House Speaker Mike Johnson said congressional approval is not necessary for the conflict between the United States and Iran, disputing claims that the military operation is a war.

Over two months into the conflict, Johnson has maintained that the operation is “not a war,” arguing that the 60-day deadline enforced by the War Powers Resolution would not apply to this scenario.

‘There’s nothing Congress can do.’

Without congressional approval within the 60 days, the resolution would mandate the president to withdraw military forces from the war.

“I don’t think we have an active, kinetic military bombing, firing, anything like that. Right now, we are trying to broker a peace,” Johnson said Thursday. “I would be very reluctant to get in front of the administration in the midst of these very sensitive negotiations, so we’ll have to see how that plays out.”

RELATED: Navy secretary abruptly fired despite ongoing Iran blockade

Graeme Sloan/Getty Images

“We’re policing the Strait of Hormuz and trying to get a peace,” Johnson added. “The president and the administration are moving as aggressively as possible. There’s nothing Congress can do to move that along any further, so we’ll see how it plays out.”

Although Johnson and other Republican allies have refrained from calling the conflict a war, President Donald Trump has frequently referred to the operation as a war.

“The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties,” Trump said on February 28, the day the United States first began striking Iran. “That often happens in war.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Ceasefire, Congressional approval, Donald trump, Iran blockade, Iran war, Mike johnson, Military operation, Peace negotiations, Pete hegseth, Stair of hormuz, War powers resolution, Politics 

Fans of the NFL’s Cleveland Browns are caught inside a media whirlwind of what is being called misogynistic commentary along with allegations of spreading fake news.

The controversy centers on the battle for the starting quarterback position between second-year player Shedeur Sanders and veteran Deshaun Watson.

‘To know that you can go out there and do a good job in a man’s world.’

As if Cleveland fans don’t have enough problems — their team has made the playoffs just three times in the last 30 years — a report from beat writer Mary Kay Cabot has fans up in arms. Cabot said on Wednesday that Watson, who hasn’t played in almost two years due to injury, “has taken the lead over Sanders” in the race for the starting role, despite Sanders playing the last eight games of the 2025 season.

This caused an eruption from fans and analysts and even Sanders’ older brother Shilo. The elder Sanders last played for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 2025.

In response to a video in which Cabot said Watson should be named the starting QB, Shilo wrote:

“Go make a sandwich Mary.”

The comment has since been deleted.

TMZ described the commentary as “sexist” and “misogynistic,” and in response, Cabot described herself as an “inspiration” to young women in sports media.

RELATED: Golden State Warriors coach gets political — is he following in Stephen A. Smith’s footsteps?

“I really do believe that I have been an inspiration for lots of women and young girls,” Cabot told Cleveland radio station 92.3 The Fan.

“To know that you can go out there and do a good job in a man’s world and take on all of that that comes with that, and I know that there are so many women who have joined the football world especially because of some of the things that I’ve been able to do over the years, I’m happy about that,” she added.

Since Cabot’s report, fans have called her QB1 reporting baseless, chiefly due to Browns General Manager Andrew Berry telling media members that he expects Sanders to “have more command of the offense.”

“I don’t know if Deshaun has an advantage over him,” he noted.

ESPN NFL analyst Mike Tannenbaum even described Cabot’s claims as “the most improbable” scenario due to Watson’s recent Achilles injuries.

RELATED: ‘The lineup f**king sucks’: Most negative baseball fans in the USA revealed — where does your team rank?

Alika Jenner/Getty Images

The controversy seemingly never stops in Cleveland; when Sanders was drafted, he reportedly sank from a first-round shoo-in to a fifth-round player because of a poor attitude during interviews with potential teams.

Watson, on the other hand, was suspended 11 games and fined $5 million before he played a single game for the Browns in 2022. He was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women during alleged massage sessions.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Fearless, Politics, News, Sports media, Feminism, Misogyny, Sexism, Cleveland browns, Football, Nfl, Sports 

South Africa’s communications minister says that human oversight is sorely needed in the age of artificial intelligence.

The reason stems from a draft of the country’s new AI policy, which leaders hoped would address concerns about ethics and regulations related to the technology.

‘There will be consequence management for those responsible.’

The country’s Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies, Mmoba Solomon Malatsi, made a shocking admission that he would be withdrawing the national AI framework after its integrity had been “compromised.”

Malatsi took to his X page on Sunday to explain that an internal review confirmed the policy included fake citations, likely generated by AI.

“The Draft … contains various fictitious sources in its reference list,” the minister wrote.

