Times article worrying about trend of women wanting return to traditional gender roles

The whole "Trad wife" thing (trend of young women going back to traditional female roles) seems to have really struck a nerve with the progressive Left, because Time Magazine just put out an article about it.

The False Escapism of Soft Girls and Tradwives, by Vanessa Scaringi, February 28, 2024

As a conservative, this is a funny read.

But something I really found notable about the article is the criticism of female "softness".

This ironically at the same time this same group of people is criticizing so-called "toxic masculinity", trying to turn males soft.
(a problem that conservatives know as "wussification of men")


The article starts off:

The era of the "soft girl" is well underway. With 3 billion views on TikTok, the movement caters predominantly to women, specifically Gen-Z women, and the desire to achieve a delicate, care-free, ultra-feminine aesthetic. The lifestyle--while carefully crafted--sells the allure of a life defined by one thing: leisure. For many, the appeal is in admiring the beautiful aesthetics, like glitter and pastel accessories, and make-up tips to get the perfectly blushed "coquette" look. For others, it’s about pursuing an aspirational way of life full of "cozy cardio," Stanley water bottles, and a general sense of ease. But when taken too far, the ideals of soft girl culture give way to some hard consequences--on women's mental health and for society.

The sudden end of the "Girlboss" and the transition into this aesthetic marks an interesting societal trend into rigid definitions of femininity and limiting roles for women.
​

The article does point out something that I do believe to be true, and that is that some of this reversal seems to be driven by "escapism". With unaffordable rent and housing costs (in many areas), declining job opportunity and low wages, many young women seem to be "retreating" to the comfort of having a man provide for her. Or at least the idea of a man taking care of her. For many of these women, it is going to end up being a man older than she is.

The article continues:

"Confronting life's difficulties is not always easy, and it doesn't always feel worth it. A lack of intensity, in turn, certainly sounds appealing."
​

I certainly can understand this.

"Many of the women who embrace soft girl lifestyles have watched millennial women hustle to the point of negatively, impacting their mental health while still not earning enough to own a home. They may think, what's the point? Culturally, young women are aware that the old ideas of achieving financial stability through hard work are no longer applicable. This is scary to face, and the knowledge that their efforts in the way of career advancement and earning potential may go unrewarded might contribute to women aspiring to seek financial security through other means: namely, by reverting to old-fashioned gender roles that allow them to be cared for instead of hustling.
The tendency to avoid bleak prospects on stability, debt, and in general higher costs of living is not new."
​

 

Awesome! Where they at?

 

Watching the left try and wage war on traditional women is embarrassing. Feminism sprang from the left and how we've now gotten to the point where we swapped arbitrary conservative gender expectations to arbitrary liberal gender expectations is pathetic.

Feminism is, was, and should always be about choice. That means if a woman chooses to be traditional and conservative, you shut the hell up about it. If a woman chooses to be modern and liberated, you shut the hell up about it. It was not and should never be about replacing one set of expectations with another. **** your gender expectations. That's the feminism I've always subscribed to.

 

My experience through out life has been that the toughest women I've known were traditional mothers. And that women who substitute the work force for motherhood tend to substitute a general state of nastiness for toughness with unpleasant consequences for themselves and everyone around them. Most of the complaints I saw in the article are as applicable to single men as single women. For instance shortly after WWII the left began constructing a would in which it increasing took two wage earners to obtain that which one used to be able to obtain. And then the feminist movement came along and almost immediately began preaching the destruction of traditional male/female roles and dynamiting marriages where they could in order to substitute the supposed 'liberating 'joy' of the '9 to 5' work place. Not surprisingly more than a few are beginning to think the trade wasn't worth it and that the supposed liberating joy of the work place is neither particularly liberating nor exactly joyful.

Of course, the old school feminist tend to see that as a direct assault on there own beliefs and a complete rejection of their own lives. Interestingly enough the more second thoughts they have about their own choice the more virulent their attacks on traditional marriage and the women who prefer it.

In the end the hard core marxist left hates any loyalty that is not to their own shibboleths, even inter family loyalties and those shibboleths seem always to be attached at the hip to the leader of the moment even when that leader is an obviously corrupt, obviously senile old man.

 

Definitely an interesting topic.
A good discussion can be found at the following link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rturned-but-thats-only-half-the-story.616966/

 

My mother was a trad wife. She took care of us kids. Cooked all the meals, including for the occasional work crews. Did the laundry weekly and hung it out to dry on the lines followed by ironing. Fed and watered the chickens, picked and packed eggs, butchered and froze roosters. Planted and weeded the garden and picked vegetables and fruit. Canned fruit and vegetables. Sewed and mended clothes.

When she married, close to a third of the population lived on farms, and her work was typical of farm wives. Town and urban women probably had softer lives, but a lot of them also worked. She and my father's sisters also worked as maids in the city before marrying farmers.

Somehow, I don't think that this is the "trad wife" lifestyle they are looking for.

This movement appears to want some sort of upper middle class lifestyle that did exist for some women, but they were a small minority. It probably reached its peak around the '60s. Since then, stagnant real wages have resulted in most women working from economic necessity.

 

"Trad wives"is just a new leftist term designed to spin an insult towards an individual decision leftists don't like. It's an insult not a real word with real meaning.

