I dont think you read what I wrote, because you’re not responding to it. However, we’ve been told this is a hijack, so don’t bother rereading it.
The "Tradwife" lifestyle: Does anyone else find this appealing, or have personal experience with it?
Yes, that has also happened.
Oops. Sorry, I missed the post about the hijack. Will stop.
So, i am not a tradwife, and don’t find it even a little appealing. But i have a close friend who is a “type 3” tradwife and a friend who is the husband of another one. And i think they DO find the lifestyle appealing. I also don’t think either is trapped, any more than most of us are somewhat restricted by our prior choices. If the wives were miserable, they could leave. They have strong social networks, including friends and family outside their religious circles, who would support them.
If you’re talking about Traditional wives. It is appealing to me.
I found it a free way to live. Pursued many interests without compunction.
Cleaning is my hobby, I’m sorry it just is.
Cook decently if in a more southern way.
Loved loved the kid stuff.
Nurturing them and getting them to an adult age has been the true joy of my life.
My pets and animals have given me many hours of happiness.
Husband treated me kindly. Made good money.
I couldn’t really be employed. So I couldn’t do anything to get satisfaction that way.
So I cleaned my house, painted my murals. Raised my kids.
It’s certainly not the way for everyone. You are out of some kinda loop that some folks thrive on.
It can be the best way for some of us.
Tradwife life (online)is not something I could or would do.
I think the main difference between a “Traditional Wife” like you describe and a “TradWife” is that with a Traditional Wife, the man is expected to provide for the wife while she takes of the household, kids, and much of the social activities. While he earns most, if not all the money, the understanding is that it’s “our” money to be spent on the household and the wife is doing most of these activities so the Husband can bust his ass working 100 hour weeks and going on business trips so he can get the big promotion.
“TradWife” sounds like typical toxic manosphere bullshit Incel fantasy where the Wife is some sort of Stepford robot whose job it is to wait on the husband hand and foot and take care of his every needs.
Did you visit the men’s room, and if so, did they have a similar or comparable sign?
The Tradwife thing is mostly fantasy. Made up to make money on the internet.
They particularly draw attention to the fact they are subservient women. To create the illusion.
It’s not real.
I did visit the men’s room, and at the time, no it didn’t. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t, or shouldn’t be, but it is what it is.
Focusing back on your OP though:
I was thinking we unfortunately have a ready-made “society” of men who likely do think this is an ideal situation, although I’m doubtful they care at all about the responsibility of earning enough to care for their new property: incels.
Yes, that is a broad term, and it isn’t exclusively the trope of parent’s-basement-dwelling, insecure, underemployed men, but especially for them, I’m sure it sounds great. Because they get the aforementioned involuntary lover and maid to care for them, without the responsibility of maintaining a relationship, and being able to order them by fiat without them having the agency to object or leave.
Again, ONLY speaking to the sort of classification of “men” who might eagerly embrace ownership of women as sexual objects and homecare specialists without a care for how they might feel. Power without responsibility can be a heady drug to many, and that part at least isn’t exclusively gendered.
TO BE 100% CLEAR, I’m not advocating any of this, frankly the thought sickens me, but for a chunk of that class of individuals, I see the shoe fitting.
Here’s an article that I think largely supports what you are saying, at least if I understand you correctly (as in, it isn’t that “tradwives” don’t exist - they do, but they are largely performative phenomena driven by internet influencer types - that’s what you mean, I think?).
Hopefully not paywalled, LMK if it is.
There was a long discussion about “tradwives” (the social media thing, which your link discusses) way upthread, and how they’re a different thing than “traditional wives,” particularly those from extremely conservative religious groups, which is what the OP was really asking about.
Sorry, I didn’t know we’d limited the discussion to just one of the various definitions. I do get that there is more than one phenomenon at play here. But I am still interested in confirmation as to who Beck was referring to; I think I know what she meant, but if she is referring to “traditional” wives without the social media component (#2 in @puzzlegal 's list, post 96) then I’m confused.
What I don’t understand is how this could be political?
I guess any thing can be political, really.
But this? It seems like a lifestyle choice. Unless these creepy men are grabbing women off the street and forcing them into servitude.
That’s kinda illegal.
A woman who married a man and she didn’t understand he was gonna make her a slave was not seeing the signs/red flags.
I know women marry men all the time and are surprised to wake up day 2 and find a monster in her bed.
I don’t think it is as prevalent as we think.
She may think he’ll change.
