Joy Reid did a side-by-side comparison of the United States and Iran, and her overall takeaway was that if American women were better off than their Iranian counterparts, they were not better off by much.
Reid, who was ousted from her regular gig with liberal network MSNBC before NBC News jettisoned the now rebranded cable news network (MS NOW), argued that the United States had secret police just like Iran and was just as oppressive when it came to how women were treated — although she listed off the &#8220;oppressive&#8221; policies impacting American women and did not mention one of the many that affect Iranian women. The only real difference, she claimed, was that American oppression came at the hands of Christians and Iran&#8217;s oppressive regime was rooted in Islam.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Joy Reid: America is a Christian form of Iran &amp; women may have be better off there <a href="https://t.co/mDAheewOPU">pic.twitter.com/mDAheewOPU</a>
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2033542969509191976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 16, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;We get told, particularly when it comes to Arabs and Muslims and Africans, that people are just diabolically evil for no reason, right? That they do things because they hate our freedoms. We were told this about Iraq, that they just hated us for no damn reason at all,&#8221; Reid said, suggesting that the narrative was invented out of whole cloth in order to justify American actions.
&#8220;Now, I’m not saying that that regime is not bad, but, by the way, our regime is not good,&#8221; Reid continued. &#8220;Our regime has secret police. They have secret police. Our regime is oppressing women, taking away abortion rights, taking away women’s rights in like 26 states — some states where they’re trying to have the death penalty for having an abortion.&#8221;
Reid acknowledged briefly that the Iranian rulers &#8220;also oppress women,&#8221; but omitted the <a href="https://iranhumanrights.org/2025/03/gender-apartheid-in-iran-is-crushing-womens-lives-and-futures/">extent of that oppression</a>. A number of the regime&#8217;s laws — and the punishment for breaking them — only apply to women.
<ul>
<li>Women must adhere to a mandatory dress code that requires covering their hair, arms, and legs in public. The regime&#8217;s so-called “morality police” — along with surveillance cameras — enforce the rule, and women who disobey could face hefty fines, prison sentences of five to 15 years, or be barred from travel. In 2022, for example, the morality police arrested Mahsa Amini for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly, and she died after they brutally beat her. Nationwide protests followed.</li>
<li>Women can be arrested or thrown in prison for social media posts showing them without their hijabs or for posting dance videos online.</li>
<li>Women must also wear a hijab when appearing in films or on television, because Iranian law requires the covering in all public media.</li>
<li>Women are not permitted to sing solos in front of mixed audiences, meaning that female performers are restricted to performing at female-only events or recorded performances.</li>
<li>Women have often been banned from attending men’s sporting events, especially soccer matches, leading to a number of women being arrested for dressing as men in order to attend such events.</li>
<li>Many women require permission from a father or male guardian to marry, regardless of their age at the time, if it is their first marriage.</li>
<li>Girls can legally be married at 13, but a younger girl can be forced to marry if her father or a judge decrees it.</li>
<li>Married women are not permitted to leave the country or obtain a passport without first getting written permission from their husbands.</li>
<li>A woman’s testimony in court is only worth half of a man’s testimony.</li>
<li>Women typically inherit less than men, meaning that daughters usually receive only half the inheritance that would be given to sons.</li>
<li>The Iranian constitution bars women from ever becoming president, and women are not permitted to become judges.</li>
<li>Married women can be legally barred from holding a job if their husbands claim that their work conflicts with their family obligations.</li>
<li>Men can file for and obtain divorces for any reason, but women risk losing inheritances and child custody — and are rarely granted divorces anyway.</li>
</ul>
Reid, clearly unbothered by that, went on to claim, &#8220;They have the highest rate of women who are in STEM careers. We’re kicking women out of the military, out of university. We’re saying that DEI means women can’t be hired for high positions in the sciences.&#8221;
While it has been claimed in viral social media posts that 70% of STEM graduates in Iran are women, data from the <a href="https://databrowser.uis.unesco.org/view#indicatorPaths=UIS-EducationOPRI%3A0%3AFOSGP.5T8.F500600700.F&amp;geoMode=countries&amp;geoUnits=IRN%2CUSA&amp;browsePath=EDUCATION%2FUIS-EducationOPRI%2Fgraduates&amp;timeMode=range&amp;view=line&amp;chartMode=single&amp;tableIndicatorId=FOSGP.5T8.F500600700.F&amp;chartHighlightSeries=&amp;chartHighlightEnabled=true&amp;chartIndicatorId=FOSGP.5T8.F500600700.F">United Nations</a> shows that 25% of Iran&#8217;s STEM graduates are female.
&#8220;So we’re marginally better,&#8221; Reid concluded. &#8220;And we’re doing it for Christianity, they’re doing it for Islam, right? So, it’s like we don’t get told those things because it would take away the kind of American exceptionalism narrative that makes it easy to take our people and send them off to die in a war that we have nothing to do with, that we don’t want.&#8221;
The Daily Wire&#8217;s Isabel Brown fired back at Reid, saying, &#8220;Forgive my Christian ignorance but when was the last time a woman was BEATEN TO DEATH BY THE MORALITY POLICE for a sliver of her hair showing in a Christian country?&#8221;

2024 ESSENCE Festival Of Culture™ Presented By Coca-Cola® – Day 3 – Ernest N. Morial Convention Center

Joy Reid Says Iranian Women Are As Free As Americans — The Brutal Reality Says Otherwise

Joy Reid Compares U.S. And Iran Side By Side, Concludes America Is Just Barely Better

Donald Trump

Iran

Joy Reid

Media

Politics

United States

Women

Women's Rights

Former Meta executive Sheryl Sandberg said the popularity of the “tradwife” lifestyle could be “detrimental to women, and further asserts that these “very, very, very, sexist” gender roles need to be revised.
Sandberg claimed that the rise of the tradwife trend has caused more harm than good. &#8220;The message that is going out is that in order to be a good wife or a good mother, you need to do it full time,&#8221; the former Meta exec <a href="https://people.com/sheryl-sandberg-the-tradwife-trend-is-not-a-fresh-idea-11922052?taid=69b0a187f9dd4700017de416&amp;utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&amp;utm_content=new&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter.com">told</a> People. &#8220;And the truth is that that is a decision almost no women can afford to make.&#8221;
&#8220;If you look at the percentages of women who need to work outside of the home to support their families, it&#8217;s the great majority of women,” Sandberg went on. “And so these messages that &#8216;this is how you have a successful marriage, that this is how you have six children,&#8217; I think, are very detrimental to women.&#8221;
The 56-year-old tech exec is best known for serving as Meta&#8217;s chief operating officer from 2008 to 2022. She is also the founder of LeanIn.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to “offering women the ongoing inspiration and support to help them achieve their goals.&#8221;
She went on to clarify, &#8220;I don&#8217;t think they are meant that way &#8230; there are so many messages that tell women what their place is that limit their ambition…and this is potentially, inadvertently, one of them.&#8221;
&#8220;If you have the resources and you want to be a tradwife, that&#8217;s great,&#8221; Sandberg told the outlet. &#8220;That&#8217;s for you to decide.&#8221;
She went on to repeat the popular leftist talking point that traditional gender roles were the real villain of the story. 
&#8220;We need to be realistic and we need to not use new ideas to reinforce what are old, outdated and very, very, very sexist notions of what roles are,&#8221; Sandberg said, adding that she thinks terms like “tradwife” make women who choose to work feel guilty.
&#8220;Let&#8217;s be clear: You are not harming your marriage and you are not harming your children by working and by being ambitious,&#8221; she insisted.
One of the most infamous examples of the tradwife trend going viral online is social media influencer Hannah Neeleman, better known by her social handle and business name, Ballerina Farm. She just made headlines again for announcing she was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/nine-kids-thats-fine-but-theres-one-thing-the-debate-is-missing">pregnant with her ninth child</a>.
Neeleman has received criticism from the Left for being “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mom-of-8-ballerina-farm-founder-defends-her-life-choices-marriage-after-scathing-expose">a hammer blow for feminism</a>,” but she’s also earned a decent number of critics on the conservative side. They argue that because her husband’s family is very wealthy, she’s not exemplifying the sacrificial life of a stay-at-home mother.

