The apple-pie-scented world of conservative women’s media

Article The apple-pie-scented world of conservative women’s media

Elsacat

679

Dec 11 2025, 6:56 PM

Quote:Whereas the conservatism of Pankhurst and Thatcher was inherently feminist, much of the womanosphere is explicitly not. Brittany Martinez, who co-founded Evie with her husband and is its editor, says that she would not call herself a feminist: the label is “kind of cringe”. Ms Owens calls feminism a “failed revolution against biology”. Ms Kirk has called for a revival of “biblical womanhood” (although presumably not Jezebel).

Elsacat

Dec 11 2025, 6:56 PM #1

https://archive.ph/VsWdP

Quote:Whereas the conservatism of Pankhurst and Thatcher was inherently feminist, much of the womanosphere is explicitly not. Brittany Martinez, who co-founded Evie with her husband and is its editor, says that she would not call herself a feminist: the label is “kind of cringe”. Ms Owens calls feminism a “failed revolution against biology”. Ms Kirk has called for a revival of “biblical womanhood” (although presumably not Jezebel).

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

1,416

Dec 11 2025, 7:39 PM

Quote:Now Evie, an American magazine, has raised another thorny issue: “Do You Smell Like A Feminist?”

Evie tackles other issues, too, from socialising (“How To Elevate Your Conversation Skills So Everyone Will Love Talking To You”) to love (“Dating Is A Disaster, But Are Men Really To Blame?”) and wellbeing (“Why Wearing Dresses Might Actually Be Better For Your Health”). This has led to fears that reading Evie Might Actually Not Be Better For Young Women’s Feminism. [...] They have rather more to say about things like the benefits of prayer, the evils of birth control and the “45 Milkmaid Dresses That Will Make Any Man Weak In The Knees”. [...] Read on through the genre, though, and the cause of the unease becomes clearer. The womanosphere may champion motherhood and desserts, but each slice comes with a slightly bitter aftertaste. A recipe which claims to help every reader achieve “star apple-pie-baker” status appears under the headline “11 Recipes Every Wife Should Know How To Make” if she is “to please any husband”.

Quote:Brittany Martinez, who co-founded Evie with her husband and is its editor, says that she would not call herself a feminist: the label is “kind of cringe”.

Ma'am your whole tradwife fantasy magazine is "kind of cringe." 😂

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 11 2025, 7:39 PM #2

Quote:Now Evie, an American magazine, has raised another thorny issue: “Do You Smell Like A Feminist?”

Evie tackles other issues, too, from socialising (“How To Elevate Your Conversation Skills So Everyone Will Love Talking To You”) to love (“Dating Is A Disaster, But Are Men Really To Blame?”) and wellbeing (“Why Wearing Dresses Might Actually Be Better For Your Health”). This has led to fears that reading Evie Might Actually Not Be Better For Young Women’s Feminism. [...] They have rather more to say about things like the benefits of prayer, the evils of birth control and the “45 Milkmaid Dresses That Will Make Any Man Weak In The Knees”. [...] Read on through the genre, though, and the cause of the unease becomes clearer. The womanosphere may champion motherhood and desserts, but each slice comes with a slightly bitter aftertaste. A recipe which claims to help every reader achieve “star apple-pie-baker” status appears under the headline “11 Recipes Every Wife Should Know How To Make” if she is “to please any husband”.

Quote:Brittany Martinez, who co-founded Evie with her husband and is its editor, says that she would not call herself a feminist: the label is “kind of cringe”.

Ma'am your whole tradwife fantasy magazine is "kind of cringe." 😂

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Impress Polly
The kind they warned you about.

144

Dec 14 2025, 12:14 AM

(Dec 11 2025, 6:56 PM)Elsacat https://archive.ph/VsWdP

Quote:Whereas the conservatism of Pankhurst and Thatcher was inherently feminist, much of the womanosphere is explicitly not. Brittany Martinez, who co-founded Evie with her husband and is its editor, says that she would not call herself a feminist: the label is “kind of cringe”. Ms Owens calls feminism a “failed revolution against biology”. Ms Kirk has called for a revival of “biblical womanhood” (although presumably not Jezebel).