She may want out of the situation she’s in and married to escape it.
But this is before kids show up, I guess. You never can tell.
Easier to get out before the kids are born.
I can’t believe every man who has a traditional wife is an abuser or a serial cheater. A control freak.Or some religious fanatic.
Sometimes they work many hours or are out of town and need a helpmate. A minder of the home fires.
Political? Not seeing it. Ok how long have we had toxic Republicans? Some man discovers Trump, goes all in. What does he do? Drag her out of her employment? Make sure she’s barefoot and pregnant.
Start controlling everything? Money, shopping, understand the kids education and religious training. Where to find the plumber. How to pay the property taxes. The electric bill. While working double shifts to make up the pay loss from wifey not working.
That’s a bunch of balls to juggle.
When is he gonna have time to be a devout Trumper?
I meant to put this in my last post, but missedthe edit window:
Regarding the more “traditional” concept of a traditional wife, I apparently caused a huge firestorm in my alum magazine back in the 1980s, when I was living in Micronesia and was cut off from most interactions with folks. In response to an article in the magazine, I write a letter to the editor, which was then published, saying that my concerns with respect SAHM were three, and that I had no real objection if said moms could answer them:
-
What if your husband becomes incapacitated, dies, or leaves you in penury, and you must support yourself and your kids? Keeping a hand in the work world will help maintain your earning power, if it should become necessary. If you don’t keep your skills current you’ll be left behind as technology and other trends make it necessary to keep up with changes in most fields.
-
What kind of role model are you for your children? If your kids see that their dad is the breadwinner and you are the nurturer, will they, especially the girls, grow up to feel that an independent, self-supporting, working female is something they can strive for if they want?
-
Are you contributing to the world to the extent that, in my book, we all have a moral obligation to do? This doesn’t mean we all have to work for non-profits; you could have a corporate job and donate generous financial contributions to worthy causes.
Now, I don’t think that the SAHM model is out of the question. I am pretty sure Beck, and thoughtful people like her, had good answers to all three of the above - savings/life insurance policy/other financial support if needed; exposing her kids to a variety of female role models in various capacities and being an equal partner with her husband in family decision-making; getting out in the world and volunteering.
I’m only judgy (and yes, I admit I’m judgy) in cases where women, or stay-at-home dads for that matter, adopt a one-parent-full-time-homemaker model without thinking through those serious moral questions. Which, at the time I wrote the letter, was probably far more common than it is now.
Anyway, due to limited mail receipt, I did not receive the next few issues of the magazine where my letter was published. But apparently the subsequent discussion became so heated that finally the editor said “ENOUGH! We are not publishing any more responses to what CairoCarol wrote.”
My mother also related that she was introduced to a new acquaintance, got to talking, found out that the other person was an alum of my college, and the woman thought about my mother’s last name and then said, “OMIGOD. Was that YOUR daughter that started that controversy in the alum magazine?”
I dunno. Are those questions as inflammatory now as they apparently were circa 1987? I hope not.
They are not inflammatory to me. I’ve heard them all from my sisters.
Sometimes there’s reasons, I had a bucketful.
In short, the answer to that is yes, and probably even more so now.
I would love to discuss the christian nationalist version of “trad wife” I tried to bring up multiple times that is very real, and not a social media thing. However, I don’t think this is the thread because people keep trying to drag the conversation into it either being a social media thing, or a stay at home mom thing. I think OP wants to discuss what I am talking about. But I’m done in this thread. Maybe someone can start a new thread that clearly defines this subject. This version of tradwife is VERY real around my locale.
Here’s my advice: stop using the term “tradwife” already.
If what you really want to discuss (and you’ve made it very clear that it’s what you really want to discuss) is women in conservative Christian groups, and the “traditional wife” gender roles and marriage roles which are expected of them, use a different term.
“Tradwife” is a term that appears, to many people, to have a very specific definition, related to social media influencers, and it’s clear that it’s not what you, or the OP, are hoping to talk about. Every time you use it, or the OP uses it, it re-opens that can of worms, and you’re short-circuiting the discussion.
You seem to be on the same page as the OP(I think).
Perhaps, just tell your story. I, for one, will read it.
Just, as Kenobi says, don’t call them Tradwives.
I think the OP shouldn’t have called them that, what I understand them to mean is Traditional, overly religious, overly conservative, lots of children, maybe abused and misused and cheated on, women.
More inflammatory now than in 1987? Why more so?