Is A Woman?</a>” Watch:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Helen Joyce articulated perfectly the problem with Matt Walsh and how he is part of the problem of trans ideology. They might want to watch.<a href="https://t.co/aILq2gPLLe">https://t.co/aILq2gPLLe</a>
&mdash; RachelKnewBest (@RachelBowljiffy) <a href="https://twitter.com/RachelBowljiffy/status/1683712194221953029?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 25, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
That’s interesting, Helen. You are saying that rigid gender roles give rise to trans ideology. Well, Helen, did you watch the section of the film where I go to the Masai tribe in Kenya? They have extremely well-defined gender roles, and have for literally thousands of years, and yet they’ve never even heard of transgenderism. In fact, my “traditional” view of sex was the dominant view across the entire world, everywhere, in all places, since the dawn of human civilization up until just this past century. And yet for thousands and thousands and thousands of years &#8220;traditional gender roles&#8221; never led to any woman cutting her breasts off in an attempt to identify as a man. Have you thought about this Helen? If my view of sex is old and ancient — which it absolutely is, I admit that proudly — and if my view also leads directly to trans ideology, then why isn’t trans ideology also old and ancient? Do you see the problem here?
No, trans ideology came about directly on the high heels of feminism. Why? Because, again, feminists are the ones who first argued that men and women are effectively the same, aside from what they considered insignificant anatomical differences. Feminists are the ones who declared that all gender roles and gender stereotypes are social constructs. For many decades if anyone argued that women can compete with men in sports, and do everything men can do, it would have been a feminist. Now that argument primarily comes from trans activists, and you want to pretend that they aren’t saying exactly what your club has been saying for like a century. It’s absurd. 
Helen, you say that I understand that a man is a male person and a woman is a female person, but that I think “a whole bunch of other things follow from that.” Yes, you are exactly right. I think that being a man means something, and it means more than just anatomy. And being a woman means something, and it means more than just anatomy. What you don’t understand is that your rejection of this principle, your claim that a whole bunch of things DON’T follow from being a man or a woman, that being a man or a woman has essentially no significance aside from differences in sex organs, means that you and your ideology are to blame for exactly the thing you pretend to be fighting against. 
But it’s no surprise that such a murderous and evil ideology refuses to be honest with the world. Feminism has brought about destruction, misery, and confusion. So much confusion that it is even confused about itself. Which is why, so often, the feminists themselves seem to understand feminism least of all. This is what you get from an ideology whose primary goal is to dismantle and destabilize. A goal that it has certainly achieved. 
It was Oppenheimer who said the words — quoting Hindu scripture — but feminism has a much greater claim to the title: “Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds.” And that is feminism in a nutshell.

Matt Walsh 2

Why Feminism Is One Of The Deadliest And Most Destructive Forces In Human History

