This Was Supposed To Be A Serious Article — But It Devolved Into Me Making Fun Of Traditionalist Women

Recently, a TikTok went viral which showed a woman talking about how women were so much happier as housewives and stay at home mothers as opposed to when they entered the workforce. The TikTok was posted to Twitter by Brittany Martinez, the editor-in-chief of Evie Magazine, a conservative women’s magazine. She also runs a website that teaches women how to “biohack their hormones,” and — give them less painful periods I think. The website basically advertises this as a workout routine specifically tuned to a woman’s menstrual cycle, and I have no opinion on that one way or the other — it’s not like I could test it to see if it’s effective — but I have a distrust of these workout websites, and this one has a number of strange claims, such as this:

Painful periods aren’t natural. But they are common. Synthetic estrogens in birth control, plastics, and beauty products have created hormone imbalances for millions of women. 28’s functional nutrition was designed to naturally restore balance to your hormones.

I also have to make note of the part that says that once your period ends you’ll get symptoms of PMS — despite PMS literally standing for Premenstrual syndrome.

In the replies to the repost of that TikTok, Martinez links a 1/7/2022 article from the website she runs with the headline “Was Feminism A Psyop To Get Women To Pay More Taxes To The Government?” (As opposed to paying taxes to your pet fish?) The article includes a long discussion of “The Marxist Roots of Feminism,” with the author writing:

Feminist and socialist ideologies share many similarities. Socialism, with its original focus on worker rights, concentrated on the conflict between oppressor and oppressed as it pertained to the upper and lower economic classes in society. Feminism uses the same dichotomy, but instead of oppressor and oppressed being seen from the economic standpoint, it’s seen from the perspective of gender.

This is probably a nitpick, but focusing on conflict has nothing to do with the economic system of socialism — that’s more related to the sociological theory of dialectics. The article goes on to conflate women’s suffrage with the second wave feminist goal of normalizing women in the workplace — even though both of these movements occurred about half a century apart:

Though the anti-suffragette movement is not popular to discuss nowadays, traces of their arguments can still be found. By pushing women out of the home to make a living alongside their husbands, the labor force effectively doubled, keeping wages down for employers and drastically raising the number of subjects that the state can tax. This dramatically increased the wealth of those most wealthy and increased the reliance on and power of the state while making the single-income household, the last vestige of individual liberty, a relic of the past.

Some of you might have noticed that the article has gone from claiming feminism is a conspiracy by socialists to calling it a plot by big business. The article goes on to show an anti-suffrage flyer which claims that all countries which have given women the right to vote have — oh no — become socialists. Of course, for those of us in the real world the evidence of this is mixed to say the least. In the United Kingdom, it has been found that if women never got the right to vote the government would end up more left-wing, not more right-wing. (I should also note that I have little sympathy for any ideology that can only continue to exist by denying half the population the right to vote, but that’s another topic.)

The article was written by Robyn Riley, the author of other such pieces as “The Real Reason Raw Milk Is Banned” and “Why I Think Pornography Should Be Illegal.” For those curious, it turns out raw milk is banned because the FDA is corrupt in other non-specific ways:

The FDA isn’t a branch of government that’s entirely transparent about the reasoning behind why they choose to approve and ban certain substances. Over the years, countless lawsuits and whistleblowers have exposed the big businesses behind why some seemingly great products are deemed unsafe and illegal and other dangerous pharmaceuticals are given a green light by the FDA. As with all suspicious activity, one normally only has to follow the money to find answers.

The link between feminism and communism is something Evie talks about often. Another article of their’s on this topic is the 8/20/2020 work “Why Marxists Frequently Target Women As Their Strategy For Spreading Communism.” The article makes it clear that one of the ways communists do this is through abortion, by the way:

One of the most disturbing approaches the Communists use to sway women to their side has to do with how they dangle the right to abortion as part of their cause. Most people aren’t aware of how Marxist-feminists use abortion as a sort of bargaining chip towards total socialism.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting how everything Evie hates is connected? Feminism, communism, abortion, big business, and women having the right to vote were all decided by the same cabal out to trick women — but remember, we can’t call this a patriarchy. This is not even getting into the fact that the idea of monogamous men and women in marriage where the women takes care of domestic duties is really only a post-industrial revolution creation, but that’s another topic entirely.

To end with, I just want to point out that all of these women who claim to be traditionalists live very non-traditional. Historically, women did not run news websites, nor write articles, nor make fitness programs customized for a menstrual cycle. So here’s my question to anybody over at Evie magazine: If traditional life is go great, why do so few of you actually live it?