Sheryl Sandberg

Former Meta Exec Claims Tradwife Ideal Is ‘Detrimental,’ Says Women Must Be ‘Realistic’

Former Meta Exec Says Tradwife Ideal Can Be ‘Very Detrimental’ To Women

Culture

Feminism

Motherhood

At the high-profile United Nations Commission on the Status of Women this week, the United States was the only nation in the world to vote against a woke document that failed to define what a woman is and promoted gender ideology and diversity, equity, and inclusion principles, The Daily Wire can first report.
Thirty-six nations are members of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, and every single year during the commission, there is an agreed-upon document that focuses on topics affecting women around the world, including injustices.
This year&#8217;s document was a disappointment to Bethany Kozma, Director of Global Affairs (OGA) at the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the other members of President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration who had traveled to the commission in New York.
The document was filled with mentions of DEI, gender ideology, and ambiguous language about &#8220;reproductive rights,&#8221; but was bereft of language unique to womanhood, according to Kozma. &#8220;No mention of motherhood or unique female experiences,&#8221; she said, adding, &#8220;and it failed to define what a woman is.&#8221;
In short, The Daily Wire has learned, it was not aligned with the Trump administration&#8217;s policies and views on these issues. Since the president took office again in 2025, the United States has clearly defined what a woman is, banned boys from girls&#8217; spaces and sports, fought back against transgenderism in the medical world, and shut down many DEI projects in corporations and academia.
&#8220;The UN Commission on Women is supposed to be for women, yet for years, it’s been co-opted to include men pretending to be women,&#8221; she explained. &#8220;Many countries claim to support and empower women, yet some of them cannot even answer the simple question: &#8216;What is a woman?'&#8221;
&#8220;Thanks to the moral leadership of President Trump, the tide is changing and we&#8217;re standing up for women and girls,&#8221; she emphasized. &#8220;And I really was hopeful that we could come to an agreement.&#8221;
Kozma and her delegation from the United States worked hard to participate in good faith, offering amendments to the document that they knew some countries might sign onto. Natalie Dodson, senior advisor to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shared that their delegation worked aggressively to negotiate with the other countries in order to include language defending the integrity of women.
&#8220;The text was not something that the U.S. liked at all,&#8221; Kozma explained. &#8220;It would not have been something that we would have ever put out on behalf of the United States government, but we had offered several amendments that were just very common sense.&#8221;
One amendment that they had been asking for, over and over, was an amendment that essentially defined men and women so that there would be no ambiguity.
<div id="attachment_1056463" style="width: 2570px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1056463" class="size-full wp-image-1056463" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_6039-scaled.jpeg" alt="" width="2560" height="1920" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_6039-scaled.jpeg 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_6039-300x225.jpeg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_6039-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_6039-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/IMG_6039-2048x1536.jpeg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" />Members of the United States Delegation at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.</div>
The Commission on the Status of Women wasn&#8217;t interested in the American amendments, Kozma and Dodson explained to The Daily Wire. Minutes before midnight on Sunday night, the council sent the final draft to the United States without acknowledging any of the American red lines that Kozma&#8217;s team had outlined.
And when it came time to vote on the amendments, which were intended to be voted on separately, the council bundled all the amendments together. Some nations might have voted for one amendment but not another, and bundled together, the amendments failed.
During Monday&#8217;s vote, the United States was the only nation in the world to vote against the document. Six nations abstained: Côte d&#8217;Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania, and Saudi Arabia.
Kozma believes it was a deliberate attempt at &#8220;isolation&#8221; by the council to make the United States look like &#8220;we won&#8217;t don&#8217;t defend women and girls.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m really proud of us,&#8221; she told The Daily Wire over the phone. &#8220;We were the only country that was voting to protect women and girls.&#8221;

World Leaders Gather For The 80th Session Of The United Nations General Assembly

U.S. Stands Alone Defending Women In Gender Identity Fight At United Nations

Department of Health and Human Services

Social Issues

Transgender

U.S.