The ideological roots of feminism are at least 200 years old, but somehow, as a movement, it has been able to rebrand itself anew every few generations to maintain relevance.
The essentials to the feminist movement – free love, the occult, and smashing the patriarchy – were first brought together as the “women’s revolution” by poet Percy Shelley. I discovered this when researching my forthcoming book, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Woman-Smashing-Patriarchy-Destroyed/dp/1684514185/ref=sr_1_2?crid=17NAROBYVRIMV&amp;keywords=carrie+gress&amp;qid=1690307577&amp;sprefix=carrie+gress%2Caps%2C73&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us</a>&#8221; (Regnery, August 2023). Inspired by the mother-in-law he never met, Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley took her ideas and added them to his own version of what female freedom should look like. While his wife was writing &#8220;Frankenstein,&#8221; Shelley created his own creature: the character of Cythna, who was the first independent woman, disconnected from her parents, husband, and children. Curiously, the only relationship she had was with Satan. Cythna became a beacon for budding feminists in the 1800s and beyond.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton is perhaps the best-known 19th century feminist influenced by Shelley as she fought for women’s suffrage. The movement took significant turns in the 1900s, first with the triumph of the suffrage movement after the end of World War I. Thereafter, it was adrift without a cohesive goal, but eventually mingled with the communist party in the ’30s, ’40s, up till the second wave of the 1960s. The ’60s and ’70s ushered in a much more pronounced feminist movement that gave us the new independent woman through a toxic blend of TV, the New Left, and the ubiquitous visuals featuring sexy and stylish women, but all the while, the original model remained: a blend of free love, occult, and smashing the patriarchy.
Later waves haven’t quite had the splash of the second wave and as those second wavers have aged, the movement has become a bit frayed at the edges. While some are in their 60s, like Oprah Winfrey, Whoppi Goldberg, and Madonna, most of the mavens are now 70+ years of age, such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Joy Behar, Anna Wintour, and Dianne Feinstein. Its embrace of the LGBTQ has also brought in a cast of characters that give feminism the look of a party scene from “Trolls.” The aged and awkward have taken the sheen off the movement, especially among the normals of Gen X and Gen Z.
But now, “Barbie” comes to the rescue. Barbie is young, beautiful, bubbly, and has the benefit of nostalgia for most American women. With this movie, Barbie takes on yet another new frontier – saving feminism from its tired old self.
(Warning: spoiler alerts to come.) The film starts with Barbie living her perfect life every day when suddenly she is plagued by thoughts of death, her feet flatten, and cellulite shows up. To find her way out of this terrible plight, she must visit Weird Barbie, an old and odd sage, who kinda reminds us of some current feminists we know. Weird Barbie, like the star Barbie, also used to be Stereotypical Barbie, instead of one of the many offshoots, like President Barbie and Mermaid Barbie. Weird Barbie lost her dazzle through mistreatment and was left with a bad haircut, graffiti make-up, and messed up clothes. The movie unfolds as Barbie takes Weird Barbie’s advice to get back to her previously perfect self. Barbie’s adventure starts as she leaves in her pink car with “Closer to Fine” playing by the Indigo Girls, the ’80s and ’90s Lesbian folk duo, a nostalgic nod to all Gen Xers.
Feminism dogma doesn’t take long to surface. In word and deed, there are plenty of reminders that the patriarchy always needs smashing. The film features men who are buffoons, clueless, vulgarians, narcissists, and arrogant. Not one is really necessary for daily life. They are the bicycle a fish needs, to quote Gloria Steinem, “Women need men like a fish needs a bicycle.”
“Barbie” also reminds us, heavy-handedly, that women’s relationships and leadership are indispensable for a perfectly peaceful world. If only women could truly subdue men, then all things would be pacific and calm.
Once feminism virtues are served, it is time to remind women just how hard it is to be women.
The two main human females in the film are a mother and daughter, Gloria, and, her tween daughter, Sasha, who are struggling to understand each other. The adventure of saving Barbie sets the two on a restorative quest. But while it is happening, Gloria rouses Barbie who, almost comatose with despair, thought she may never be perfect Barbie again. Gloria issues an epic rant (edited here to half its length) about womanhood in a way that surprises even herself:
<blockquote>You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas… You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.</blockquote>
This rant magically wakes up not just Barbie, but any Barbie who has fallen under the spell of the patriarchy. It is also meant to wake up those of us in the pews, er, the theatre seats. Life as a woman is hard and feminism is here to help us. Once again, if we can just tune out all the men, things get easier quickly.
Perhaps the most disturbing, but iconic scene of the film is the opening, creating a new myth to explain Barbie’s power. Before her arrival, little girls dressed in beige and beleaguered, play with baby dolls. Oh, the drudgery! Not to worry, Barbie’s type of feminism allowed these little girls, just like their mothers, to smash in the skulls of their babies and move on to much more exciting and interesting careers away from children. Later in the film, Midge, the name for Pregnant Barbie, gets a few cameos but we are quickly reminded that Pregnant Barbie was discontinued. No one wants Pregnant Barbie.
Some have argued that Barbie overstates the feminist case so much that truly no one could believe it, undermining its own message. Having researched feminism now for several years, this kind of hyperbole is not unique. Gloria Steinem, who might be the muse behind Kamala Harris’s wisdom, has said things like: “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day; a movement is only people moving,” “Like art, revolutions come from combining what exists into what has never existed before,” or this gem, “Until the masculine role is humanized, women will tend to be much better at solving dangerous conflicts.” 
Sadly, the level of ridiculousness is not new, it is just new to a general audience. I’ll admit it looks a lot better in pink, but hopefully, someday, a generation of women will finally wise up and realize that all this is still just the vision of a creepy and decadent English poet, and like Frankenstein’s creature created by his wife Mary Shelley, isn’t really real. It is, after all, just a Barbie World.
Carrie Gress Ph.D. (philosophy) is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the founder and co-editor of the online women’s magazine Theology of Home. She is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Woman-Smashing-Patriarchy-Destroyed/dp/1684514185/ref=sr_1_2?crid=17NAROBYVRIMV&amp;keywords=carrie+gress&amp;qid=1690307577&amp;sprefix=carrie+gress%2Caps%2C73&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us</a> (<a href="https://www.regnery.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regnery Publishing</a>, August 2023), now available for <a href="https://www.amazon.com/End-Woman-Smashing-Patriarchy-Destroyed/dp/1684514185/ref=sr_1_2?crid=17NAROBYVRIMV&amp;keywords=carrie+gress&amp;qid=1690307577&amp;sprefix=carrie+gress%2Caps%2C73&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pre-Order</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

SKOREA-ENTERTAINMENT-FILM

Feminism Gets All Dolled Up To Appeal To A New Generation In ‘Barbie’

Feminism Gets All Dolled Up To Appeal To A New Generation In 'Barbie'

