<p><!-- BEGIN THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>
<p> <br />
</p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Normally, I don’t consider myself much of a trendsetter, especially when it comes to the online discourse among middle-aged cosmopolitan liberal women. To the extent that these people talk about me at all, it’s usually to call me a misogynist or to praise my brief appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.” In any event, on a typical day, they certainly aren’t reading my social media feeds and watching my podcast in order to pick up new lingo. We can be certain of that much.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">So I was more than a little surprised to see an article that was just published by The Guardian, </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">entitled</span></a><span style="font-weight:400">, “Now comes the ‘womanosphere’: the anti-feminist media telling women to be thin, fertile and Republican.” According to </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">this article</span></a><span style="font-weight:400">, the “womanosphere” is: </span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><span style="font-weight:400">“An organized effort to create … an alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences – one of the few demographics that has, until now, leaned substantially Democratic.</span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-weight:400">This new ‘womanosphere’ includes Brett Cooper’s channel as well as lifestyle magazines like the Conservateur and Evie, Candace Owens’s Club Candace, Alex Clark’s Maha (“Make America Healthy Again”) talkshow Culture Apothecary, conservative Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey’s Relatable, and swimmer turned anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines’s podcast Gaines For Girls.”</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Before we get into the substance of this article, such as it is, I need to pull up something I wrote online a few weeks ago. </span><a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1907550102605946958" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">Here’s what I wrote</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> at the time: </span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><span style="font-weight:400">We hear a lot about the ‘manosphere.’I think it’s time we start talking about the womansphere and the corrosive effect that these shrill, toxic feminist influencers are having on the minds of young women and their marriages.</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">So there you have it. Long before The Guardian demanded that everyone start talking about the “womanosphere,” I was demanding a public conversation about the “womansphere.” All they did was add an “o” in the middle, to change womansphere to woman-o-sphere, and then they completely changed the meaning of the word, as I was using it. To me, the womansphere are the anti-man, bitter feminists on TikTok. To them, the womanosphere is a collection of the most normal, and pleasant women you’ll ever meet. And of course the other problem is that no one at The Guardian knows what the word “woman” means. But other than that, you can’t deny the striking similarity between these two made-up words. If The Guardian actually made any money, this is the part where I’d start demanding royalties. But in this case, I’ll let it slide. As the old saying goes, great minds think alike. And the not-so-great minds just steal everything and pass it off as their own.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">But I don’t want to dwell on how much money The Guardian owes me, even though it’s obviously substantial. The bigger issue with the article — as with everything else published by The Guardian — is the content. The tone for this particular hit piece is set right in the headline. We’re supposed to see the Right-wing “womanosphere” as somehow nefarious and sinister because it encourages women to be “thin and fertile,” as The Guardian puts it. These two words — “thin and fertile” — are like kryptonite to the staff of The Guardian, apparently. Now, you might observe that words like “thin and fertile” are just ways of describing someone as “healthy.” And you might wonder what’s so bad about the “womanosphere” encouraging women to be thin, fertile, and healthy. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">But all you’ll get from The Guardian is </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">this paragraph</span></a><span style="font-weight:400">: </span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><span style="font-weight:400">The type of woman these commentators valorize is thin, straight, fertile, traditionally feminine, conventionally attractive to men and white – though they try to avoid overt racism. … Anyone who falls outside of this narrow mold is subject to relentless mocking and disparagement.</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Just to be clear here, the “narrow mold” that The Guardian is complaining about is simply being healthy, feminine, and attractive to males. (They do add that you have to be white as well, but they contradict themselves in the same breath, because one of the commentators they attack in this hit piece is Candace, who last I checked is not white). So all we’re left with is the “narrow” lane that literally billions of women throughout all of human history have fit through. That’s the virtually impossible standard that you have to meet, if you don’t want to be “relentlessly mocked and disparaged” by the online “womanosphere.”</span></p>