United Nations

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
If you were to ask legacy media or many prominent Democrats, they’d tell you that young men are getting radicalized. Yes, many young men are isolated and pessimistic about their futures. Some are falling down content rabbit holes that normalize misogyny and antisemitism. But while men are listening to provocateurs such as <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/nick-fuentes-tucker-carlson-young-men-1235462101/">Nick Fuentes</a> to cope with their low societal cachet, young women are getting radicalized too.
There’s evidence that men have actually stayed relatively stable, while women have lurched left with the widespread adoption of social media and the collapse of marriage. Most concerningly, a new <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/women-political-violence-digital-online?utm_source=Twitter&amp;utm_medium=Organic_Social">study</a> shows that it’s not incels or deadbeats living in basements who are more tolerant of political violence. It’s women.
Between their romanticization of alleged murderer Luigi Mangione and their dangerous intimidation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, many young women today are consumed by political causes. All over <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@baddienodaddiee/video/7601331198400548151?q=F%20ICE&amp;t=1771795237682">TikTok</a>, young women are <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@maceygalat/video/7593847976573914423?q=F%20ICE&amp;t=1771795237682">documenting</a> their <a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@sonsmakenaa/video/7550929450666396941?q=girl%20whimsy&amp;t=1771792022330">political rage</a> for issues that have nothing to do with their immediate family, bills, or other priorities. And for the most part, there is little tolerance for other viewpoints. Egged on by radical professors on college campuses, some women would even theoretically support the assassinations of their ideological opponents.
Asked by her professor for a hot take on Charlie Kirk’s death, a female student at Oberlin College <a href="https://x.com/Rightanglenews/status/1967959781802733885?s=20">reports</a> that she said, “We need to bring back political assassinations. Some people should be afraid to express their opinion.”
Free discourse, which inevitably allows both good and bad ideas to spread, is disliked disproportionately by women. Female students are more censorial than male students, according to a 2022 <a href="https://www.fire.org/news/2022-college-free-speech-rankings-gender-differences-censorship-attitudes">analysis</a> from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This was regardless of whether the speaker was liberal or conservative. However, female students opposed platforming conservative speakers by an especially large margin compared to male students, the study showed. Almost 60% of women said promoting an inclusive society was more important than protecting free speech, while 71% of men felt the opposite, a 2019 <a href="https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/351/original/Knight-CP-Report-FINAL.pdf">report</a> by the Knight Foundation found.
Anyone who has experienced <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/26/feminism-cancel-culture-helen-andrews/">cancel culture</a> knows it’s just another word for the policing of social mores, something that women instinctively do. But do women foster inclusion through gentle influence? Though they lack physical leverage, women today use social punishment via shaming, stigmatizing, or by leveling allegations with life-ruining potential (but discouraging due process).
According to a recent study, women in the U.S. are willing to go further to preserve what they believe to be proper norms. Conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers, the study found that under certain conditions, women were more likely than men to express support for political violence. Challenging the cultural assumption that the fairer sex opts for diplomacy over confrontation, the study shows that women would support vigilantism to spur political change or eliminate people they deem to be threats. Female respondents were approximately 21% more likely than males to express some justification for murdering New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and nearly 15% more likely to justify murdering President Donald Trump.
We know from history that women are just as capable as men of encouraging violence against ideological enemies if they’re convicted enough about the righteousness of their cause. Many <a href="https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&amp;context=universitas">notorious perpetrators</a> of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 were women. 
Psychologically speaking, women are more susceptible to <a href="https://medium.com/@ashoftime/why-young-women-moved-left-while-young-men-stayed-sane-8f445b2fce89">consensus pressure</a>. Women average higher on agreeableness and neuroticism, or sensitivity to negative emotions including social rejection cues, while men average higher on tolerance for disagreement and social conflict. Women are also more empathetic, which, combined with their inclination toward herd mentality, means they tend to lean more liberal. The rise of technology, and specifically the smartphone, has multiplied the effect. 
Now with the world at our fingertips in seconds, people are getting caught in online echo chambers that affirm their beliefs. Social media has become a negative feedback loop, especially for women. Platforms abound with women lamenting and “raising awareness” for things outside their control, drumming up upset and panic that exponentially grows as the algorithm feeds it to more women. Rinse and repeat. And though there are a plethora of content corners on the internet, women are getting stuck in collective outcry, which is being rewarded by companies and institutions that take them seriously. A lot of content serves to egg on women to take out their cameras and either capture or become the next viral moment, too.
Renee Good was fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis after antagonizing him and then accelerating her car toward him as her partner filmed it. In response, many women posted incitements to violence against agents online. While we should have a debate about ICE training, many female TikTokers seemed shocked to learn that lethal force could be used if they interfere with an active federal law enforcement operation. But social media has made them believe that this is all a <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/18/affluent-white-female-liberals-are-living-in-a-made-up-world/">game</a>. They think they can obstruct armed officers for the thrill of fighting &#8220;oppression,&#8221; then press pause when they’ve decided they’re done playing. But it doesn’t work that way. Real life has real consequences.
A large part of the female influencing world insists to impressionable screen-addicted women that every political issue demands a DEFCON 1 reaction. They are convinced that everyone else should be just as worked up as they are, even at the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2026/01/14/angry-young-women-vanguard-of-lefts-toxic-empathy/">expense of their families</a>. I’ve seen firsthand how apolitical creators who’d rather mind their own business are scolded in the comments for not making political statements, almost always on progressive issues. It is healthy to be detached from things that don’t affect your home or your zip code. That attitude was typical of most Americans before the social media age.
The NCRI data indicate that doomscrolling on social media is sowing revolutionary thinking in young women, contradicting the prevailing narrative that mainly young men are being primed online to legitimize political violence. To be sure, men are statistically more likely to be <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291">physically aggressive</a> and get arrested for <a href="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-42">violent crimes</a> at higher rates. They’ve faced great societal headwinds too — from a romantic recession to dropping college enrollment — that you’d think would make them ready to rage. And yet, the study suggests that women have reconciled the possibility of domestic terrorism with a law-abiding civil society, irrespective of political affiliation, more than men have. They’re getting hooked on online narratives that glamorize political violence as heroism rather than what it really is: fundamentally incompatible with a functioning republic.
***
Caroline Downey is a columnist and video personality at National Review. She is also a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum and a 2025-2026 Novak fellow with the Fund for American Studies.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Luigi Mangione supporters pack NYC court for murder hearing

Who’s Really Embracing Political Violence

Political Violence

Upstream

The Iranian women’s national soccer team made a statement Monday night as they stood silently during the playing of their country’s national anthem.
Their silence spoke volumes ahead of the opening match of the Women’s Asian Cup in Queensland, Australia. None of the women sang as the song was played, choosing instead to look ahead with serious expressions. The crowd applauded at the conclusion of the song, and the team manager, Marziyeh Jafari, was spotted smiling on the sidelines. 
She was later approached by reporters but had no comment, The Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/03/iran-women-football-team-decline-to-sing-national-anthem-before-asian-cup-tie">reported</a>.
The team lost its game against South Korea 3-0, the outlet noted. This was their first game since air strikes began in the Middle East, killing the nation’s longtime Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“Our heart goes out to them and their families. It’s a difficult situation, and it’s really brave of them to be able to be here and to perform,” Australian player Amy Sayer said. “They put on a really strong performance, even with the political climate that’s going on and the struggles that they might be going through.”
President Trump has estimated that Operation Epic Fury could last four to five weeks, but has said it could continue longer to permanently eliminate Iran’s capacity to have a nuclear weapon. America’s intervention has had mixed reactions at home, but was celebrated in the streets of Iran after it was announced that Khamenei had been killed.
Many reactions to the women’s soccer team refusing to sing the anthem focused on how poorly the regime treated women of their nation, <a href="https://x.com/SamanthaTaghoy/status/2028624631922393332">noting</a> that their silent protest was what “real feminism” looked like.
“A defying silence… the Iranian women’s football national team REFUSED to sing the anthem of the Islamic regime. Side note: By the time their next game comes up, they probably don’t even have to wear those hijabs anymore,” one commenter <a href="https://x.com/Tarikh_Eran/status/2028539904230060340">wrote</a>.
“These brave women risk a lot with this display,” another person <a href="https://x.com/13jeep24Bob/status/2028822151395000355">chimed in</a>. “After having been treated worse than dirt for years by their country, thanks to President Trump, they may have a chance at a much better future. Meanwhile ‘freedom loving’ severe left wing women &amp; men in our country cheer for the oppressive Iranian regime who has murdered 10’s of thousands of their fellow countryman. What is wrong with this picture?”

Iran soccer team

Iranian Women’s Soccer Team Stands Silent During National Anthem

Iranian Women's Soccer Team Stands Silently During Islamic State's National Anthem