Patriarchy is a failed revolution against biology and the proof lies in that Ms. Owens, champion of "tradwifery", is in fact a career woman herself who authors books and co-founded this magazine. The frequent contradiction between what self-parodies like Owens say and how they live exists because it isn't in a woman's DNA to be subservient the way it is for most men, it's just profitable, and attracts positive male responses, to claim that it is. In reality, females are nature's default sex. It makes no natural sense for them to be subordinate. Owens' own DNA knows this and spontaneously resists following her own advice by forfeiting her financial independence.

Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.

Edited Dec 14 2025, 7:12 PM by Impress Polly.

Impress Polly

The kind they warned you about.

Dec 14 2025, 12:14 AM #3

(Dec 11 2025, 6:56 PM)Elsacat https://archive.ph/VsWdP

Quote:Whereas the conservatism of Pankhurst and Thatcher was inherently feminist, much of the womanosphere is explicitly not. Brittany Martinez, who co-founded Evie with her husband and is its editor, says that she would not call herself a feminist: the label is “kind of cringe”. Ms Owens calls feminism a “failed revolution against biology”. Ms Kirk has called for a revival of “biblical womanhood” (although presumably not Jezebel).

LeftFem

Dec 14 2025, 3:00 AM

I must have missed the feminism of Thatcher.

Quote:The feminists hate me don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison

https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2015/right-wing-women-a-feminist-issue

Edited Dec 14 2025, 3:01 AM by LeftFem.

LeftFem

Dec 14 2025, 3:00 AM #4

I must have missed the feminism of Thatcher.

Quote:The feminists hate me don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison

https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2015/right-wing-women-a-feminist-issue

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

1,416

Dec 14 2025, 1:46 PM

(Dec 14 2025, 3:00 AM)LeftFem I must have missed the feminism of Thatcher.

Quote:The feminists hate me don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison
https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2015/right-wing-women-a-feminist-issue

The phrase "history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes" and "time is a flat circle" seem to be relevant here. Much in the same way trends are cyclical, so goes antifeminism. Perhaps it is finally time for me to gather up the courage to read the last chapter of Right-Wing Women: Antifeminism. It seems we're coming up on a new wave of it, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

Clover

Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

Dec 14 2025, 1:46 PM #5

(Dec 14 2025, 3:00 AM)LeftFem I must have missed the feminism of Thatcher.

Quote:The feminists hate me don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison
https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2015/right-wing-women-a-feminist-issue

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

ShameMustChangeSides

Dec 14 2025, 9:16 PM

(Dec 14 2025, 12:14 AM)Impress Polly Patriarchy is a failed revolution against biology and the proof lies in that Ms. Owens, champion of "tradwifery", is in fact a career woman herself who authors books and co-founded this magazine. The frequent contradiction between what self-parodies like Owens say and how they live exists because it isn't in a woman's DNA to be subservient the way it is for most men, it's just profitable, and attracts positive male responses, to claim that it is. In reality, females are nature's default sex. It makes no natural sense for them to be subordinate. Owens' own DNA knows this and spontaneously resists following her own advice by forfeiting her financial independence.

Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.

I agree, if it were natural for women to submit we would have done it by now and they wouldn't keep having to force it. But men want to submit to each other SO BAD. And I think they have a deep-seated desire to submit to a woman and have her be his mommy but they're so ashamed of it and that's why they're so psychologically fucked.

ShameMustChangeSides

Dec 14 2025, 9:16 PM #6

(Dec 14 2025, 12:14 AM)Impress Polly Patriarchy is a failed revolution against biology and the proof lies in that Ms. Owens, champion of "tradwifery", is in fact a career woman herself who authors books and co-founded this magazine. The frequent contradiction between what self-parodies like Owens say and how they live exists because it isn't in a woman's DNA to be subservient the way it is for most men, it's just profitable, and attracts positive male responses, to claim that it is. In reality, females are nature's default sex. It makes no natural sense for them to be subordinate. Owens' own DNA knows this and spontaneously resists following her own advice by forfeiting her financial independence.

Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.

YesYourNigel

322

Dec 14 2025, 11:03 PM

(Dec 14 2025, 12:14 AM)Impress Polly In reality, females are nature's default sex. It makes no natural sense for them to be subordinate.

What does the fact that females are the default have to do with whether or not they are subordinate? Birds are male by default and I don't think that says anything about which is more subordinate. These two things are completely unrelated.

Quote:Owens' own DNA knows this and spontaneously resists following her own advice by forfeiting her financial independence.

I don't think DNA has the concept of money. Owens' brain knows that she's fucked if she forfeits financial independence, especially at a time when women having careers is not as taboo as it once was. But most women do in fact forfeit their financial independence at least to some degree in favour of male parasites over their own well being. You think that makes their DNA inferior and we shouldn't even bother educating them on the possibilities in their life?

Quote:Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.

That's....not how natural selection works. Natural selection is literally just about describing which group of characteristics happens to adapt to and exploit ecological changes better than others. There is no "better" or "fittest" or "superior" under evolution as an independent concept. This is the part that normies struggle the most to understand because we're used to hearing evolution explained im very eugenics-y terms. You are "the fittest" if you happen to be even slightly marginally more successful than your competition at exploiting the world around you. That's it. Your superiority under evolution is like the superiority you might get if you happened to match a randomly selected shoe size. If being blind and eating dirt all your life or suiciding to let babies eat your corpse made you fit the shoe better, congrats, you've won evolution. Evolution doesn't give a shit about your wellbeing or your morals.

The person in the video says the patriarchy rigs evolution so that "the weakest" and "cruelest" men reproduce...I mean...welcome to evolution, bud? Did you think evopsych owes you a knight in shining armour? These men rigged the system to favour them. They've won evolution. In no universe does evolution care about the ethics of how someone manages to spread their genes around most effectively, just that they do.

Also urghhh, making a dumb generalisation like "evolution favours strength" is just...no. Even in species where the strongest males push other males out, weak males will sometimes develop strategies to sneak by and get to the bored females (sometimes even by imitating female appearances). Human males actually have the least strength both compared to other apes and compared to their species' females because of a long downwards trend in humans compared to other apes. We are way past the shallowest "whoever's strongest wins".

The whole female-choice thing is also way more common in more solitary species where the males have to keep the female's attention than in hierarchical group ones where males fight each other and kick each other out and females kinda just hang around with each other and don't care, and go for the most available drama-free option during mating season. She keeps ping-ponging between "evolution favours strong males that hog more resources" and "evolution favours cooperative males" and is trying to say that men hogging resources and cooperating to violently oppress women (and arguably each other) is somehow...not evolution working as intended and favouring the genes of violent, manipulative, morally corrupt men?

Edited Dec 15 2025, 9:24 AM by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

Dec 14 2025, 11:03 PM #7

(Dec 14 2025, 12:14 AM)Impress Polly In reality, females are nature's default sex. It makes no natural sense for them to be subordinate.

Quote:Owens' own DNA knows this and spontaneously resists following her own advice by forfeiting her financial independence.

Quote:Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Impress Polly
The kind they warned you about.

144

Yesterday, 9:16 PM

(Dec 14 2025, 11:03 PM)YesYourNigel
Quote:Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.
That's....not how natural selection works. Natural selection is literally just about describing which group of characteristics happens to adapt to and exploit ecological changes better than others. There is no "better" or "fittest" or "superior" under evolution as an independent concept. This is the part that normies struggle the most to understand because we're used to hearing evolution explained im very eugenics-y terms. You are "the fittest" if you happen to be even slightly marginally more successful than your competition at exploiting the world around you. That's it. Your superiority under evolution is like the superiority you might get if you happened to match a randomly selected shoe size. If being blind and eating dirt all your life or suiciding to let babies eat your corpse made you fit the shoe better, congrats, you've won evolution. Evolution doesn't give a shit about your wellbeing or your morals.