The draft had been made available to allow for public comment, but scrutiny over the fake sources sparked a review after just three weeks.

“This failure is not a mere technical issue but has compromised the integrity and credibility of the draft policy,” the politician continued. “The most plausible explanation is that AI-generated citations were included without proper verification. This should not have happened.”

The 40-year-old said the incident proves why “vigilant human oversight over the use of artificial intelligence is critical.”

RELATED: This Big Tech patent tracks your brain, eyes, and body — with earbuds

The policy draft outlined a new National AI Commission, ethics board, and regulatory authority around AI that would coordinate to enforce new policies and ethical standards, Reuters reported.

It also set out framework for compensation related to any harm caused by the use of artificial intelligence.

The South Africans added emphasis on building their digital infrastructure in terms of cloud computing and computer farms, while calling for a reduction in reliance on hardware from China and the United States .

RELATED: Universal basic income is a dangerous delusion

RODGER BOSCH/AFP/Getty Images

Malatsi seemingly took his lumps in his post, calling the ordeal “a lesson we take with humility.”

“I want to reassure the country that we are treating this matter with the gravity it deserves. There will be consequence management for those responsible for drafting and quality assurance,” he added.

Malatsi is a member of South Africa’s Democrat Alliance party, which holds the second-most seats in the National Assembly. His position as minister is in South Africa’s Government of National Unity, which occurs when there is no party that wins an outright majority.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Ai, Artificial intelligence, Cloud computing, Communications minister, Ethics and regulations, Return, South africa, Tech 

The U.S. Army’s about to get a massive fit check — and not the kind where you show off the latest fashions in camouflage.

Effective this month, soldiers will be expected to pass a new, more rigorous Combat Field Test, one Secretary of the Army Hon. Dan Driscoll says will make sure those in the most physically demanding roles to “have the specific fitness required to dominate on the modern battlefield.”

‘We’re asking more of our combat arms Soldiers.’

The new requirements directly affect those designated under combat military occupational specialties, such as infantrymen or combat engineers.

Boot and rally

The annual test must be completed in 30 minutes while wearing the Army Combat Uniform, combat boots, and a brown T-shirt. It consists of the following:

A 1-mile run;30 dead-stop push-ups, which entail coming into direct contact with the ground, briefly lifting the hands, and then pushing up again;A 100-meter sprint;16 lifts of a 40-pound sandbag onto a 65-inch platform — to simulate throwing a sandbag into a vehicle;A 50-meter carry of two 5-gallon (40 lbs. each) Army water cans (jerricans); andA 50-meter drill consisting of a “25-meter high crawl” and a “25-meter 3-5 second rush” — movements meant to simulate both crawling prone with a rifle as well as sprinting and dropping to the ground to avoid gunfire.

The test concludes with another 1-mile run.

If a soldier can complete this test, they are fit for a combat role in the U.S. Army. However, that is not the only fitness test they’ll have to go through.

RELATED: Veterans shouldn’t have to worry about lawyers taking their benefits

– YouTube

Planks for the memories

Those enlisted in combat arms will also have to complete the current annual Army Fitness Test, which is a requirement of all active duty and reserve soldiers.

That test consists of the following:Three deadlifts with the maximum weight possible;As many hand-release push-ups as possible in two minutes — this involves the soldier extending both arms out to their sides when hitting the ground;A “sprint-drag-carry” circuit, in which soldiers drag a sled (or weights) and then carry two 40-pound kettlebells;Holding a plank position until failure; andA 2-mile run.

“This isn’t just about passing a test; it’s a direct measure of our commitment to readiness and ensuring our warfighters can dominate in any environment,” Sgt. Maj. of the Army Michael Weimer said. “We’re asking more of our combat arms soldiers, and this test validates their ability to meet that high standard.”

For Pete’s sake

Since assuming the office last year, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has made raising military fitness standards a priority.

“It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the secretary of war can do regular, hard PT, so can every member of our joint force,” Hegseth said in a speech last October.

RELATED: Uncle Sam wants YOU — to obey immigration laws

U.S. Army

The Army notes that if it is determined that a soldier cannot meet the physical standards, they may request a voluntary reclassification to a non-combat role, in order for the Army to retain personnel.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Align, Army, Combat field test, Fitness, Military, Military occupational specialties, Modern battlefield, Physical standards, Us army, Lifestyle 

Just a few months after BlazeTV’s Sara Gonzales began exposing potential H-1B fraud in North Texas, the Office of the Attorney General has come out with a major announcement as a result of her investigations.