Australia

Operation Epic Fury

Sports

Women's Soccer

World

Today’s young adults, on average, now spend more than a decade navigating the ambiguous space between sexual maturity and marriage. What was once a short transitional chapter has now become an extended, and often confusing act in a person’s life.
William Shakespeare captured the drama of human development in these famous lines from “As You Like It,” penned around 1599:
<blockquote>All the world&#8217;s a stage, 
And all the men and women merely players; 
They have their exits and their entrances; 
And one man in his time plays many parts…</blockquote>
Centuries later, the theme still resonates: We all progress through life from infancy and childhood to adulthood and, if we&#8217;re lucky, old age.
But one act of that lifelong drama — what Shakespeare called the season of the “lover” — has grown significantly longer. A majority of young people today now date for over a decade before saying, “I do.”
For most of history, “sexual debut” (or losing one’s virginity) and marriage were either concurrent or chronologically very close. In the 1950s, the <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/marital.html">window between these events</a> was just a few short years for the average American.
Not so today. Sexual debut occurs, on average, at <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg-2022-2023-puf.htm#female">17.4 years for women and 17.6 years for men</a>, statistics that have held relatively steady over time. But the average age for first marriage is now much later: <a href="https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/families-and-living-arrangements.html?utm_campaign=20251202pio&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery">28.4 years for women and 30.8 years for men</a>.
Often billed as a fun season of life, the pre-marriage single years today are marked by loneliness, confusion, and poor mental health. 
Shakespeare had it right when he described the lover:
<blockquote>Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad 
Made to his mistress&#8217; eyebrow.</blockquote>
Young adults today are indeed woeful.
Gen Z has struggled with <a href="https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/generation-z-and-the-transformation-of-american-adolescence-how-gen-zs-formative-experiences-shape-its-politics-priorities-and-future/">feelings of loneliness</a> more than any other generation: their <a href="https://glocalities.com/reports/trend-report-polarization">despair and disillusionment</a> are growing.
At least some of this disillusionment may find its root in a confusing dating culture. To extend Shakespeare’s metaphor, one might say that we have lost the script for life. Just a few decades ago, young people knew they were expected to look for a spouse, marry, and then start a family and build a future together. Now that’s not so clear.
So, what can be done? Do we write a new script? Dig up the old one?
In an age where freedom and self-determination are highly valued, any script may seem overly prescriptive. Of course, men and women should be free to make their own choices. No two love stories are the same. And there will always be some people who choose intentional lifelong singlehood. But the absence of norms and expectations appears to create its own problems.
The overwhelming majority of today’s young adults still want to get married and have kids. In a new <a href="https://www.independentwomen.com/2026/02/17/two-truths-and-a-lie-dating/">national poll</a>, fully 80.5% of respondents (aged 18-29) were either married (18.5%) or said they hoped to get married one day (62%), and 70% said they either had kids already (24.5%) or hoped to have them (45.4%). Will they achieve these dreams?
We may not be able to replace the old script for family formation, but we can help the young adults — the lovers — who are stuck on stage, calling for a line. Changing our culture is hard, but possible.
For starters, we can be more honest about what choices and behaviors make people happiest.
More time spent single before marriage means more opportunity to gain pre-marriage sexual experience, but this isn’t a good thing. Our culture tells young adults that pornography, casual sex, and cohabitation are no big deal. Social science, however, suggests otherwise. These choices are associated with <a href="https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&amp;context=dignity">worse health</a>, <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7871523/">worse mental health</a>, and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19203165/">lower marriage satisfaction</a>. Sexual inexperience is actually linked to <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/does-sexual-history-affect-marital-happiness">stronger, happier marriages</a>.
Pornography poses particular problems for Gen Z. We’re not talking about your dad’s Playboy magazine anymore; we’re talking about a lethal cocktail of social media, artificial intelligence, and ubiquitous internet connection. And it’s not just the guys: Young women are increasingly reading and listening to erotic literature.
A solo sex life is a cheap but easy replacement for relationships with real-life human beings. After all, fellow humans come with smelly socks, emotional baggage, and for many in Gen Z, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/young-men-women-are-taking-poll-gender-gap-staggering-new-levels-rcna202672">divergent political views</a>.
The widening political divide between young women and men both reflects — and reinforces — today’s strained dating culture. Time spent online only <a href="https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/NYUCBHRFuelingTheFire_FINALONLINEREVISEDSep7.pdf">deepens political animosity</a>.
And yet, young, single people are <a href="https://pro.morningconsult.com/instant-intel/gen-z-social-media-usage">very online</a>, sometimes using the internet to look for love. Technology has made connections easier, but relationships harder. Many married couples <a href="https://www.theknot.com/content/online-dating-most-popular-way-to-meet-spouse">first met on dating apps</a>. But online dating offers a literal world of possibilities when it comes to potential “matches.” Youth of yesteryear were often constrained to high school sweethearts or college coed counterparts. This “<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/valley-girl-brain/201802/why-dating-is-such-challenge">paradox of choice</a>” that overwhelms today’s dating men and women also undermines their satisfaction even after they commit to one another.
The influence of technology on relationships goes even deeper: Young people today are spending a lot of time on <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11284647/">social media</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/03/upshot/video-games-boys-young-men.html">video games</a>, and less time on <a href="https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/how-social-media-made-us-less-social/">in-person social interactions</a>, where real-life relationship skills develop. The COVID pandemic accelerated this trend, but it was <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8478850/#cdev13652-sec-0036">underway before</a> (and <a href="https://www.edweek.org/leadership/kids-screen-time-rose-during-the-pandemic-and-stayed-high-thats-a-problem/2023/02">continues after</a>).
Underdeveloped social skills are likely contributing to &#8220;approach anxiety” in today’s young men, who say they <a href="https://gmwpublic.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/4726/1/BSC-ThesisS4637917Approach-anxietyFinal-B.pdf">don’t want to come off as “creepy</a>” when asking a girl out in real life. The #MeToo movement has also played a factor. While the effort to raise awareness about sexual misconduct has had some positive effects, <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/me-too-backlash-getting-worse_n_5cddd96de4b00e035b8ce786">it chilled many male-female interactions</a>.
Most (54.3%) young adults agree that #MeToo has made men fearful of false accusations and, therefore, less interested in dating. Gen Z still expects the man to make the first move, but mixed messages on masculinity are contributing to men’s anxiety in approaching women.
Many young people of both sexes are anxious about parenthood. Among young adults who say they don’t want kids, the most commonly-cited reason is, “I don’t think I’ll be a good parent,” outranking cost, career impact, and societal concerns. In the 18-24 age range, nearly one in three (32.3%) respondents who didn’t want kids cited this as their primary reason.
This points to something cultural — not economic or policy-oriented — about parenthood hesitancy. Perhaps our social expectations of parents have gotten unrealistically high. Perhaps our cultural messages on what makes a “good parent” or even a “good life” have become less clear.
Whatever it is that has deteriorated the confidence of young adults, it won’t be easily fixed by a new government program or subsidy. More and more pundits and institutions are <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/4424068/heritage-foundation-right-american-family-needs-saving/">joining the bandwagon for a big-government pro-family agenda,</a> but this is ill-advised. Decisions about family formation aren’t like other consumer decisions that are more easily influenced by government intervention. They relate deeply to our conceptions of identity, morality, and meaning. They can totally change the direction of our life’s story.
“All the world’s a stage” comes from the play “As You Like It” and like most Shakespearean comedies, the final scene is — you guessed it — a wedding. Young adults today can still find their happy ending, too. But they would benefit from a culture that puts less emphasis on shallow, short-term satisfaction and more emphasis on becoming people who can build a future.
* * *
Hadley Heath Manning is a senior fellow with Independent Women and author of the new report “The Dating Decade: Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Swiping Right.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Making a grand entrance into marriage

A Decade Between First Date And ‘I Do’ — What Changed?

A Decade Between First Date And 'I Do' — What Changed?