Books

Last week we discussed the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-the-collapse-of-the-mainstream-entertainment-industry-would-be-no-tragedy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">impending doom</a> of Hollywood. As the media was frantically warning us, the entire entertainment industry was on the verge of collapse thanks to a writer’s strike, an actor’s strike, and a series of supposed blockbusters that turned out to be flops. This was in some ways an ironic combination of factors, given that the quality and performance of these movies would seem to indicate that the writers and actors had already been on strike for years. The average viewer will come out of the latest Hollywood dud, hear that the writers just went on strike, and respond, “Wait, that movie had writers?” It already seems like these films are being generated by AI. Now they really will be, and I doubt we’ll be able to detect any difference.
It has been a gloomy time in Hollywood all around. But this weekend has given them a glimmer of hope. A false hope, I think. A hope that will teach them all the wrong lessons, but hope all the same. The Hollywood Reporter declares a box office “<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-box-office-oppenheimer-opening-1235541719/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stunner</a>.” A historic weekend for movies, they report:
<blockquote>“The summer box office just went nuclear. Filmmaker <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-greta-gerwig-record-female-director-1235541894/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Greta Gerwig&#8217;s</a>  female-fueled Barbie opened to a historic $155 million domestically, a threshold usually reserved for male-driven superhero fare or marquee IP, such as the final Harry Potter movie. It came in well ahead of an expected $90 million to $110 million and helped fuel one of the biggest weekends in history. Barbie — which brings to life Mattel’s iconic fashion doll — is also strutting to big numbers overseas. The pic launched to an impressive $182 million from 70 markets for a global bow of $337 million against a $145 million production budget… In North America, Barbie scored the biggest domestic start ever for a movie directed by a woman, solo or otherwise.”</blockquote>
After gushing for several more paragraphs about “Barbie,” the article does mention that Christopher Nolan’s film “Oppenheimer” also opened this weekend to an enormous haul, raking in $80 million. This makes it Nolan’s biggest opening weekend for any of his non-Batman films. It’s especially impressive — far more impressive than “Barbie’s” performance, as we’ll see — because his movie is an original three-hour R-rated historical drama. It is very difficult to make that kind of film into a smash hit. People don’t generally flock to theaters to watch incredibly long character studies of historical figures. That is unprecedented, or nearly so.
There is, however, plenty of precedent for moviegoers crowding theaters to watch movies based on familiar brands. Audiences are increasingly becoming bored with franchise films and brand films — as “Indiana Jones” and the “Flash” and “Little Mermaid” and many others have discovered. But if there is a brand with a large and dedicated fan base that hasn’t had its own film in a long time, then it will probably do pretty well on its opening weekend. That is the story with “Barbie.” The movie is a smash hit because Barbie as a brand is a smash hit. The quality of the film doesn’t make a difference. The directing, the acting, the writing. None of that factors into the equation. Mothers and daughters did not file into theaters over the weekend because they really wanted to see what Greta Gerwig cooked up, nor did they come because they were big Margot Robbie fans. They came because it’s Barbie. It’s a brand they like. And American consumers are conditioned to salivate whenever their favorite brand rings the bell. This weekend was not a vindication of Hollywood, or the filmmakers behind Barbies, but rather a vindication for Pavlov and his dogs. “Barbie’s” box office performance is a result of conditioning, and not much else.
If anyone deserves the credit for the biggest box office debut for any female director in history, it’s not the female director but the marketing department. They are the ones who knew enough to lie about the true content and message of the film. Because as we have now discovered — though it should not have come as a surprise to anyone — the “Barbie” movie is a preachy feminist screed about taking down the patriarchy. It is a gender studies lecture in Barbie packaging. I know this not because I watched the film. I would rather jump feet first into a wood chipper than sit through that film. I don’t need to watch “Barbie” to know that it’s bad for the same reason that I don’t need to pull a rotten onion out of the garbage and eat it in order to know that I don’t like the taste. I have never thrown myself into a volcano, but I feel that I can safely say that the experience would be unpleasant, and probably a little hot. Some books can be judged by their covers — or at least by their back covers, where you find the description. And we now have descriptions of the “Barbie” movie, which make the themes clear. Something that the marketing never did.
Fox News reports: 
<blockquote>“Hollywood movie critics are widely <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-hype-barbie-takedown-toxic-masculinity-masters-thesis-feminism">praising ‘Barbie’</a> as the most ‘unwavering feminist summer blockbuster ever to exist,’ giving the new film particular adoration for its messaging around ‘the patriarchy’ and gender roles. The film, starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, boasts a strong 89% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, with many reviewers surprised by Director Greta Gerwig&#8217;s willingness to engage in extensive social commentary.”</blockquote>
So surprising — a Hollywood film director is engaging in political commentary? No one’s ever heard of such a thing.
<blockquote>“Once an equal parts fascinating and controversial Mattel toy, both loved and hated—a tiny-waisted, vacuously smiling, slender doll designed like a straight-male fantasy—is now the complicated feminist symbol of empowerment in Gerwig&#8217;s hands,” The Wrap wrote. ‘But we aren&#8217;t talking about an empty you-go-girl kind of empowerment here. That would be too simple-minded for Gerwig, whose articulate and accessible feminism has always been fiercely multifaceted and complex.”
“‘Barbie’ is both a master&#8217;s thesis on feminism and an Austin Powers-esque romp,” The Globe and Mail noted.</blockquote>
TheWrap also stated that the movie “delivers a fierce feminist statement dressed in pink,” while The Globe and Mail declared the film “the most captivating and unwaveringly feminist summer blockbuster ever to exist.”
Meanwhile, Indiewire praised the film&#8217;s “outside the box” and “funny, feminist fantasia” and singled out Gosling&#8217;s performance of “newfound male rage” and “patriarchal power” as a particular highlight.
Funny, they didn’t tout this thing as a “master thesis on feminism” in the trailer. They didn’t title the movie “The Adventures of Feminist Barbie.” No mentions of patriarchy or male rage, either. It is, again, not in the least bit surprising that these themes dominate the film. Not surprising to us, anyway, as people who pay attention and are aware of what’s happening in the world and in our culture. The average “Barbie” viewer is, on the other hand, not so aware. That’s why the sleight of hand trick worked. Dangle a fun and nostalgic and family-friendly Barbie film in front of the audience, then when you have them in the seat whack them over the head with the feminist stick. Sell them the Barbie doll and let them open the package and find Gloria Steinem inside.