The person in the video says the patriarchy rigs evolution so that "the weakest" and "cruelest" men reproduce...I mean...welcome to evolution, bud? Did you think evopsych owes you a knight in shining armour? These men rigged the system to favour them. They've won evolution. In no universe does evolution care about the ethics of how someone manages to spread their genes around most effectively, just that they do.

Also urghhh, making a dumb generalisation like "evolution favours strength" is just...no. Even in species where the strongest males push other males out, weak males will sometimes develop strategies to sneak by and get to the bored females (sometimes even by imitating female appearances). Human males actually have the least strength both compared to other apes and compared to their species' females because of a long downwards trend in humans compared to other apes. We are way past the shallowest "whoever's strongest wins".

The whole female-choice thing is also way more common in more solitary species where the males have to keep the female's attention than in hierarchical group ones where males fight each other and kick each other out and females kinda just hang around with each other and don't care, and go for the most available drama-free option during mating season. She keeps ping-ponging between "evolution favours strong males that hog more resources" and "evolution favours cooperative males" and is trying to say that men hogging resources and cooperating to violently oppress women (and arguably each other) is somehow...not evolution working as intended and favouring the genes of violent, manipulative, morally corrupt men?

Noooooooooooooope! Men exist to diversify the gene pool, which occurs most efficiently when women choose their partners rather than the other way around. Patriarchal social systems exist to undermine, or preferably eliminate, female sexual selection, thus objectively rendering the human evolutionary process less efficient.

Edited Yesterday, 9:20 PM by Impress Polly.

Impress Polly

The kind they warned you about.

Yesterday, 9:16 PM #8

(Dec 14 2025, 11:03 PM)YesYourNigel
Quote:Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.
That's....not how natural selection works. Natural selection is literally just about describing which group of characteristics happens to adapt to and exploit ecological changes better than others. There is no "better" or "fittest" or "superior" under evolution as an independent concept. This is the part that normies struggle the most to understand because we're used to hearing evolution explained im very eugenics-y terms. You are "the fittest" if you happen to be even slightly marginally more successful than your competition at exploiting the world around you. That's it. Your superiority under evolution is like the superiority you might get if you happened to match a randomly selected shoe size. If being blind and eating dirt all your life or suiciding to let babies eat your corpse made you fit the shoe better, congrats, you've won evolution. Evolution doesn't give a shit about your wellbeing or your morals.

The person in the video says the patriarchy rigs evolution so that "the weakest" and "cruelest" men reproduce...I mean...welcome to evolution, bud? Did you think evopsych owes you a knight in shining armour? These men rigged the system to favour them. They've won evolution. In no universe does evolution care about the ethics of how someone manages to spread their genes around most effectively, just that they do.

Also urghhh, making a dumb generalisation like "evolution favours strength" is just...no. Even in species where the strongest males push other males out, weak males will sometimes develop strategies to sneak by and get to the bored females (sometimes even by imitating female appearances). Human males actually have the least strength both compared to other apes and compared to their species' females because of a long downwards trend in humans compared to other apes. We are way past the shallowest "whoever's strongest wins".

The whole female-choice thing is also way more common in more solitary species where the males have to keep the female's attention than in hierarchical group ones where males fight each other and kick each other out and females kinda just hang around with each other and don't care, and go for the most available drama-free option during mating season. She keeps ping-ponging between "evolution favours strong males that hog more resources" and "evolution favours cooperative males" and is trying to say that men hogging resources and cooperating to violently oppress women (and arguably each other) is somehow...not evolution working as intended and favouring the genes of violent, manipulative, morally corrupt men?

Impress Polly
The kind they warned you about.

144

Yesterday, 10:16 PM

(Dec 14 2025, 3:00 AM)LeftFem I must have missed the feminism of Thatcher.