Apps

Dating

Gen Z

Marriage

Relationships

Shakespeare

Social Media

Welcome to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Pro-abortion advocates speak often about women’s health and “rights.” At the darkest moment of my life, however, they offered me nothing more than a pill and the lie that my impending abortion would be “just like having a period.” Years later, after grieving my lost child and overcoming the trauma of abortion, I am appalled that activists market abortion drugs as “<a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-safe-is-the-abortion-pill" target="_blank" rel="noopener">safe</a>,” and “<a href="https://www.reproductiveaccess.org/2022/03/safe-effective-empowering-self-managed-abortion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">empowering</a>.” I am also shocked that these drugs are available via mail order, which leaves women to suffer alone or to experience forced abortions at the hands of abusers.
My experience with abortion drugs opened my eyes to the fact that they endanger women’s health, safety, and happiness. Truly empowering women means ensuring that they are fully informed before they decide about something that could negatively change their lives.
In 2018, I discovered I was unexpectedly pregnant. I already had a son and was not yet married to my then-boyfriend, Lane. Lane thought abortion was our only option. Fearing I could lose the first good relationship I’d been in, I decided to pursue abortion to appease him. Lane and I ventured to Planned Parenthood, where we rejected the offer to see our baby on the ultrasound screen.
The nurse seemed to realize my discomfort and suggested that I take a few weeks to think through the decision since I was still so early in my pregnancy. Secretly hoping Lane would change his mind, I agreed to take the time. Yet after two weeks passed, Lane was still sure abortion was our only choice.
Leading up to the abortion, I was terrified. I shook uncontrollably and had an awful feeling about what it entailed. When we arrived at Planned Parenthood, staff told me that I could take the chemical abortion pill, that it would just be like a heavy period, and that everything would be fine. They did not warn me about any long-term physical or emotional effects.
I should have listened to my gut — especially after hearing the grief of the couple in the hospital room next to Lane and me, where another young woman sobbed while her partner told her it was the only choice they had. My heart breaks for her to this day.
When the doctor arrived to check in on Lane and me, I asked him again if he was sure this was what we wanted to do. Rather than seeing that I was feeling pressured into this major decision, the doctor expressed annoyance while telling me to take it or leave it.
I took it.
Afterward, I went to the pharmacy to pick up the next set of pills. I’ll never forget the pharmacist’s face — his unmistakably sad expression and our mutual knowledge that he could not interfere with what I was about to do.
When I got home, I became drowsy and kept waking up to intense and extremely painful cramps. Because I’d had a baby before, I realized with shock that my body was not just having a “normal period,” but that the pills I’d naively swallowed were preparing my body for labor. After intense pain and bleeding, I ran to the bathroom. I felt something pass. There, in the toilet, was my baby.
I was in a state of shock. Nobody had prepared me for any of this. I didn’t know what to do, so I simply cleaned myself up and got back in bed. The next week, shock turned to extreme grief. The next month, I felt guilt. Then followed years of mingled guilt, grief, and suffering. At times, I felt like I had genuinely lost my mind — an emotional reaction I have since learned was due to my abortion. In all that time, Planned Parenthood never once reached out to check on me and Lane.
Lane and I slowly picked up the pieces of our relationship and lives and tried to heal. We both struggled to forgive ourselves. Through God’s grace and forgiveness, however, we were more vulnerable with each other and began rediscovering our faith. Through prayer and communication, Lane and I slowly learned that what we thought would be forever was just a temporary suffering that opened our eyes to the horrors of abortion drugs.
Today, we hope to turn the tragedy of our story into hope for others who might be struggling. To those who may find themselves in our shoes, I encourage you to trust your gut and to make sure you are fully informed before agreeing to a permanent decision that could leave you with painful scars while robbing you of your unborn child. I urge any woman to look at the ultrasound before making a permanent decision. We wish with our whole hearts that we would have.
I hope you also know that you don’t have to grieve or undergo this suffering alone. Across the country, a network of nearly 3,000 pregnancy resource centers strives daily to meet the material, financial, emotional, and even professional or educational needs of women and children in need. These organizations provide <a id="m_-1227438176112384738m_1183941747262835175OWA096ace12-89ba-23df-8f05-764a436af953" href="https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/A-Legacy-of-Life-Love-2025-Rising-to-the-Occasion-with-Unwavering-Care.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/A-Legacy-of-Life-Love-2025-Rising-to-the-Occasion-with-Unwavering-Care.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771510971851000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0dQPvCJRrwHiKq9PG7Nkjk">hundreds of millions of dollars&#8217;</a> worth of lifesaving support that offers women alternatives to abortions they do not need and <a id="m_-1227438176112384738m_1183941747262835175OWAc08e866a-5733-03dd-3f32-95cc4af1a55a" href="https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://lozierinstitute.org/hidden-epidemic-nearly-70-of-abortions-are-coerced-unwanted-or-inconsistent-with-womens-preferences/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1771510971851000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3SA5iv4OiArGttgO1_7gdq">often do not want</a>.
Not only that, but they exist to offer hope and healing to women who have experienced abortion, like me. And unlike those pushing abortion drugs without informed consent, these wonderful people will do everything they can to make you feel known, supported, and loved.
***
McKenzie Kaupa-Thiesse is a wife, mother, and fighter for the unborn.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Ultrasound of a pregnant woman and pills medication

