Words: Zara Khan (she/her)
There’s a craving for a nostalgic past that doesn’t exist now, and didn’t serve us in any capacity back then.
Modern-day “tradwives” are a capitalist’s best friend, and a hoax to the rest. We live in a time where we can open our phones and see different worlds on our screens; some aspirational, others completely unattainable. When I see a video depicting ‘My 5-9 before my 9-5’ (showing how the hours of 5 a.m. to 9 a.m. are utilised before the workday begins), at first, I’m jealous that I don’t possess that level of discipline, but more importantly, I can build towards getting more out of my day to make my life more fulfilling. However, the algorithm has been pushing “tradwife” content, taking us back to the 1950s era of poodle skirts and cherry pies, “domestic bliss”, and a lack of financial freedom. That’s what’s up for sale, because what is the real fantasy they’re promoting? Let’s go over it together.
If you’re a woman with a male partner, willing to be submissive and serve him, then he’ll provide for you and take care of you financially, so you don’t even need to work! Those rights the Suffragettes worked so hard for – who needs ‘em? Instead, you can provide your partner with children and be fully responsible for their upbringing and running the household. When your partner returns from work, he will expect dinner on the table. This is where influencers like Nara Smith come in: why complain about cooking when you can look chic as you do it? You don’t get anything in return for any of this because, remember, your partner is the earner and you have the ‘easy’ (invisible) job of cooking, cleaning, and relaxing at home.
Of course, if women have a desire to run their household and not be in the workforce, then that is their entitlement and should be respected. But it is a choice they are making. That word, “choice”, has been hard-won over the last few decades and is what separates an individual decision to be a homemaker from glorifying “tradwives”, making it the newest trend for internet stardom.
I have a theory: as the economy fluctuates, so does the line between tradition and liberation. If you were to take to social media and search ‘recession indicators’, you’d see I’m not the only one with this viewpoint. One recession indicator I want to highlight, which speaks to the wider “tradwife” conversation, is the Hemline Index, a popular theory from the 1920s.
It states that during times of economic growth and success, a woman’s dress hemline gets shorter, like in the 1920s and 1960s. The reverse is also true: during times of economic decline, the hemline gets longer, like in the 1930s. It’s no coincidence that fashion companies like Pretty Little Thing have rebranded from fast-fashion, going-out clothes to the long, beige dresses of “quiet luxury”, which reeks of conservatism. But, even this is a performance, as the purpose of “quiet luxury” is investment pieces that can be reworn. Can this be expected from a previous fast-fashion company specialising in all things polyester?
This performance continues into domestic contexts, with many promoting family-oriented messaging of being a wife and mother. This isn’t a negative in itself: I don’t want to give the impression that people who want to start families are not feminists, or are setting women back. That grossly misinterprets the issue at hand. This charade of the “tradwife” is damaging as it advises young women to give up their careers, ambitions, and become accessories to their husbands. It does not allow women to attain a lifestyle that is family-oriented without sacrificing their individuality. Even the name “tradwife”, meaning “traditional wife”, erases identity and asks women to identify themselves by their position in the household. That language and mindset must be shifted.
What is not being fairly displayed by the people pushing the “tradwife” aesthetic is that many of them have their own income streams from monetising this type of content, which alienates them from what they’re promoting. If women were to be influenced by this, it could lead to disappointment and resentment as it paints an unsustainable, false reality. Successful businesswomen idealising becoming housewives, whilst not understanding the labour involved in being a housewife, makes this shift more jarring and submits to the incel-driven, misogynistic mentality that has been gaining traction on social media. It’s the return of the “pick-me girl.”
This era of postfeminist regression is truly startling. There’s a craving for a nostalgic past that doesn’t exist now, and didn’t serve us in any capacity back then. It took until 1923 for British women to be given the right to divorce their husbands, with stipulations kept in place to control this. It was near-impossible to become financially independent and have your own stream of income, and it took until 1928 for women in the UK to have the right to vote. It took until 1965 in the US for all women to have the right to vote. We cannot hand these rights back. Romanticising a life that is inherently restrictive and limiting is extremely harmful.
The current cost of living crisis makes it even more difficult to imagine a flourishing single-income household the way we see on our phones. It would be nice to imagine a life of luxury, minimal labour, and fancy holidays, but this is not the reality for the majority of us. Almost half of children raised in a single-income household are living in poverty in the UK. To paint a scene of domestic bliss, when most households can only just stay above the poverty line with a double income, creates a dichotomy that is hard to shake.
There’s no changing it: digital “tradwives” will continue to dominate online culture for the next few internet cycles. What we need to do is spot when someone is earnestly showing their lifestyle through their daily content, and when someone is transforming it into an aesthetic to make money off of it. Influencers come in all shapes and sizes, with different motivations and beliefs, so whether or not we follow them entirely is up to you.