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1583-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&;row=2&;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">We all know why The Guardian believes that only a small subset of the female population can qualify as healthy. For one thing, they believe that men can become women. So that probably skews their perspective a bit, given that trans-identifying males aren’t usually paragons of physical fitness. Additionally, it’s long been established that Left-leaning individuals, wherever they are in the world, tend to be less healthy. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Not too long ago, there was a </span><a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5893220/#:~:text=Findings%20from%20cross%2Dsectional%20studies,report%20better%20self%2Drated%20health." target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">study</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> from researchers at Harvard and Columbia which found that: </span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><span style="font-weight:400">Findings from cross-sectional studies conducted in Japan and Europe have reported that individuals expressing a conservative ideology (as compared to liberal ideology) tend to report better self-rated health. In the USA, it has been reported that Republicans are less likely to report poor health in comparison to Democrats.</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">These findings shouldn’t surprise us, because an ideology that doesn’t care about personal responsibility isn’t going to have the healthiest followers. The only people who are surprised, apparently, are the writers for The Guardian. But in their confusion, they do manage to hint at one point that’s worth thinking about, which is this: The Left has decided to give the Right a monopoly on advocating for healthy lifestyles. It’s true that if someone these days promotes health, fitness, marriage, family life, et cetera, then we can assume that they’re probably conservative. All of that has become Right-wing coded. But that’s only because the Left has gone to war against everything healthy and normal. The Right is not dominating this issue because they’re mind-controlling women. They’re dominating the issue because the Left has abandoned it.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">As this article continues, The Guardian doubles down on its attempt to make “being healthy” sound like an act of terrorism. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">At one point, they quote a piece from “Evie,” and then they have a coronary over it. So </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">here’s the line</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> from Evie, followed by The Guardian’s meltdown:</span><span style="font-weight:400">“‘Our reproductive organs are made for just that – creating new life – not warding off sperm and altering our insides to make conception close to impossible,” read a recent Evie piece. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Though some young women may recoil when conservative men like JD Vance and Elon Musk opine on birthrates and fertility, outlets like Evie are able to repackage a similar message in a more approachable way. Maggie Bullock, a women’s magazine veteran who co-writes the Spread, a newsletter about the industry, said she saw outlets like Evie as trying to be something of a ‘gateway drug’ into more extreme conservative ideologies. ‘Like, we’re nice and we’re pretty and we’re not that radical, don’t worry, we’re just telling you the truth,’ she said. ‘It feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.&#8217;”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">So here we have Evie magazine stating that women’s reproductive organs are intended for reproduction. And The Guardian devotes about a thousand words to declaring how outrageous this statement is, even though it’s probably the least controversial thing that anyone can say in the English language. They even bring in an alleged expert — a “women’s magazine veteran” — to establish that Evie magazine is essentially a “gateway drug” to extremism, because they don’t think women should sterilize themselves.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">What’s especially amusing about the accusations that this article makes — against Brett Cooper, Riley Gaines, Candace Owens, Allie Beth Stuckey, Alex Clark, and so on — is that, first of all, the article wants us to see these women as a dark and sinister force. But I know all of them. Allie I’ve known for years. Riley I’ve met a few times. I went on Alex’s show a few months ago. Brett and Candace are both friends. They are some of the nicest, most cheerful people you’ll ever meet.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The article uses words like “scary” to describe them, which is just hilarious from my vantage point. Or the vantage point of anyone who has watched any of their shows. Although I will say that Alex forced me to drink raw milk when I was on her show, and that was deeply disturbing, and also dangerous to my health. But aside from that, it was not a very scary experience.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The other thing is that all of them of course have jobs. And yet The Guardian concludes that all of these women, in reality, want women to be nothing but “submissive homemakers” who </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/24/womanosphere-conservative-women"><span style="font-weight:400">never leave the home</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> for any reason: </span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><span style="font-weight:400">While the women behind these outlets all have different styles and tactics, they are mostly aligned in their desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview: women as submissive homemakers, men as strong providers.</span></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">First of all, any time you hear a phrase like “gender-essentialist” being used unironically, you can immediately stop paying attention to the person who says it. The term is nonsense because everyone, in a sane world, is a “gender essentialist.” Everyone should understand that gender is an essential concept, because it’s what allows human beings to reproduce. It also dramatically affects human behavior in every significant way. So if someone calls you a “gender essentialist,” the appropriate response is “yes, I am.” And by the way, the Left is also “gender essentialist,” albeit in a completely demented way. They don’t understand the concept of gender, but they certainly obsess over it, as you may have noticed. They take their fake genders extremely seriously over there. It is an essential concept in their worldview. Just in a very confused way.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The other irony here is that it’s The Guardian that wants these women — like Brett Cooper and Candace Owens — to be silent, apparently. They’ve written a gigantic article about how all of these women should shut up and stop expressing their views. Apparently they can’t grasp the idea that, as I’ve said many times, different people can choose to do different things. I’ve gone on record many times saying that, in general, women should prioritize raising families, and men should prioritize providing for their families. That doesn’t mean that women should never have a career under any circumstances. And obviously, all of the women that The Guardian is attacking in this article, would also agree with that statement, because they all have lucrative careers of their own.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">We could go on for the next hour picking apart this article, but it’s honestly not worth the time. But it is worth noticing one aspect of this issue that The Guardian doesn’t talk about. Throughout all of this angst and misdirected, incoherent frustration, the one thing The Guardian doesn’t do is grapple with the fact that the alternative to the “womanosphere” has already been tried. And it has completely and utterly failed. The alternative to the “narrow” lane espoused by Brett, Candace, and company is the lane of Left-wing secular feminism where women find their purpose in the workplace and either reject family and marriage altogether, or place it second in importance to the pursuit of professional success. It’s the lane where a woman doesn’t submit to her husband, but instead submits to her employer — who as it happens is often also a man. It’s the lane where a woman is so committed to her independence and autonomy that she will purchase it with the blood of her own children, which is the whole point of abortion.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">We’ve tried the feminist approach for a few generations. It is actually the new thing. The trendy thing.The narrow thing. And how has it worked out? Divorce rates have skyrocketed. The institution of the family is in shambles. And, by all available metrics (including the prevalence of antidepressants), women (and men) are miserable. Here’s just one indicator. For more than 20 years, Gallup has asked women if they’re happy with how they’re being treated by “society,” whatever that means exactly. And in 2022, Gallup </span><a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/numbers-women-society" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">recorded</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> the lowest level of satisfaction among women since they began asking the question. Yes, after all of the alleged advancements in “women’s rights” over the last twenty years, women believe they’re more oppressed than ever.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">But you don’t need Gallup to tell you that. You can either talk to women who made the decision to enter the workforce, or you can go on TikTok. Every day there’s another viral video of some young woman in tears because she went out into the working world and found it horrifically dreary, depressing, and demoralizing. We’ve seen the alternative to women being thin and fertile and prioritizing their families. It has been a disaster. We got millions of broken homes, millions of dead children, and millions of extremely depressed but allegedly liberated women to show for it.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The traditional approach has thousands of years of success under its belt. The new approach crashed and burned 30 seconds after takeoff. The Guardian is using the lame new “womanosphere” branding to suggest the opposite — they want to suggest that this is some dangerous new Right-wing ideology. But it’s not. It happens to be the ideology that clearly works best for everyone, including women. It’s the philosophy that built human civilization and maintained it and helped it thrive for millennia, up until the last several decades. The Guardian might not know what women are, or what they want. But these women do. And the more the Left mocks them for wanting to be healthy and to raise families, the more women will turn away from Leftism, until the only women left supporting Democrats are men with wigs on. That is the Democrat Party’s absolute worst nightmare. And with every garbage article like this one, that nightmare for Democrats — otherwise known as progress to the rest of us — is becoming more and more real by the day.</span></p>
</div>
<p><br />
<br /><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-left-uncovers-the-sinister-conspiracy-pushing-women-to-be-healthy-and-happy">Source link </a></p>
<p><!-- END THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>

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