They Said Abortion Was The Only Option — Here’s What They Left Out

Abortion

Abortion Drug

Pregnancy

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Perhaps the most common feature of the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/14/politics/maha-birth-control-politics-of-the-pill">flurry</a> <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/public-health/population-health/what-doctors-wish-patients-knew-about-birth-control">of</a> <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/10/27/nx-s1-5535839/population-shift-birth-rate-misinformation">articles</a> <a href="https://www.kff.org/health-information-trust/misleading-narratives-and-social-media-shape-contraception-perceptions/">about</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623004380">young</a> <a href="https://msmagazine.com/2025/12/17/young-women-teen-girls-gen-z-birth-control-beliefs-democrat-republican-tiktok-misinformation-contraception/">women</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/17/birth-control-why-are-influencers-turning-away-from-the-pill-and-towards-natural-contraceptive-methods">rejecting</a> <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/10/09/health/ob-gyn-reveals-troubling-trend-shes-seeing-with-gen-z-women/">hormonal</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/02/style/birth-control-skepticism-wellness-tiktok.html">birth</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/21/stopping-birth-control-misinformation/">control</a> is the claim that their concerns are fueled by “misinformation” or based on “unfounded theories.” I’m a younger millennial. I’ve never used hormonal birth control, and I don’t plan to. But what these writers and doctors fail to grasp is how fed up women are of being told their pain is normal and prescribed a pill at 13, only to be told they have “unexplained infertility” and need IVF at 30.
It doesn’t take a medical degree to hypothesize that women’s healthcare has gone terribly wrong. It is almost entirely structured around either suppressing or bypassing the female reproductive system altogether. When journalists and doctors claim women like me are misinformed, they reject an opportunity to help make women healthier. 
For 60 years now, the standard of care for women in the United States has been a protocol that seeks not to understand and work with the female body, but to inhibit and short-circuit it. It’s no surprise that the women who watched their mothers and grandmothers unquestioningly swallow the pill and continue to suffer are now demanding a better way.
The increased rejection of hormonal birth control also comes amid a tectonic shift in medical treatment for minors.  Several major medical associations recently issued <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pediatricians-group-says-research-doesnt-support-gender-affirming-treatments">statements</a> against pediatric gender transition in the wake of the Fox Varin lawsuit, which held medical providers responsible for performing a double mastectomy on a minor. Sex-rejection treatments and surgeries involve medicating children with puberty blockers and hormone therapies, among other things. And yet many adolescent girls, some as young as 11, are prescribed hormone therapy in the form of the hormonal birth control pill or an IUD, despite their long-term effects being largely unknown.
Of sexually active 15 to 19-year-olds, almost half are prescribed some form of hormonal birth control. This, despite the fact that there are no large randomized controlled trials on the effects of synthetic hormones during girls’ pubescent years. Some research on this cohort has shown <a href="https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/120/5/1135/71113/Contraception-and-Adolescents?utm">reductions</a> in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782408002801?utm_source">bone mass</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40097087/">density</a>, which is itself concerning. But little exists on long-term effects to adolescent brain or cardiovascular health, both of which actively require sex hormones for development. Animal studies <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40188588/">show</a> that exposure to hormonal contraceptives during adolescence has persistent effects on the female brain and behavior, though it’s unclear how this translates to humans.
Your response to women rejecting hormonal birth control will almost certainly depend upon your answer to one question: What is medicine? The same ideology that undergirds the transgender movement forms the foundation of women’s health, too: “My body, my choice.” But making your body in your own self-image is not medicine. It’s choice theory applied to the human body. And the philosophy of choice will always be insufficient because it inherently rejects the bounds of reality.
What if women’s health was actually about making women healthy instead of maximizing choice? The solution to America’s health problem is the same as the solution to transgender ideology: Respect reality, recognize that our bodies bound us and we can’t make ourselves into whatever we choose to be, and accept that women’s bodies are different from men’s. That’s not only okay but also good. Women’s bodies were made to bear children; blaming the patriarchy or <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-pursuit-of-equality-is-ruining-your-marriage">raging about the system</a> will not change that fact. Let medicine be about restoring the body’s natural function, not trying to change it. When we become unfocused on what the practice of medicine is in principle, people get hurt, even when medical professionals have the best intentions.
As a woman who has been on the receiving end of so-called “women’s healthcare,” it seems as though there is little will to understand the potentially negative effects of hormonal birth control, or the positive effects of working with rather than against the female body’s natural function. After all, birth control is convenient and perhaps even something of a sacrament to the feminized, sexually evolved West.
“Women have been taking the pill for decades,” I was told by a pushy doctor at an Ivy League research hospital, who wouldn’t let me leave his exam room without a prescription for the minipill for the extreme cramps I was having in my early 20s. When I asked for a hormone panel to help diagnose a potentially underlying health condition, fearful I’d be unable to conceive later in life, he said, perhaps revealing more about himself than intended, that a hormone panel wouldn’t tell him anything.
But not all women’s health practitioners are so unimaginative. Dr. Naomi Whittaker is a board-certified OBGYN and surgeon focused on women&#8217;s restorative reproductive medicine. She’s also the founder of <a href="https://www.rrmacademy.org/">RRM Academy</a>, which employs both conventional medicine and the latest in restorative reproductive techniques. “Working with the female body rather than against it is the cornerstone of what I do,” she said. “I see hormones not as a nuisance to suppress, but as a language the body uses to communicate.” She calls restoring the body’s natural function “the spirit of restorative reproductive medicine.”
Even still, the establishment offers these doctors no help. Medical associations and education do not teach the kind of medicine Dr. Whittaker practices, and they are deeply skeptical of it. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have <a href="https://www.asrm.org/globalassets/_asrm/advocacy-and-policy/advocacy-activities/2025/2025-08-13-joint_letter_opposing_rrm_081425.pdf">issued statements</a> and <a href="https://www.asrm.org/news-and-events/asrm-news/press-releasesbulletins/asrm-hosts-capitol-hill-briefing-for-policymakers--congressional-staff-to-hear-from-providers--patients-about-importance-of-ivf-access-realities-and-limitations-of-restorative-reproductive-medicine/">held congressional briefings</a> against restorative reproductive medicine. After all, it is a competitor to the medical status quo at a time when the government has expressed more interest in women’s health and fertility. It seems as though the medical establishment is vying for a cut of a much-hoped-for government check.
Regardless, women continue rejecting the status quo. And this rejection comes amid an explosion of so-called “fem-tech” companies marketing devices (usually wearables, such as rings or watches) to assist women in either avoiding or achieving pregnancy naturally.
These devices use sensors to track temperature, sleep, and heart rate, among other things, to pinpoint ovulation or even underlying health conditions. Natural Cycles, which uses an AI algorithm adjusted to each individual user, became the first app to be cleared by the Food and Drug Administration as birth control in 2018. And Oura, whose sensor-laden rings have become something of a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/09/oura-ring-lobbying-rfk-maha-washington-00770320?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nname=playbook&amp;nrid=b076877d-0054-4fa6-8bd9-93aa06bde864">status symbol</a> in Washington, is aiming higher than transforming women’s healthcare: It is purporting to change the face of American healthcare altogether.
Wearables such as the Oura ring are not only designed for tracking menstrual cycles, though they can do that. They are also designed to help wearers know more about their bodies (sleep quality and blood oxygen, activity, or stress levels, for example) and to help alert them to potential illness. Only a few months ago, an older-style wearable — the Fitbit — alerted me that my heart was in arrhythmia and told me to go to the emergency room. At 31, I am not the usual candidate for atrial fibrillation, and the ER doctor assumed the device had been faulty. After performing an EKG, he was amazed to find the watch had been right. Untreated heart arrhythmias are the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in the world.
American medicine has long suffered from being reactive rather than proactive. We treat symptoms and diseases rather than teaching people how to avoid them. After all, symptom and disease management is where all the money is, and healthcare, like all businesses, needs money to survive. But wearables may be a sign that’s changing. After all, Oura’s market valuation of $11 billion dollars is more than four times greater than it was just three years ago. 
As women continue rejecting the pill, those beholden to the medical status quo will probably continue blaming women for falling prey to misinformation. That’s a lazy response. They’d do well to look a little closer: Women may be the early adopters of a new age of American medicine, rejecting pills and their unintended side effects in favor of preventative and restorative approaches, with wearables at the helm. American women seem to be ahead of the curve in heralding a return to true medicine. The only question is: Will the medical establishment get on board?
***
Katelyn Walls Shelton (<a href="https://x.com/AnnaKateShelt">@AnnaKateShelt</a>) is a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Bioethics, Technology, and Human Flourishing Program and a 2025 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow. Her Substack is <a href="https://katelynshelton.substack.com/">Technically Human</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Birth Control Pills, Female Contraception Estrogen Hormones, Prescription Medicine for PMS

The Pill Revolt — Why Millennial Women Like Me Are Rethinking Hormonal Birth Control

Birth Control

Health

Media Bias

Technology

For many people, Saint Valentine’s Day is a time for beautiful flowers, fancy dinners, and sentimental cards. But its origin tells a tougher story. St. Valentine is remembered not for romance alone, but for risking his life to solemnize marriages at a time when commitment was discouraged. Valentine’s Day was never meant to be only about feelings. It was meant to be about choosing responsibility.
That message is especially relevant for men today – single, married, childless, or empty nesters.
If you are a single man and not dating anyone, the advice is simple and uncomfortable: be brave and ask a woman out in real life (“IRL”), not through an app. Courage is not optional. It is a skill and character trait, and like any other skill or habit, it improves with practice. Real men do hard things not because success is guaranteed, but because avoidance slowly erodes confidence.
Despite the dominance of dating apps, most marriages began face-to-face. Data show that most couples meet through friends, work, school, religious communities, or social settings. Apps promise efficiency, but they often deliver paralysis. The illusion of infinite choice makes commitment feel premature and rejection feel catastrophic.
Asking someone out in person clarifies things quickly. You get a real answer. You gain real confidence. Even a “no” strengthens you. Bravery practiced in dating carries over into every other domain of life such as work, leadership, and family. Men who avoid small risks rarely rise to meet large ones.
If you have been dating for a while, Valentine’s Day is a moment for honesty. Indefinite dating is not neutral, nor is it kind. It is a decision that disproportionately affects women, and stringing someone along in the name of flexibility is neither kind nor mature.
Many American couples date for a few years before engagement and marry within a year or so after that. While there will always be exceptions, the norm points in one direction: clarity. If you see a future, say so. If you do not, say that too. Ambiguity disguised as thoughtfulness is still avoidance.
Marriage, done seriously, is not a trap. It is an accelerator. St. Valentine knew that the first command in scripture is for men to be “fruitful and multiply.” That must have inspired his work to one degree or another. We shouldn’t be surprised it’s good for us to follow God’s commands.
And if you don’t believe the Bible or St. Valentine, at least consider the data.
For married men, the <a href="https://aibm.org/commentary/why-marriage-is-good-for-men/#:~:text=Married%20men%20are%20richer%20men&amp;text=That%20sounds%20like%20exactly%20the,similarly%20credentialed%20but%20unmarried%20peers.">evidence</a> is striking. Married men earn more over their lifetimes than their unmarried peers, even after controlling for education and background. They also live longer and report better health outcomes. Marriage tends to push men toward steadier work, better habits, and longer time horizons. In short, it civilizes us.
Happiness data tell the same story. Across decades of survey research, married men with children are significantly more likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than single men (35% vs. 14%, according to <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-is-happiest-married-mothers-and-fathers-per-the-latest-general-social-survey">research</a> by the Institute for Family Studies). This advantage persists across income levels, racial groups, and age cohorts. Marriage is one of the strongest predictors of long-term well-being available in the data.
That does not mean marriage is easy. It means it is formative.
In a modern working world, it is increasingly difficult to see the lasting results of your labor. Projects end. Companies change. Metrics reset. Even success feels temporary.
Family is different. In raising children, effort produces visible, enduring outcomes. You can watch values take root. You can see growth unfold year by year.
Men with children often discover that legacy is not an abstract idea. It sits across the dinner table. Passing on what you believe — discipline, faith, responsibility, restraint — requires proximity and patience. It also requires sacrifice. That is not a bug of family life; it is the feature that shapes men into something sturdier.
So, married men with kids, are you passing this wisdom on to your children? Not many are. According to a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/01/24/parenting-in-america-today/">Pew Research Center</a> poll, nearly 90% say it’s extremely or very important for their kids to have financial independence and jobs they enjoy, while only 20% say it’s extremely or very important to get married and have kids. Use this holiday to teach, even if your kids have left the nest.
This brings us back to St. Valentine.
According to early Christian tradition, Valentine secretly officiated marriages in defiance of imperial orders because he believed commitment strengthened society and formed men. His resistance was not sentimental. It was purposeful. He treated marriage as a moral institution that oriented men toward duty, continuity, and love grounded in action.
Valentine’s Day was never meant to celebrate perpetual adolescence or provide an excuse for a nice date.
So this year, men, take inventory. If you are single, work toward being marriageable: able to earn income, willing to put others ahead of yourself, and ready to lead through sacrifice. If you are marriageable, go on a date — one you initiate, in real life. If you are dating, get serious about marriage. Make a decision. If you are married, move toward children and invest deliberately in the next generation.
Valentine’s Day does not ask for grand gestures. It asks for forward movement.
Love that lasts is not accidental. It is chosen. Repeatedly. Bravely.
That was St. Valentine’s wager. It remains a good one.
* * *
Derrick Morgan is executive vice president of The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Medium shot man kissing girlfriend on cheek in taxi filled with flowers