On Thursday morning, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) announced that he is escalating his ongoing investigation into dozens of businesses in North Texas suspected of H-1B visa fraud.

‘I want to thank Sara Gonzales for her efforts in exposing H-1B fraud across the state.’

Paxton announced that he has issued civil investigative demands into nearly 30 businesses as part of the investigation.

Among these companies, according to the press release, are Tekpro IT LLC, Fame PBX LLC, 1st Ranking Technologies LLC, Qubitz Tech Systems LLC, Blooming Clouds LLC, Virat Solutions Inc., Oak Technologies Inc., Techpath Inc., and Techquency LLC.

RELATED: Sara Gonzales confronts owner of alleged H-1B visa & autism center scam — whistleblower tells all

These companies were added to the investigation into suspected fraudulent practices, including the maintenance of “so-called ‘ghost offices’ as a scheme in which businesses falsely represent active operations in order to sponsor foreign workers.”

“I will not allow the H-1B program to be abused by bad actors seeking to use it as a loophole for allowing foreign nationals to invade Texas,” said Paxton. “My office will continue working to uncover and put an end to fraud within the H-1B program.”

Paxton has demanded financial statements, documents identifying all employees working for these companies, records detailing the specific products or services provided, and communications related to company operations, according to the press release.

On X, Paxton gave Gonzales a shoutout for her work: “I’m taking legal action as part of my investigation into nearly 30 North Texas businesses suspected of H-1B visa fraud. I want to thank @SaraGonzalesTX for her efforts in exposing H-1B fraud across the state.”

“Thank YOU for taking action!” Gonzales replied.

Gonzales celebrated the announcement on social media: “AMAZING NEWS! Ken Paxton is taking action on my H-1B investigations!”

The host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” reminded her viewers that Qubitz Tech Systems LLC was featured in her first series. She added that she and her team had come across the other companies in the course of their investigation and handed the information over.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Attorney general, Civil investigative demands, Foreign workers, Fraudulent practices, Ghost offices, H1b fraud, Investigations, Ken paxton, North texas businesses, Sara gonzales, Investigation, Blaze media, Politics 

A movie about fashion models that joked about not eating to stay thin has completely reversed course for its sequel.

“The Devil Wears Prada 2” is the follow-up to the fangirl favorite from 2006, starring Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway. This time around, however, Hathaway did not want the reality of the fashion industry to deter anyone from seeing her film.

‘I just know that this movie is for everyone.’

Skeleton crew

The controversy started when Streep told fashion rag Harper’s Bazaar that the models she saw in Milan during production were not only “beautiful and young,” but also “alarmingly thin.”

“I thought that all had been addressed years ago,” Streep told the outlet. She added that Hathaway made the producers promise then and there that the models in the new movie would not be so thin.

“She made a beeline to the producers about it, securing promises that the models in the show that we were putting together for our film would not be so skeletal!”

“She’s a stand-up girl,” Streep stated.

Body doubled

This put the onus on Hathaway to explain herself to fawning activists during subsequent interviews. At the premiere in New York City, Hathaway told Variety that she had noticed “beautiful models on set,” but “a lot of them were more traditionally model-sized.”

“I thought the scene would be so much more enjoyable for the audience if we had just a wider range of bodies on display, because all different shapes are beautiful,” Hathaway claimed.

The 43-year-old explained that she asked her producers if they thought the scene would be “stronger” if it had “a more inclusive approach to sizing.”

At her behest, the producers allegedly made the changes within an hour.

RELATED: When your ‘rich’ neighbor can’t afford furniture

Diet rights

In an interview with “Good Morning America” on Monday, Hathaway continued her campaign by saying she wanted to correct any “misinformation” about getting thin models fired “because of the size inclusivity.”

“That just didn’t happen. Nobody lost their jobs. In fact, it created more jobs,” she claimed. “It was just about making sure that so many different body types saw themselves in a moment in the script.”

Amid the hosts’ gushing over her progressivism, Hathaway asked, “Isn’t it better when you see so many different types of bodies up there with that?”

Original thin

“The Devil Wears Prada” had a $27.5 million opening in June 2006, eventually totaling over $326 million against a $35 million budget. The sequel seems football fields away from its original tone, however, which poked fun at the absurdity of models starving themselves.

One memorable scene included Emily Blunt’s character telling Hathaway’s about her lack of eating in order to stay thin.

“You look so thin,” Hathaway’s character says at an event.