We know about the aggressive, male-hating feminist bent of this film thanks in part to some brave souls — like Ben Shapiro who actually sat and endured it — so that they could report on its content. This is a form of journalistic courage far more impressive than reporters who cover war zones. But we also know about the movie’s real message from the generally positive reviews of liberal movie critics. The review in Variety gets into some of the details that the film’s marketing material smartly glossed over:
<blockquote>“At the same time Barbie is experiencing her rude awakening, Ken’s busy filling his empty head with all the possibilities that ‘patriarchy’ entails. In Barbie Land, Ken’s job is a deliberately ill-defined afterthought (basically, just ‘beach’), whereas in the Real World, dudes rule — an idea he takes back to Barbie Land with pointedly absurd results, brainwashing all the women into behaving like obedient housewives.”</blockquote>
This is apparently the major underlying theme. In the movie, men in Barbie Land are useless and stupid. Men in the real world are useless and stupid, but also violent, predatory, and in control of everything. Ken witnesses this dynamic and tries to export the patriarchy back to Barbie Land. And they actually call it “the patriarchy” in the film. That phrase is used many times.
I should mention that the Variety review is not entirely positive. It does take issue with the movie, and specifically with the way that men are portrayed. But the issue, according to film critic Peter Debug, is that all of this time spent making men look terrible might risk taking the spotlight off of women. There’s nothing wrong with sending the message that all men are dumb pigs, but you should give them less screen time in the process, Peter says. Quote:
<blockquote>“It’s upsetting (in a useful way) to see Barbie confronted with the overnight impact of rampant patriarchy, a concept that has rarely looked more off-putting than the frat-boy fantasy caricatured here. Think of it as the misogynist alternative marketed by old-school beer commercials, the polar opposite of Mattel’s mid-’80s ‘We girls can do anything. Right, Barbie?’ campaign. While the Barbies plot to take back the government, Gerwig gives all the Ken dolls an over-the-top musical number, ‘I’m Just Ken,’ which is so amusingly self-involved it risks subverting the very point the movie’s trying to make. If ‘Barbie’ is all about centering and celebrating women, why let Ken steal the show?”</blockquote>
This is the modern media for you. The only problem with demonizing men is that it requires you to talk about men too much. And that’s the Barbie movie for you, too. Thousands of moms took their daughters to see this thing over the weekend. And it is a wonderful movie to show your daughter, if you want her to be a vapid, man-hating harpy. If that is your great dream for your daughter, then by all means show them Greta Gerwig’s Barbie.
But this is not actually what most mothers want for their daughters. For comparison sake, contrast this with the general public reaction when a movie wears its feminist credentials on its sleeve. Take the upcoming “Snow White” remake, for example. We’ve already seen how they’ve traded in Snow White for Snow Brown, casting a Hispanic woman in the title role. And for whatever reason they’ve decided that the most inclusive approach is to take casting opportunities away from actors with dwarfism by turning the seven dwarves into regular-sized carnies. 
But they are also changing the whole arc and theme of the story, as this interview with the stars revealed: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot on Bringing a New Modern Edge to &#039;Snow White&#039;" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2RVg3yetTE4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Now we aren’t going to focus on the point that the taller woman there, Gal Gadot, is playing the evil queen and the shorter one is playing Snow White. Remember that in the story, the queen is supposed to be jealous of Snow White’s beauty. Which will be hard to pull off in this case, as the evil queen is significantly more attractive.
Putting that aside, the point is that the clip you just watched and heard has been roundly mocked by nearly everyone. The movie is destined to be a worse flop than the woke “Little Mermaid” bastardization. Nobody wants to see a fairy tale where the damsel in distress no longer needs saving and the central romance has been replaced with a dreary sermon about self-empowerment. Nobody wants to see Snow White become a corporate middle manager and achieve true happiness by moving into a two-bedroom condo. They want to see her get saved by the prince and fall in love. When you advertise ahead of time that your film is going the former route rather than the latter, going the feminist route rather than the classic route, nobody will see it. Feminism has to trick you, it has to smuggle itself in. It cannot walk in the front door, announcing its arrival.
That’s because, despite what Snow Brown claims, nearly all women innately desire a man to protect them and provide for them. Women want to be swept off their feet by Prince Charming. That’s why these stories have lived on for centuries and resonated with each new generation. The feminist fairy tale resonates with no one. It’s a vision of what feminism wants women to do, what it wants women to think, what it wants women to want, but it will always ring false because it is false. 
That’s not to say that feminism hasn’t won many disciples in the modern world. Obviously it has. It has proven to be a devastating and lethal force, far deadlier than the bomb at the center of that other blockbuster this weekend. Feminism has killed 60 million babies, and that’s just the beginning of the destruction it has wrought on the world. But it wins adherents through brainwashing, intense and constant indoctrination, and by playing on a woman’s resentment, hatred, self-pity, and desire to blame others for her problems. This doesn’t really work as a fairy tale because fairy tales are aspirational and fanciful and whimsical. Feminism, on the other hand, is base and vulgar and hateful. It also doesn’t work in marketing materials for a film based on a beloved children’s toy. That’s why they hid it away, tucked it under all the pink and the plastic, and then came out with the man-hating sledgehammer when the audience was already sitting in the seats. 
The only question is whether those mothers who took their daughters to see this film spent the whole ride home explaining why all of that stuff in the movie was wrong? Better yet, as soon as they saw what was really happening, did they grab their daughter by the hand and leave the theater before the movie ended? Or were they too obtuse to notice the toxic feminist message, even when it was delivered with a sledgehammer? Or were many of those mothers already man-hating feminists themselves, and so they didn’t see any problem with it? I suspect a mix of all of these options has played out, but I hope there were plenty in the first category. And for any parents who hadn’t yet taken their daughters to see this movie, but planned on going in the future, well now you know better.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>