 

some are calling themselves that.. not a leftist term

but the reality is, most on the left or right, if rich enough... would have one parent stay home with the children... they just can't afford it

 

"For instance shortly after WWII the left began constructing a would in which it increasing took two wage earners to obtain that which one used to be able to obtain."

the left? no, corporatism was more than happy to allow women to work and raise prices so that two people needed to work to survive

with AI and foreign outsourcing, times will be changing, corps no longer will need the labor numbers of the past

 

You would be amazed how much money you can save by having a household manager in the home. And when my house lost half our income....I was amazed how much we didn't pay in taxes.

Now I will say when I stayed home we ended up with more money. I relished the job. But thing reversed years later.. and I worked and my husband stayed at home with the older kids....we didn't end up as financially well. The kids benefited but that's about it.

As far as the "Trad" term...I've only seen it thrown out by leftists.

 

yep, if you make enough money (or inherit it) to start with to survive on one income - you can actually save money

 

You save money by buying used cars, shopping on a budget and sticking to it, eating home cooked meals instead of eating out or ordering delivered. Purchasing a small house in a blue collar area. You save money by living within your means.

I guarantee you that many couples with children with both parents working live in high dollar homes with two new cars and they eat out a lot as neither have the energy to shop and cook. And that's fine. But it's common.

I didn't even mention the savings from not paying child care.

 

yep, but many do that and still work two jobs and barely make it - just cause one quits their job, doesn't mean they will have enough money to pay the bills or have room to cut back

 

No one is cookie cutter--it depends on where they live and of course if mom and dad both make minimum wage then they will need two incomes to cover expenses I'm sure. But to say that most families with two working parents MUST live that way to "make it", I think is inaccurate. I think much of the time they want to make a certain lifestyle with the large house, new cars etc. I also think that if you account for the tax savings and not paying for childcare--many parents could make a one parent at home managing the house work. As long as they weren't house payment heavy.

 

The push to equalize the sexes regardless of biological differences has put a real strain on women. Then we have the fad if trans women expect to be "one of the girls", at 6'4" of only slightly diluted masculine gender.
And the final straw: letting trans women box or MMA with men. Maybe someone has to die before it hits home:
Most women were born to perform traditional roles with the modern accoutrements of role sharing. No more churning butter in the hot sun.
"Girly girls" have a lot going for them, and now it is getting safe again for them to live it.

 

The whole "women's liberation movement" from the late '60s to early '80s was likely fully sponsored by "the powers that be".

It accomplished two objectives:

1. It brought large numbers into the labor force to do the less physical and more intellectual jobs needed to continue growing the economy and compete with the USSR at the peak of the Cold War, and
2. It co-opted the Affirmative Action policies so that white women could be hired, black women became "twofers", and black men could be ignored.

It was bad for white families, especially families with children shuffled around whatever daycare could be arranged.

It was disastrous for black families, with black fathers relegated to second place to their higher paid, more readily employed wives.

 

both sides wanted it, but yes, it did have unintended consequences

 

which is what I was saying, so I agree

"but the reality is, most on the left or right, if rich enough... would have one parent stay home with the children... they just can't afford it"

 

Well---a guess where we differ is that I believe you don't have to be rich to have a parent stay at home. The working poor--two parents on minimum wage probably could not. But a middle class income could if they WANTED that lifestyle. You have to give up things though. And not all women or men want to stay at home.

More men are staying at home. But they've been useless really in the household management field in my opinion. My experience with my co-workers and my own, is that they aren't commited to cook, they aren't driven to clean and mom comes home to a dirty house and has to order dinner delivered. I personally don't think men were created to be home makers. But the house does get a lot of improvements lol. Paint, siding, shelves, new flooring.

 

you have to be "rich enough" to be a stay at home mom... not rich

you have to make enough money to meet all your basic needs, it helps if you already own a house

 

Other forces besides costs are going to impact email-girl jobs, AI. What happens when the easy, indoor jobs in communications, marketing, and others are eliminated due to AI? Are they just going to go work on an oil rig or be part of a road crew? Maybe some will go into the trades, but I think being a stay at home mom is going to look a lot more attractive when AI does a clean sweep of soft keyboard jobs.

 

I can't agree with you enough. My wife and I made that same commitment when we decided to have kids. A "traditional" marriage where my wife stayed home and raised kid's and I fought the outside world demons. Eventually the opportunity to relocate from big city Michigan to semi-rural Virginia came up and my wife, being an old fashioned hillbilly girl whose family is from Virginia, really wanted me to take it and I couldn't say no. So off to Virginia with our kids we went.

The opportunities for an automotive engineer are definitely slimmer out here and our time here has been fraught to say the least, but as the kids grew into being able to take care of themselves, my wife went back to work. About 14 years ago I lost a really good job in DC (long story) and we were forced to go bankrupt. Fortunately the kids were in either high school or college so we managed to scramble together as we lost almost everything. My wife has now been the consistent bread winner and I've managed to cobble together a number of contract and normal jobs.

Bought another small house in 2015 and paid it off about a month ago. We're now debt free and my wife gets to spend whatever I make on home improvements and two puppies.

I turn 63 next month, my wife is 28, and next month we also celebrate our 37th anniversary. The kids are married, live nearby, and we've also got enough money to help with some things like student loans that were undertaken during the crisis when we couldn't help.

Yeah, "traditional" marriage sucks.

My arse.

 

been married to your 28-year-old wife for almost 37 years... congrats

Given ya a hard time, sure that is a typo

 

A regular Leonardo DiCaprio over heah...

 

You don't get to 37 years without learning a thing or two.