“It’s for Paris. I’m on this new diet,” Blunt replies. “It’s very effective. Well, I don’t eat anything, and when I feel like I’m about to faint, I eat a cube of cheese. … I’m just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.”

RELATED: California doles out over $100M in taxpayer money to massive film studios

Size queens

In another red-carpet interview with Etalk, Hathaway again remarked that she relished the ability to utilize “a more inclusive approach to beauty standards” in the new film, repeating the term “traditionally sized.”

The actress was met by yet another journalist eager to speak about the issue, revealing that she has been a “size inclusivity advocate for 15 years.”

Hathaway boasted to the reporter that she “had seen that there were a lot of traditionally sized models in our movie, and I just know that this movie is for everyone.”

Hathaway even spoke on behalf of her producers, saying they were “so embarrassed” when they realized there was a serious lack of body diversity on the movie set. Now moving the timeline to two hours, she said the producers quickly brought in more girls for the scene.

In what seemed like a borderline-forced happy-go-lucky attitude, the actress concluded that everyone feels “happier” when everybody feels “included.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Activists, Align, Anne hathaway, Beauty standards, Movie, Progressivism, Size inclusivity, Woke, Entertainment 

Former President Barack Obama is among the many liberals who had conniptions Wednesday over the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in Louisiana.

While such critics have largely spun the ruling as a setback for racial minority representation in American politics, it appears they are chiefly concerned with how the ruling might affect Democrats politically in the the midterm elections and beyond.

How it started

Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 consensus, which then-House Speaker Pro Tempore Tanner Magee (R) claimed honored “traditional boundaries.”

‘This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century.’

Dissatisfied that only one of the Bayou State’s six congressional districts had a black majority, a group of black voters sued the state, alleging that the new 2022 congressional map diluted black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A federal judge appointed by Democrat former President Barack Obama ruled that the map likely violated the VRA and ordered the Louisiana legislature to add a second majority-black district.

Pursuant to this ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana created a map with a second majority-black district — this time prompting a legal challenge by “non-African American” voters who recognized the new map both as a racial gerrymander and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Their case, Louisiana v. Callais, ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on Wednesday that “because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

RELATED: ‘Trump is racist’ arguments seem to fall on deaf ears at SCOTUS TPS hearing about Haiti and Syria

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Beyond striking down the racial gerrymander in its 6-3 decision, the court provided some much-needed clarity on “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting.”

Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion for the court, for example, that “interpreting §2 of the Voting Rights Act to outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the Amendment does not protect. And such an interpretation would run headlong into the Act’s express disclaimer against racial proportionality.”

Alito noted further that “§2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

Although the court’s clarifications appear aimed at providing states with guidance on how to comply with Section 2 of the VRA without unduly discriminating on the basis of race and violating the U.S. Constitution, Justice Elena Kagan alerted fellow travelers in her dissent — which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — that the ruling will supposedly impact “racial equality in electoral opportunity.”

“The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” wrote Kagan.

“If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline.”

Alito found Kagan’s dissent to be “unabashedly at war with key precedents.”

How it’s going

Obama, a champion of Virginia’s recent legally dubious gerrymander whose appointee’s decision in 2022 unwittingly set the stage for the SCOTUS ruling, complained on social media, “Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias.'”

Obama accused the Supreme Court’s conservative majority of “abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach” and hinted that the decision could affect the upcoming midterms.

He added that “such setbacks can be overcome” but only if “citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers.”

Twice-failed Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris similarly bemoaned the Supreme Court’s ruling, calling it “an outrage” that “turns back the clock on the foundational promise of equality and fairness in our election systems” and that is “part of an agenda that conservatives set in place decades ago to steal power from everyday people.”

‘This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states.’

Like Obama, Harris expressed concern about the midterm elections and the possibility that red states will “rush to redraw districts” before voting begins.

Democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City also threw a fit online, calling the decision a “direct assault on the promise of the Voting Rights Act” that threatens to disenfranchise “millions of Americans along racial lines.”

Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, a Democrat who said in 2021 that her district needs to bring in migrants to increase the population in time for redistricting, claimed in a joint statement with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus that “with the stroke of a pen, this rogue, unaccountable Court has effectively signed the death certificate of the Voting Rights Act, undoing decades of Black progress.”

“Not since Jim Crow have we seen this level of systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters,” said the joint statement.

Failed Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — the founder of a voter turnout group slapped last year with what the Georgia State Ethics commission said was the largest fine it has ever imposed — said in an alarmist op-ed for MS NOW that the ruling was a “direct hit” to the “fragile promise that every American’s vote should carry equal weight.”

“This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century,” whined NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke.

“This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states to target and eradicate districts that have provided Black Americans a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice, and they will do so with the blessing of this Court.”

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, characterized the 6-3 decision as “cruel” and a “significant setback for our multiracial democracy.”

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat who benefited from the Bayou State’s racially gerrymandered map struck down by the Supreme Court, condemned the ruling and suggested that while Louisiana now has the authority to adopt a new map, “redrawing maps at this stage would not be prudent.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Barack obama, Black voters, Congressional black caucus, Congressional map, Federal judge, Gerrymander, Gerrymandering, Justice samuel alito, Kamala harris, Kristen clarke, Louisiana, Louisiana v callais, Midterm elections, Naacp, Racial gerrymander, Scotus, Section 2, Stacey abrams, Supreme court, Supreme court ruling, Us supreme court, Voting rights act, Zohran mamdani, Politics 

“Family Guy” does a spoof of “Return of the Jedi” that always makes me laugh. The characters travel the universe to meet with Rebel Alliance leader Mon Mothma, who they are surprised to discover is female.

“Hey, check it out,” says Han Solo. “Another chick! The only other chick in the galaxy!”

Princess Leia looks her over, folds her arms, and says, “I don’t like her.”

Feminism promised freedom; instead, it has left many woman imprisoned by their own high expectations and simmering resentment.

It’s a throwaway gag, but it nails a fundamental truth that rarely makes it into polite conversation: Feel-good female solidarity is often just a cover for fierce intra-sexual competition.

Frenemies forever

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in a pub with a friend when a group of young women came in to celebrate one of them landing her dream job.

As soon as the newly employed girl went to the bathroom, the “friends” morphed into mean girls, and the gossiping began.

Understanding Gen Z colloquialisms is hard at the best of times, let alone in a noisy pub, but they were loud enough that we came to understand much about the young woman’s lack of fashion sense as well as her proclivity to sleep her way into job opportunities.

The woman returned from the toilets in tears; had she somehow sensed she was being discussed? No, it turned out another “friend” had posted something nasty about her in a private group chat. Comforting words quickly ensued.

Anyone who witnessed such dynamics in the wild would not be surprised by recent findings from the British think tank Demos that half of all “misogynistic” X posts are authored by the fairer sex.

Mad about you

But this isn’t just about women being catty in bars or nasty on social media. There’s a deeper, more corrosive issue at play: a generation of women who have been indoctrinated to be angry toward everyone — especially men.

This cultural shift was recently brought to light by the left-wing New Statesman in its April cover story, “Meet the Angry Young Women.” The investigation, for which the magazine commissioned the polling firm Merlin Strategy, explores an emergent counterpart to the much-discussed manosphere: the “femosphere,” in which hostility toward men is not just accepted, but encouraged.

According to the Gallup World Poll, women have been getting steadily angrier for a decade, with the gap between the sexes widening every year. But this isn’t just about righteous fury against a glass ceiling — it’s about a generation of women who have been sold a feminist dream, only to find themselves in a nightmare of their own making.

Chromosomal cartel

This transformation is clearly reflected in the latest data from King’s College London and Ipsos. The research highlights a staggering generational divide: Gen Z women are now significantly more likely to identify as feminists than any previous generation. In America, this divide is particularly acute, with 53% of Gen Z women identifying as feminists, compared to just 32% of their male counterparts. This 21-point gap — the largest of any generation in America — indicates a fundamental breakdown in the ability to find peace with the opposite sex.

We are witnessing the birth of two distinct tribes that no longer speak the same language. While young men are retreating into digital enclaves, young women have secured the high ground in the institutional capture of culture. A major study of the American publishing industry found that women hold 74% of editorial roles, 78% of literary agent positions, and 71% of publishing jobs overall, with women occupying six in 10 jobs at the executive level.

This chromosomal cartel has fostered a monoculture, leaving young male writers increasingly sidelined in an industry that often demonizes masculinity. The result? A literary and cultural landscape dominated by an embittered female perspective.

The Merlin Strategy data shows that only 35% of women under 25 have a positive opinion of men. For the youngest cohort — those under 25 — this figure drops to just 11%. Let that sink in: Nine out of 10 young women view half the population with suspicion or outright disdain.

RELATED: Did feminism create wokeness?

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Dating disaster

Feminism’s reach is now so pervasive that relationships are routinely sacrificed on the altar of political purity. According to the Merlin data, 74% of Gen Z women say they would find it difficult to date someone who did not share their views on social justice. By turning politics into a prerequisite for romance, women are effectively shrinking their dating pool to a puddle. They self-select for loneliness, then wonder why the good men have vanished into the ether.

Meanwhile, young men are reacting to this hostility by checking out entirely. The KCL data supports this: 57% of Gen Z men believe efforts to promote women’s equality have gone so far that they now discriminate against men. This isn’t incel rhetoric, it’s a rational response to a culture that treats their very existence as a problem — something to be either avoided or mocked and ridiculed into obsolescence. Additionally, the data shows a shift back to traditionalism, with 31% of these young men now agreeing that a “wife should always obey her husband.”

While the media wrings its hands over this supposed “right-wing” turn, it misses the reality: This is a counterreaction. If progressive women offer only self-righteous lectures and open hostility toward men, is it any wonder men are seeking the stability of traditional social contracts?

Man down

Or even opting out of the market entirely. “Men, Where Have You Gone?” asked a middle-aged woman lamenting her paltry dating life in the New York Times last year. For many men, the essay suggested another rhetorical question in response: Why attempt to woo someone who sees you as a born oppressor?

The irony is painful. Feminism promised freedom; instead, it has left many woman imprisoned by their own high expectations and simmering resentment. Told that their anger is a source of power, they are coming to realize it can also be a force of destruction.

If it’s a truism that men need women as a civilizing influence, we spend far less time acknowledging the cruelty that can run unchecked in all-female spaces. Men and women need each other. They are natural allies — and the further apart they drift, the more disordered things become.

​Feminism, Mean girls, Social justice, Gen z, Men and women, Lifestyle, Culture, Marriage, Letter from the uk 

Beloved ’90s comedy “Friends” may have been one big lovefest on screen — but behind the scenes, it was a toxic stew of verbal abuse and sexual harassment.

At least, this is according to one of the stars of the blockbuster ensemble sitcom, which ran on NBC from 1994 to 2004.

‘We know that back in the room the guys would be up late discussing their sexual fantasies.’

Gag orders

Apparently, the same writers who came up with now-iconic lines like, “We were on a break” and “How you doin’?” had brutally high standards for how their work was performed — and weren’t afraid to say so in profanity-laden tirades.

“Don’t forget we were recording in front of a live audience of 400, and if you messed up one of these writers’ lines or it didn’t get the perfect response, they could be like, ‘Can’t the b***h f**king read? She’s not even trying. She f**ked up my line,'” actress Lisa Kudrow told the Times.

Kudrow also claimed that the male writers openly leered over her comely co-stars.

Central perks

“We know that back in the room the guys would be up late discussing their sexual fantasies about Jennifer [Aniston] and Courteney [Cox]. It was intense,” she stated.

Kudrow added that the dozen or so writers making up the staff were “mostly men.”

“Oh, it could be brutal, but these guys — and it was mostly men in there — were sitting up until 3 a.m. trying to write the show, so my attitude was, ‘Say what you like about me behind my back because then it doesn’t matter.'”

RELATED: California doles out over $100M in taxpayer money to massive film studios

Jim Smeal/Ron Galella Collection/Getty Images

Don’t call it a ‘Comeback’

Kudrow made the comments while promoting the third season of her HBO series “The Comeback,” which depicts the humiliating misadventures of a washed-up sitcom actress trying to reignite her career.

Kudrow said that when it debuted in 2005, HBO worried that viewers would reject its unsparing depiction of its desperate protagonist — and the pathetic lengths to which she’d go for a shot at success.

“That was news to me, because I thought women could be just as ambitious as men. But a producer on another show said it’s like making jokes about disabled people. Obviously you don’t do it, and at that time, women were seen as victims.”

“The Comeback” was canceled after one season but returned for another in 2014.

MeToo soon?

The current season may surprise viewers with scenes mocking “gender-inclusive” language and a reference to making “illegal” jokes, but Kudrow explicitly denied that the show was hitting back at “woke” comedy or the MeToo movement.

RELATED: ‘Against the Machine’ offers playbook for battling leftist lies

Gary Null/NBCU Photo Bank/NBCUniversal/Getty Images

“No, because the MeToo movement was great,” she said, although she did allow that “there came a point where you couldn’t joke about anything. It felt like comedy was dying.”

Kudrow may not always have enjoyed making “Friends,” but the massive residuals she earns would put a smile on anyone’s face.

The Times reported Kudrow and her castmates each still earn approximately $20 million per year.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Actress, Align, Metoo movement, Television, Woke comedy, Sitcom, Friends, Entertainment