Matt Walsh 3

‘Barbie’ Delivers Feminism With A Man-Hating Sledgehammer

Mainstream media is fawning all over the “Barbie” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/movies">movie</a>, but there are plenty of reviewers who were less than enthused about the film’s extreme feminist messaging. Daily Wire host <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/candace-owens">Candace Owens</a> had her opinion on watching the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/entertainment">fantasy comedy</a>, which debuted July 21.
Owens explained on Friday why she had no interest in seeing the movie despite extreme <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hollywood">marketing</a> efforts meant to convince her otherwise.
“Obviously if you are listening to this podcast, you know one of the things that I really hate is that we are living in a world that is increasingly anti-man. While we are pretending that women are suffering under the foot of the patriarchy, what’s actually happening is that toxic <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/feminism">feminism</a> has risen to the top and is actually oppressing men with movements that make entirely no sense,” she said. 
Owens went on to give a few examples of celebrities embodying this toxic femininity, including actor Jonah Hill’s ex-girlfriend who accused him of “emotional abuse” and posted private text messages, and singer Bebe Rexha, who reacted badly to her ex admitting she gained weight. 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="IMPORTANT! What You Should Know Before Seeing The Barbie Movie... 😳" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nTZZwR4jC3o?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The podcast host said women are frequently “vicious toward men” and this behavior is typically applauded in the mainstream as some kind of feminist victory. Owens said she based her decision not to see the film on a review Sarah Vine <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12312807/SARAH-VINE-mother-daughters-verdict-Barbie-man-film-bigot-loser-daughter-totally-loved-it.html">wrote</a> for the Daily Mail, which explained some of the issues with “Barbie.”
“I knew I could take her words at face value,” Owens said. The commentator goes on to quote the review, which says, “&#8230; My main objection is that Barbie is not really a film about Barbie at all. It’s one hour and 54 minutes of extended misandry, dressed up with a few fun dance routines and one or two (granted fairly decent) jokes.”
“It’s a deeply anti-man movie, an extension of all that TikTok feminism that paints any form of masculinity — other than the most anodyne — as toxic and predatory, and frames women’s liberation not as a movement based on achieving equality between the sexes but as a cultural revenge vehicle designed to write men out of the story altogether,” Vine adds. 
“Every male character is either an idiot, a bigot or a sad, rather pathetic loser. If the roles were reversed, and a male director made a film about how all women were hysterical, neurotic, gold-digging witches, it would be denounced — quite rightly — as deeply offensive and sexist.”
Owens said this synopsis was enough to turn her off seeing the movie entirely.
“If that’s what she is trying to convey, that men are either idiots or bigots, or sad and when they demonstrate any form of masculinity they must be put back into their boxes by women. I’m just not interested,” she said.