The Part Of Valentine’s Day No One Talks About

Heritage Foundation

Valentine's Day

When the Food and Drug Administration announced that the agency would be removing the black-box warning from hormone replacement therapy, or HRT, women everywhere threw their hands up in celebration.
And rightly so. America’s health agencies are finally acknowledging that women are not simply “little men,” and that research and clinical care must account for a woman’s unique biology and hormonal fluctuations across every stage of life.
But amid the cheering, some important nuance is being overlooked. The FDA’s decision to remove the black-box warning from HRT is just one example of how recommendations offered without adequate context or distinction may do more harm than good.
The idea that estrogen supplementation is a cure-all for the symptoms women commonly experience during perimenopause and menopause — hot flashes, disrupted sleep, fatigue, muscle aches, inflammation, weight gain, bloating, and mood swings — is a myth.
Often, women are not suffering from a lack of estrogen, but from what <a href="https://www.healthygutgirl.com/">Kitty Martone</a>, a holistic health educator who works with women to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/1426024567689906">navigate perimenopause and menopause</a>, refers to as <a href="https://www.amenclinics.com/blog/what-is-estrogen-dominance/">estrogen dominance</a> — a state in which estrogen outweighs progesterone, producing symptoms that look identical to low estrogen.
Estrogen does not act in isolation, but the details are rarely explained to women. To be tolerated well, estrogen must be balanced by adequate progesterone and supported by a healthy metabolic rate. For many women, progesterone is the first hormone to decline — often years before estrogen meaningfully drops — due to chronic stress, under-eating, thyroid suppression, and blood sugar instability.
This creates a common paradox: estrogen may appear “normal,” or even low, on a lab test, yet functionally feel excessive in the body because there is not enough progesterone to counterbalance its effects. Women are then told they are estrogen-deficient and prescribed more estrogen, while symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, migraines, heavy or irregular bleeding, bloating, and inflammation intensify rather than improve.
In these cases, simply prescribing more estrogen does not resolve symptoms. In fact, it can make them worse.
These mechanisms were not understood properly during the Women’s Health Initiative study, which was abruptly halted in the early 2000s upon a suggested correlation between HRT and breast cancer as well as heart disease. In an effort to recover from the fallout of the highly <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10758198/">flawed study</a>, which caused millions of women to abandon hormone therapy altogether, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction.
Cue the pharmaceutical ads: dancing women in sunflower meadows, singing about how wonderful life is with the latest HRT option. The fine print instructs women to “ask your doctor if it’s right for you,” but many doctors may not be properly equipped to offer nuanced guidance.
Over the past few decades, medical visits have been reduced to 15–20 minute symptom reviews that are translated into billing codes entered into a computer. While this system serves insurance and data collection, it fails to treat women as whole individuals. It leaves little room to explore how diet, stress, thyroid function, gut health, or metabolic status influence hormonal symptoms — particularly in perimenopausal women.
Martone argues that this system has created an environment where estrogen is prescribed casually, without sufficient context. “Doctors now essentially have carte blanche to prescribe estrogen for any hormone complaint — without evaluating detox pathways, metabolism, liver function, or estrogen clearance.”
Some clinicians have been cautioning against this oversimplification for decades. <a href="https://raypeat.com/">Dr. Ray Peat</a>, who studied hormones, metabolism, and stress physiology extensively, <a href="https://raypeat.com/articles/aging/aging-estrogen-progesterone.shtml">wrote about</a> how estrogen tends to accumulate under conditions of chronic stress and low thyroid function, while progesterone plays a stabilizing, protective role for both the nervous system and bodily tissues.
In plain terms, how a woman feels on hormones can have less to do with hormone levels and more to do with improper functioning of the liver, metabolism, and stress load at the time therapy is introduced. Two women can take the same prescription and have completely different outcomes — not because one is “doing it wrong,” but because their internal terrain is different.
This helps explain why so many women feel dismissed when HRT is presented as a simple solution. When symptoms worsen, they are often told to increase the dose or switch brands, rather than step back and ask whether the body is prepared to handle additional estrogen.
Martone emphasizes that women often need to experiment with hormones to discover individualized therapies that are right for them. Even low doses may require careful adjustment, alternative delivery methods, and significant trial and error — an experience that can be costly, frustrating, and far from straightforward.
Meanwhile, big pharmaceutical companies are circling middle-aged women like sharks around blood. With the FDA’s decision, they’ve gained an expanded customer base — one encouraged to start hormone therapy earlier and remain on it for decades.
The truth is no one — not even a doctor — can predict exactly how a woman will respond to HRT. Hormones are powerful biological signals, not cosmetic fixes. Their effects depend heavily on the body’s metabolic health, stress physiology, and ability to process and clear them.
The renewed interest in hormone therapy reflects a real and valid desire for relief for women. But before removing warning labels and declaring HRT a universal solution, it’s worth asking why those cautions existed in the first place.
Hormone replacement therapy is not a magic bullet. Women deserve care that honors complexity, not just convenience.
* * *
Jennifer Galardi is a Senior Policy Analyst for Restoring American Wellness in Heritage’s DeVos Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Nurse talks with female patient about prescription medication