Quote:The feminists hate me don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison
https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2015/right-wing-women-a-feminist-issue

Yeah, I missed that too. Thatcher was the kind of woman who was better liked by men than by other women and that's always the most electable sort.

The most generous thing we can say of Thatcher's contribution to the advancement of women is that her neoliberal policies at points ruined her country's economy, thus forcing more women to join the workforce, generally in low-paying, menial, entry-level occupations, in order for their families to survive. Not unlike what was the case under Reagan here in the United States.

Edited Yesterday, 10:23 PM by Impress Polly.

Impress Polly

The kind they warned you about.

Yesterday, 10:16 PM #9

(Dec 14 2025, 3:00 AM)LeftFem I must have missed the feminism of Thatcher.

Quote:The feminists hate me don't they? And I don't blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison
https://historymatters.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/blog-archive/2015/right-wing-women-a-feminist-issue

YesYourNigel

322

5 hours ago

#10

(Yesterday, 9:16 PM)Impress Polly
(Dec 14 2025, 11:03 PM)YesYourNigel
Quote:Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.
That's....not how natural selection works. Natural selection is literally just about describing which group of characteristics happens to adapt to and exploit ecological changes better than others. There is no "better" or "fittest" or "superior" under evolution as an independent concept. This is the part that normies struggle the most to understand because we're used to hearing evolution explained im very eugenics-y terms. You are "the fittest" if you happen to be even slightly marginally more successful than your competition at exploiting the world around you. That's it. Your superiority under evolution is like the superiority you might get if you happened to match a randomly selected shoe size. If being blind and eating dirt all your life or suiciding to let babies eat your corpse made you fit the shoe better, congrats, you've won evolution. Evolution doesn't give a shit about your wellbeing or your morals.

The person in the video says the patriarchy rigs evolution so that "the weakest" and "cruelest" men reproduce...I mean...welcome to evolution, bud? Did you think evopsych owes you a knight in shining armour? These men rigged the system to favour them. They've won evolution. In no universe does evolution care about the ethics of how someone manages to spread their genes around most effectively, just that they do.

Also urghhh, making a dumb generalisation like "evolution favours strength" is just...no. Even in species where the strongest males push other males out, weak males will sometimes develop strategies to sneak by and get to the bored females (sometimes even by imitating female appearances). Human males actually have the least strength both compared to other apes and compared to their species' females because of a long downwards trend in humans compared to other apes. We are way past the shallowest "whoever's strongest wins".

The whole female-choice thing is also way more common in more solitary species where the males have to keep the female's attention than in hierarchical group ones where males fight each other and kick each other out and females kinda just hang around with each other and don't care, and go for the most available drama-free option during mating season. She keeps ping-ponging between "evolution favours strong males that hog more resources" and "evolution favours cooperative males" and is trying to say that men hogging resources and cooperating to violently oppress women (and arguably each other) is somehow...not evolution working as intended and favouring the genes of violent, manipulative, morally corrupt men?

Noooooooooooooope! Men exist to diversify the gene pool, which occurs most efficiently when women choose their partners rather than the other way around. Patriarchal social systems exist to undermine, or preferably eliminate, female sexual selection, thus objectively rendering the human evolutionary process less efficient.

First, this assumes that evolution seeks to maximise genetic diversity. It doesn't, otherwise plenty of species that clone themselves would not exist. If genetic diversity helps in spreading genes, then it's selected for. If it doesn't, well, evolution couldn't give less of a damn. Genetic diversity is a means, not an end. Males have existed in plenty of species and then been selected against when providing genetic diversity proved less useful than maximising the number of wombs out there available to churn out babies. Evolution doesn't care how diverse a species is as long as it is thriving. Are patriarchies thriving? Yup. Then they've won evolution. It's as simple as that. "But it's not ethical" "but they're not doing it the proper way" "but they could do even better" NONE of that matters. If the competition has failed, then from an evolutionary standpoint, they deserved to. Bye.

You are not going to get evolution to shed tears over what could've been and what should be. Hell, even species dying out is evolution working as intended: you got outplayed by someone doing marginally better? You deserve to die out. It's like calling foul play in capitalism that certain groups get to hog all the money while others live in poverty. You're not going to get a system that is dedicated to maximising profits for the most exploitative individuals to care about that, because that is a feature, not a bug.

And we've seen what happens when women do choose: they choose not to churn out one baby after another all their lives, despite the fact that we're told that's all we want. If your only goal is "evolution" (aka maximising the spread of offspring by any means necessary) then women deserve to be sexually enslaved, because they sure as hell don't want to engage in this of their own accord.

The whole evopsych thing assumes evolution gives a shit about achieving some eugenics goal of ultimately creating the perfect Superhuman when. It. Couldn't. Care. Less. And then it assumes actual women need to work to achieve this misguided evolutionary goal and make their dating choices not based on ethical beneficial standards like "Is this man treating me as an equal and cotnributing to my rights and happiness instead of violating it?" but rather based on how "genetically diverse" and 💪strong💪 (even though as I mentioned, strength has actually been on a downward trajectory in human history) he is, because hey, even if you'll have to change his diapers and coddle his ego all your life, at least you'll know it's all in service of eventually producing a superhuman that's super at churning out (or forcing others to churn out) at least slightly more babies than the competition. Wow. Truly a noble goal to revolve your life around.

Edited 5 hours ago by YesYourNigel.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

YesYourNigel

5 hours ago #10

(Yesterday, 9:16 PM)Impress Polly
(Dec 14 2025, 11:03 PM)YesYourNigel
Quote:Patriarchy literally exists to undermine natural selection so that inferior, unfit males can reproduce their genes.
That's....not how natural selection works. Natural selection is literally just about describing which group of characteristics happens to adapt to and exploit ecological changes better than others. There is no "better" or "fittest" or "superior" under evolution as an independent concept. This is the part that normies struggle the most to understand because we're used to hearing evolution explained im very eugenics-y terms. You are "the fittest" if you happen to be even slightly marginally more successful than your competition at exploiting the world around you. That's it. Your superiority under evolution is like the superiority you might get if you happened to match a randomly selected shoe size. If being blind and eating dirt all your life or suiciding to let babies eat your corpse made you fit the shoe better, congrats, you've won evolution. Evolution doesn't give a shit about your wellbeing or your morals.

The person in the video says the patriarchy rigs evolution so that "the weakest" and "cruelest" men reproduce...I mean...welcome to evolution, bud? Did you think evopsych owes you a knight in shining armour? These men rigged the system to favour them. They've won evolution. In no universe does evolution care about the ethics of how someone manages to spread their genes around most effectively, just that they do.

Also urghhh, making a dumb generalisation like "evolution favours strength" is just...no. Even in species where the strongest males push other males out, weak males will sometimes develop strategies to sneak by and get to the bored females (sometimes even by imitating female appearances). Human males actually have the least strength both compared to other apes and compared to their species' females because of a long downwards trend in humans compared to other apes. We are way past the shallowest "whoever's strongest wins".

The whole female-choice thing is also way more common in more solitary species where the males have to keep the female's attention than in hierarchical group ones where males fight each other and kick each other out and females kinda just hang around with each other and don't care, and go for the most available drama-free option during mating season. She keeps ping-ponging between "evolution favours strong males that hog more resources" and "evolution favours cooperative males" and is trying to say that men hogging resources and cooperating to violently oppress women (and arguably each other) is somehow...not evolution working as intended and favouring the genes of violent, manipulative, morally corrupt men?

Noooooooooooooope! Men exist to diversify the gene pool, which occurs most efficiently when women choose their partners rather than the other way around. Patriarchal social systems exist to undermine, or preferably eliminate, female sexual selection, thus objectively rendering the human evolutionary process less efficient.

I refuse to debate two obvious facts: 1. the patriarchy exists 2. and that's a bad thing

Print Thread

Recently Browsing
4 Guest(s)