Candace Owens Refuses To Watch ‘Barbie’ Movie: Here’s Why

Candace Owens Refuses To Watch 'Barbie' Movie: Here's Why 

Entertainment

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/music">Singer</a> Cyndi Lauper said she initially wasn&#8217;t interested in singing her hit 1983 single “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” because it wasn’t written by a woman. 
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/entertainment">single</a> was Lauper&#8217;s breakthrough hit, climbing to the number two spot on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart. It became a worldwide hit in the mid-80s and is still a well-known single today.
Lauper discussed the story behind “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” as part of a documentary about the singer’s life called, “Let the Canary Sing,” which debuted at the Tribeca Film Festival on Wednesday.
&#8220;I was trying really hard to make an anthem that would inspire women and open the doors to all women,&#8221; the 69-year-old pop star told <a href="https://people.com/cyndi-lauper-refused-record-girls-just-want-to-have-fun-written-by-men-7547475">People</a> of her hit song. &#8220;Not just one group of women, but every little girl could see herself and realize that she too could have a joyful experience in life.&#8221;
The publication noted that “Girls Just Want to Have Fun&#8221; was written and originally recorded by Robert Hazard. When Lauper&#8217;s producer at the time, Rick Chertoff, took her to see him perform it live, she apparently said to him, &#8220;I would never do that f***ing song.&#8221;
&#8220;Every time we want to have fun, we&#8217;re whores,&#8221; Lauper said of men writing a song about women from their perspective.
In the documentary, Lauper talked about changing the lyrics and sound in an effort to give the single a more upbeat vibe. &#8220;It should be in a trumpet key because we&#8217;re trumpeting an idea,&#8221; she said of her vision for the song.
The singer also discussed wanting the music video to feature all types of women. She cast her real mom, Catrine, to play her mom in the video, too. &#8220;I told my mother, &#8216;If you do this, it&#8217;s going to bring mothers and daughters closer,'&#8221; she said in the film. &#8220;I got to share my success with my mom.&#8221; 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1686769858594000&amp;usg=AOvVaw29MU9w81PAp3j3uHg4Fp5m">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
&#8220;My mom was with me, and I just feel I was really lucky and privileged to do that,&#8221; Lauper said.
&#8220;Now, my sister [Ellen] and my brother [Fred] came, and they were in [Let the Canary Sing], and they were talking,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;Family, I guess, is very important.&#8221;

Cyndi Lauper

Cyndi Lauper Reveals Why She Originally Didn’t Want To Record ‘Girls Just Wanna Have Fun’

Cyndi Lauper Reveals Why She Originally Didn't Want To Record 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun'

Celebrity

U.S.

Author J.K. Rowling unloaded on British journalist Patrick Strudwick in a lengthy tweet on Monday, accusing him of running with a demonstrably false story about a &#8220;Let Women Speak&#8221; event that took place in Australia.
Strudwick claimed in a piece he published at iNews that the group had &#8220;staged a mass Nazi salute&#8221; – a claim that Rowling said was easily disprovable — but she lamented the fact that he had blocked her on Twitter, making it impossible for her to challenge him directly.
&#8220;As @PatrickStrud has blocked me on here (we&#8217;ve never, to my knowledge, interacted on Twitter or anywhere else) I can&#8217;t challenge him directly about the claim he published in iNews (see below) that a Let Women Speak event in Australia &#8216;staged a mass Nazi salute,'&#8221; Rowling&#8217;s extensive tweet began. &#8220;This is a lie so brazen, so easily disprovable and so libelous, I&#8217;m amazed it was allowed into print by a supposedly reputable news source.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
As <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickStrud?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PatrickStrud</a> has blocked me on here (we&#39;ve never, to my knowledge, interacted on Twitter or anywhere else) I can&#39;t challenge him directly about the claim he published in iNews (see below) that a Let Women Speak event in Australia &#39;staged a mass Nazi salute&#39;. This is a lie so… <a href="https://t.co/X6nAA3xxNH">pic.twitter.com/X6nAA3xxNH</a>
&mdash; J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1663272294070865925?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Rowling went on to take on radical transgender activists as a group, arguing that actual fascists had seen an opportunity to infiltrate the community and use it to further their own ends.
&#8220;For years now, women and gay people concerned about the erosion of their rights, the dismantling of safeguarding and the escalating threats and violence of trans activists have been called &#8216;fascists&#8217; and &#8216;Nazis&#8217; by people like Strudwick for holding what, until five minutes ago, were solidly left-wing/feminist political positions,&#8221; Rowling continued, declaring, &#8220;Nobody but useful idiots can be genuinely surprised that REAL fascists have spotted a glorious opportunity in trans activism.&#8221;
&#8220;The homophobic, anti-feminist far-right has long held that the left is degenerate, foolish, immoral and authoritarian, and now they can point to the incoherent arguments of the gender ideologues, the bullying tactics of the no-platformers and the swarms of masked men threatening violence against women for wanting to retain single-sex spaces, and crow &#8216;we told you so,'&#8221; Rowling continued, arguing that extreme radicals on both ends of the political spectrum were in favor of the bullying and otherwise authoritarian tactics.
Rowling went on to say that Nazis and radical transgender activists were essentially two sides of the same coin and were using the conflict to &#8220;push their own agendas.&#8221;
&#8220;Both are there in the hope of violence, and neither gives a damn about the women who&#8217;re there to speak out in their own voices, about their own lives, on their own behalf,&#8221; Rowling continued, encouraging the &#8220;Let Women Speak&#8221; event organizers to take action and hold Strudwick accountable.

Rowling

J.K. Rowling Nails It: ‘REAL Fascists Have Spotted A Glorious Opportunity In Trans Activism’

J.K. Rowling Nails It: 'REAL Fascists Have Spotted A Glorious Opportunity In Trans Activism'

JK Rowling

Social Issues

Transgender

World

Saddleback Church, the multi-site <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/christianity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">megachurch</a> founded by Rick Warren, ordained a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/woke" target="_blank" rel="noopener">woman</a> to serve as a “campus pastor” even as the congregation is expected to appeal a recent decision from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/southern-baptists" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Southern Baptist Convention</a> to disfellowship the entity over similar moves.
Officials on the denomination’s Executive Committee voted earlier this year to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/southern-baptists-disfellowship-saddleback-church-over-female-pastor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">remove</a> Saddleback, one of the largest churches in the United States, because of its decision to ordain several women as pastors over the past two years. Warren, who maintains a founding pastor role at the California congregation, announced Andy Wood as his successor to serve as senior pastor last year and appointed his wife, Stacie Wood, to serve as a teaching pastor, generating controversy days later at the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in Anaheim.
Saddleback Church Lake Forest, one of more than a dozen Saddleback branch campuses, announced last week that Katie Edwards had been appointed as the body’s new campus pastor. Images <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CsAFXy3PGaj/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> by the church showed Andy and Stacie Wood praying over Edwards on stage.
The move comes weeks before Southern Baptists are scheduled to convene in New Orleans for the next annual meeting of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, where Saddleback Church will likely contest the disfellowship decision from the Executive Committee.
Warren has defended his position on female pastors, which he adopted three years ago, in a recent <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/march-web-only/rick-warren-russell-moore-saddleback-church-women-preaching.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with Russell Moore, the editor-in-chief of Christianity Today and the former president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. Warren also claimed in a floor <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBsT1zFmC3E" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speech</a> at last year’s annual meeting that there exists a distinction between the “gift” and the “office” of pastor.
Churches in the Southern Baptist Convention, an association of autonomous congregations which jointly fund seminaries, missionary efforts, and publications, must adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message doctrinal <a href="https://bfm.sbc.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>, which affirms that “while both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
Mike Law, a pastor at Arlington Baptist Church, plans to introduce an <a href="https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/frequently-asked-questions/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">amendment</a> to the denomination’s constitution at the upcoming meeting in New Orleans to clarify that the Southern Baptist Convention will “only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation” if the congregation does not “affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.” Law and other ministers have <a href="https://sbcamendment.org/home-2/why-now/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">documented</a> cases of several hundred female pastors who currently hold positions in Southern Baptist churches.
Law said in remarks to The Daily Wire that the most recent move from Saddleback Church to ordain a female pastor “shows the continued need for our convention to be clear and committed to our doctrine,” adding that “we can begin to meet this need by taking the first step of adopting the proposed constitutional amendment this June.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1684346363989000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Wlmr3GxX2KX14xVBkAgZU">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Controversy over the appointment of female pastors at Southern Baptist churches occurs as the denomination sees the largest single-year membership <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sbc-sees-largest-one-year-membership-decline-in-a-century-churches-leave-due-to-liberal-drift" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decline</a> in at least a century. Beyond the lockdown mandates, which accelerated broader trends toward diminished church attendance in the United States, several ministers have identified the female pastor phenomenon as evidence of the denomination’s theologically liberal drift. Bart Barber, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and other leaders have faced criticism for neglecting to rebuke the dozens of churches which have installed female pastors.
Warren himself was one of several prominent evangelical ministers to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-the-federal-government-used-evangelical-leaders-to-spread-covid-propaganda-to-churches" target="_blank" rel="noopener">endorse</a> wearing face masks as a fulfillment of Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” He also affirmed Francis Collins, the former director of the National Institutes of Health who declared himself an “ally” of the LGBTQ movement and supported human fetal tissue research, as a committed Christian and a “man you can trust.”

Rick Warren

Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church Ordains Woman To ‘Campus Pastor’ Role Amid Southern Baptist Female Minister Controversy

Rick Warren’s Church Appoints Woman To ‘Campus Pastor’ Role Amid Southern Baptist Female Minister Controversy

Christianity

Church

Evangelicals

Religion

Southern Baptists

Wokeness

The parent company of Miller Lite, which garnered social media backlash for recently publishing a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/feminism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">feminist</a> beer commercial, has advanced several <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/climate-change" target="_blank" rel="noopener">climate</a> and <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/diversity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">diversity</a> efforts in recent years.
Miller Lite partnered with female comedian Ilana Glazer for a Women’s History Month advertisement which blasted the beverage industry’s past objectification, announcing efforts to donate fertilizer so that female brewers could grow hops, the flowers used as a bittering and stability agent in beer. Enthusiasts of the beverage, many of whom were already frustrated by the partnership between self-described transgender social media influencer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/dylan-mulvaney" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dylan Mulvaney</a> and rival beer brand Bud Light, criticized the feminist advertisement online.
A spokesperson for Molson Coors, the Canadian-American firm which owns Miller Lite, said in a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/miller-lite-responds-to-backlash-over-woke-feminist-beer-commercial-appreciate-the-humor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> this week that the advertisement should not be “remotely controversial” and told customers to “appreciate the humor” of the marketing campaign.
Anheuser-Busch, the company which controls Bud Light, has been accused of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bud-lights-parent-company-engages-in-racist-hiring-practices-federal-complaint-alleges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">favoring</a> racial minorities in their hiring practices, routinely <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bud-lights-parent-company-latest-sponsor-of-dylan-mulvaney-has-a-history-of-responding-to-lgbtq-extortion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">caving</a> to the LGBTQ activist groups, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/knowles-dissects-bud-light-parent-companys-leftist-agenda-ties-to-wef-mulvaney-partnership-least-of-our-problems" target="_blank" rel="noopener">endorsing</a> the environmental, social, and corporate governance movement, also known as ESG. Molson Coors, which also owns <a href="https://www.molsoncoors.com/about" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brands</a> such as Coors Light and Blue Moon, likewise has several commitments to foster diversity and advance various social objectives.
Molson Coors vowed in its most recent annual ESG <a href="https://www.molsoncoors.com/sites/molsonco/files/Molson_Coors_ESG_AW6_V7_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> to improve “women workforce representation globally” and track the percentages of board members, senior managers, and salaried employees who are females. Molson Coors meanwhile provides employees and their dependents in Canada with “gender-affirming treatment,” an apparent reference to hormone blockers and sex change operations, as part of their healthcare coverage.
The Daily Wire asked Molson Coors how the firm defines the word “woman.” This article will be updated with any response.
With respect to racial diversity, on the other hand, Molson Coors said in the report that the firm “supports dozens of black, indigenous and people of color” organizations that are “dedicated to social justice.” The company, which likewise monitored how many “people of color” were employed across managerial levels, established a goal to spend $1 billion with “diverse suppliers” in the Americas between 2021 and 2023.
&#8220;Leading with our most important value to put people first, we continue to take steps forward on our DEI journey,” Molson Coors CEO Gavin Hattersley said in a <a href="https://www.molsoncoors.com/diversity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a> prominently featured on the company’s website. “For it is only through the unique experiences and perspectives from our people that we will drive long-term change for our company, our communities and society as a whole.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-42475">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Molson Coors also established several commitments related to climate change and the environment, striving to reduce carbon emissions by 50% in direct operations and 25% across its value chain. In its most recent publicly filed annual <a href="https://s27.q4cdn.com/826627388/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/3f8d3db5-fe73-4032-bacc-10a55c5e10a6.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, the firm stated that “climate change and other weather events may negatively affect our business and financial results.”
Skeptics of the ESG movement contend that the philosophy emphasizes political and social causes, such as decreasing carbon emissions or diversifying company leadership, in a manner that distracts from profitability. ESG funds <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/virtue-signaling-isnt-free-how-woke-investing-fell-apart-once-the-economy-got-bad" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suffered</a> amid last year’s underperformance among technology firms, which ESG investors tend to favor because of their emphasis on corporate social responsibility, and overperformance among energy companies, which ESG managers tend to disdain because of their dislike for industries with heavy carbon emissions.

Coors Light and Miller Lite

Miller Lite Parent Company Molson Coors Pushes Woke Corporate Diversity And Climate Agenda

Miller Lite Parent Company Molson Coors Has A Woke Corporate Diversity And Climate Agenda

Business

Climate Change

Diversity

Menu