What The FDA Doesn’t Tell Women About Hormone Replacement Therapy

Big Pharma

Doctors

Health Care

Pharmaceuticals

Conservatives are used to being called names: racist, sexist, transphobic, and the list goes on. Typically, these charges are rooted in policy differences: If you oppose DEI and racial quotas, the Left will call you racist. If you oppose men competing in women’s sports, you’re a transphobe. These labels are weapons used to advance political narratives, and typically deserve the same attention as an unhinged, all-caps comment in your X feed. They should be ignored.
Yet when it comes to sexism, conservatives should consider how their messaging makes the sexist charge stick with women who otherwise might join our movement. Conservative leaders aren’t misogynists, but particularly when speaking to and about women, they are sometimes tone deaf.
Take the issue of marriage and family life. For good reason, conservatives frequently trumpet evidence showing the benefits of marriage and family formation. Children raised by married parents enjoy a long list of benefits. Married women and men are less likely to live in poverty, have better health outcomes, and report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction than their single counterparts. This is important information for the public to have.
Yet efforts to raise awareness about the benefits of marriage and family formation frequently come across as denigrating childless or unmarried women. Conservatives may think they are countering nihilistic TikTok influencers and gender studies professors who seem driven to convince impressionable young women that marriage and children are the enemies of good mental health, while an OnlyFans career offers true fulfillment. Yet the persuadable women most likely to hear conservatives’ counter messages are women who already recognize the benefits of marriage and children, but who find themselves outside those institutions nonetheless.
Today, nearly 20% of women over age 45 are childless. According to a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/07/25/the-experiences-of-u-s-adults-who-dont-have-children/">Pew survey</a> of childless adults, nearly 40% admit that they once wanted children. That’s almost certainly an understatement since many childless adults likely don’t want to admit, even to themselves, that they regret missing this irreplaceable part of the human experience.
Additionally, about one-quarter of children are being raised by a single parent. Those single parents don’t need to be told how much easier it would be to have another adult helping to give their kids all the love and support they need. They live it every day.
Touting the benefits of a happy family life can seem not so much instructive as rubbing it in. Done wrong, this messaging risks not only alienating childless and unmarried women, but all of those who love them. When women hear that messaging, they don’t solely think about how it impacts them, but also the people they love and worry about the most: their dear best friend who hasn’t found a husband; their beloved, recently divorced sister juggling kids’ schedules and costs. Married women with children will reject those who they see as dunking on their loved ones.
Conservative leaders should also keep this in mind when addressing work-life issues. Of course, parents should know how vulnerable children are in those first months and years of life, and why investing time in them is so beneficial. Yet, when done wrong, those messages can sound like attacks on working women — many of whom would love to downshift their careers but feel like they can’t afford to do so.
It is certainly true that facts don&#8217;t care about your feelings. Political leaders must make policy decisions grounded in clear-eyed reality. Yet it is also true that feelings are often unmoved by facts. That is why, when communicating about sensitive and deeply personal issues, policy leaders must be careful in how they communicate those realities, because poorly chosen words can do far more damage than good.
Republicans do not want to be seen as a party that only values married mothers or only women as mothers. The party also welcomes single women, widows, lesbians, and divorcees — any woman — so long as she shares the core conservative beliefs that personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets are the foundation of a flourishing country.
Republicans should be succeeding in winning women over. Democrats have spent recent years denigrating the very concept of womanhood — as if being a woman is a costume that you can put on and take off. Conservatives took the lead in defending women as a distinct group worthy of equal opportunity and protection under the law. Women saw this and recognized conservatives as the champions of common sense and core women’s rights.
Conservative policies are fundamentally pro-woman: Women thrive in a safe, secure society with a robust economy offering plentiful opportunities for people to pursue their own visions of happiness. This policy vision needs to be communicated carefully, in a manner that shows that women — all women, not just married mothers — are valued and can find a home in our movement.
* * *
Carrie Lukas is the president of the non-profit Independent Women&#8217;s Forum. Follow her on X at @carrielukas.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-EARLY VOTING

When It Comes To Reaching Women, Republicans Aren’t Misogynistic. Just Tone Deaf.

When It Comes To Reaching Women, Republicans Aren't Misogynistic. Just Tone Deaf.

Conservatives

divorce

Family Values

Republican Women

Republicans

In 2026, Britain will hit three grim milestones.
First, it will see the number of deaths <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/resolution-foundation-deaths-births-economy-b2894591.html">exceed</a> the number of births for the first time in modern history.
Second, <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/15/abortions-at-record-high-in-over-35s-because-babies-are-too/">a third</a> of the babies conceived will be aborted.
Third, the number of migrants in its population (10.9 million) will roughly equate to the total number of children aborted (10.7 million) since the procedure became legalized in 1968.
In other words, by ending unborn lives on an industrial scale, the native British population has created a demographic vacuum it now plugs with immigration, and in doing so, has brought itself to the brink of quiet obliteration.
For Brits, the question of abortion is no longer only an ethical one. A nation that does not reproduce itself must import its future. That is not a moral judgment on immigrants, but a mathematical reality. A critical shortage of young people means a critical shortage of recruits for the armed forces, workers in critical industries, and taxpayers to fund defense, healthcare, pensions, and other social services.
If it cannot “grow our own” workforce, it must import one from elsewhere.
Of course, relying on mass immigration to plug a demographic hole of our own making is not a neutral solution. It carries serious national security implications. As has been clear in recent years, weak, strained border controls, over-used and under pressure, give way to criminal gangs, swept in undetected alongside the key workers we need.
Yet while Right-wing politicians fall over themselves to condemn mass migration, hardly anyone in Westminster will risk breathing a word about the abortion crisis that has brought our nation to the point of requiring large-scale human importation. Meanwhile, Members of Parliament <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/europe/uk-abortion-law.html">recently voted</a> to exacerbate abortion culture by decriminalizing the procedure up to birth.
Britain is a prime example of why the abortion debate, though emotive and divisive, is worth having. Though some Americans may roll their eyes at the March for Life or the pro-life rhetoric being championed by Republicans, they’d do well to look overseas at a nation which has let abortion destroy them. 
The consequences of abortion, of course, are not only macro-economic. The loss of life alone is devastating, in the case of every child. Broadly, our collective failure to focus on family has left Brits lonelier and more depressed than ever. And as for those women who have undergone an abortion, physical complications, mental health struggles, and silent grief ripple through our healthcare system and society. &#8220;Pro-choice&#8221; psychology professor David Fergusson <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23553240/">published evidence</a> that women who have abortions are significantly more likely to suffer from anxiety, suicidal ideation, and drug and alcohol abuse. Pretending this is a “cost-free” procedure helps no-one.
What makes Britain’s situation especially tragic is that it was avoidable. Marriage &#8211; one of the greatest proximate predictors for adults to have children &#8211; is punished by the UK tax system, discouraging family formation and making it harder to depend on one salary. In the workplace, motherhood is treated as a liability. Poor maternity leave provision and the constant push of government-sponsored “free childcare” pushes women who do have kids back into taxable desk jobs, rather than encouraging them to invest in time at home with their children. All the while, the culture champions the idea that babies are inconvenient competitors to the luxuries of modern life. Abortion is the far cheaper, easier policy option in many ways. But in the long-term, it leads to a nation collapsing from within.
This is why abortion is no longer just a moral issue, but one of national survival. A society cannot abort a third of its future generation and expect to remain intact. Britain is not simply declining, but aborting itself out of existence. America should take note, and continue to fight for a culture supportive of bringing babies into the world. Once a culture decides children are optional, the future becomes optional too.
* * *
Lois McLatchie Miller (@LoisMcLatch) is a writer and commentator from Great Britain.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu