Help me understand Tradwife and Redpill logic

[Anonymous]

This should not be talked about as normal. The red pill stuff is 2022 Andrew Tate BS, we keep our sons away from that. But, the tradwife stuff is gaining mainstream traction, and is propaganda meant to brainwash young girls. I have an 18yo son, 23yo son and 16yo, 21yo, 25yo daughters (who’ll be married soon), and they’re all worth much more than any of that BS.

[Anonymous]

I am trad wife and my husband is the complete opposite of red pill. We are both pretty liberal.
He doesn’t demand that I am a housewife. It was a decision we made together. I wanted it and he was ok with that. The traditional “gender roles” come naturally to us and we just go with that.

It works for us without the need to follow some script or ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, you have to tease it out a little bit more and not caricature in the manner you do. There are really two aspects of this: one is the structural critique, the second is how you respond to the situation in which you find yourself.

On the first, it seems to me a reasonable point of view—debatable of course—is that in the aggregate the current trend of late marriage, late childbearing, many sexual partners—is, on average, less conducive to a happy life than earlier marriage and childbearing with fewer sexual partners would be. So if you are saying that this view is incomprehensible or indefensible, I strongly disagree. But, it’s a collective action problem and, as you correctly point out, there are a lot of economic incentives that led to the way things currently are. So perhaps there is nothing to be done with this observation, but I think it’s a reasonable position.

2. So then, what is to be done? Obviously there are all sorts of potentially negative scenarios of a more traditional approach, the ones you posit are of course possible negative outcomes. But, there are also many negative outcomes to the current way of doing things too, not least of which are many women who are strung along by feckless guys with no intention of ever settling down into their mid-30s or beyond. It’s a world of trade-offs, and how you weigh the relative risks depends on your priors about human nature and how the world works.

And while people get all wound around the axle about the “body count” discourse—and I agree there is a lot of negative, unrealistic, and indeed crazy discussion of this issue in places—it seems obvious to me that someone with a body count of, say, 4 very likely has a different perspective on sex and relationships than someone with a body count of 87. You can’t expect people not to notice this or take it into account in making such an important decision as whom to marry.

I actually don’t disagree with your first point, but your first point is compromised by a component of your second point, regarding the feckless men with no intention of settling down.

I am a professional woman who married in her 30s. I would have loved to get married younger, but I didn’t meet my husband until age 35. The men I met earlier were just not interested in marriage. I also knew plenty of my female peers would have loved to get married in their 20s but couldn’t find anyone suitable. It takes both genders cooperating. The only thing this points to is for every woman to pursue a man 10+ years older. Fair enough, but then you have the gap in life experience. Of course “not all men,” but a 35-years older-old man could easily promise the world to his 22-year-old girlfriend only to renege on his promises. In this case, the onus is on the 22-year-old woman to properly assess the honesty and integrity of a man with a decade plus of experience? If she doesn’t hedge her bets, I.e, withhold sex, then she notches her body count before starting all over in the pursuit of marriage, and a year or two older.

Not every woman who marries late or gets to her mid 30s with no husband is there because she “wasted her 20s partying” or something like that. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out. Long term relationships run their course, or someone gets a job in another state, or other life events happen.

[Anonymous]

There's no logic in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am trad wife and my husband is the complete opposite of red pill. We are both pretty liberal.
He doesn’t demand that I am a housewife. It was a decision we made together. I wanted it and he was ok with that. The traditional “gender roles” come naturally to us and we just go with that.

It works for us without the need to follow some script or ideology.

That’s awesome, but, how does that work for the average person financially? You either have to have family money, or have one partner be able to earn a lot of money to save and invest very early on to make that happen. And yes I’m aware of the “two income trap” that is largely attributed to childcare costs, but in terms of the modern (post-2008 recession) economy, even high-paying white collar jobs are not stable anymore. Good Lord, you hear of software engineers selling their possessions and becoming Uber drivers. It just seems like relying on a single earner is very risky. It may work for you out of a series of fortunate events or perfectly-timed good decisions but I don’t see how that can work for an average American family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am trad wife and my husband is the complete opposite of red pill. We are both pretty liberal.
He doesn’t demand that I am a housewife. It was a decision we made together. I wanted it and he was ok with that. The traditional “gender roles” come naturally to us and we just go with that.

It works for us without the need to follow some script or ideology.

That’s different than what OP is talking about.

Do you think you should have the right to vote? Or your h’s vote is all the unit needs? If you say you want to vote you are not a trad wife.

[Anonymous]

Having been in close proximity to this arrangement you have to understand that this is very different than a stay at home mom relying on their husband’s salary.

Being Catholic and having sent my kid to an extremely conservative school, he has multiple friends at the age of 23 that have been married and have more than one kid.

One thing you need to understand is money is not that important to these people. They’re not buying a fancy car., they aren’t buying fancy clothes, they aren’t getting their nails done, they don’t care how nice their house is, they don’t care if five kids sleep in the same room.

They don’t say for college because a trade or community college is fine.

We don’t really want to admit it, but there’s a good portion of people that cannot work. This is a good arrangement for a nice girl who would make a great preschool teacher, but can’t balance a checkbook..

It’s a good deal for the dude because she’s not leaving him, he doesn’t really have to make a lot of money, and he can cheat and she can’t leave.

[Anonymous]

I followed this social media family who moved to New York City with 7 kids (or so) and they all played classical instruments, the mom stayed home, it was content about their lives in NYC.

Then the content shifted to we don't have any money, we had to move back home to our hometown and we are currently remodeling and living in an industrial type space one of their parents owns because it's free.

Anyway, I think these tradwife type arrangements only work out financially if the wife actually becomes an influencer and is the money maker. If that is the case, then they are not actually a tradwife but it's interesting how they can say one thing, do another.

[Anonymous]

I think it really depends on the case. My mother was a housewife, but she worked until she had kids. They discussed finances and budget together and my dad is a chill guy so it really wasn’t this weird “im the alpha and you cook for me” environment and my dad encouraged me and my sister to go to college. I think some of the social media concepts of the tradwife are much more intense with women getting as little education as possible and being super submissive and going along with what the man says without question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The red pill stuff isn’t real. Most “red pill” men don’t have live that lifestyle. The trad stuff is real but not in the way you think. They get married out of college - 25, stay home, but most are influencers or come from rich families. It's nothing special, they are glamorized stay at home moms. Dont believe what you see online.

Essentially, they make a career out of pretending they don't have a career.

Biggest career op is having an IG/Tiktok channel where they dress in sexy Prairie-style outfits (that show lots of cleavage). They pretend to make bread or jam or something, while complaining about feminists with actual jobs. This is catnip for their followers, who are usually MAGA senior citizen males who send the influencer generous tips.

[Anonymous]

You’re adding too much bias in your analysis. I think a couple who opts for this lifestyle are not anticipating abuse from the husband. There is nothing inherently wrong with marrying early (after 20), being a virgin and living on one income. In a perfect world, it’s probably the most ideal way to raise a family with one spouse at home. I understand why it doesn’t work for most people, including myself. I would also never encourage my daughter to live like this. I had to be a stay at home mom while my spouse was deployed in the military. When he got back, he became abusive but I had an education to fall back on and now can support myself and kids with one income. But had my spouse been kind and supportive, we could have easily lived on his income and I could have continued to raise my kids. My kids definitely declined in many aspects when I went to work full time, but alas my husband ruined a good thing. I think it’s far too few men who can truly live like this and still respect their wives, but I’m sure there are some out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not defend or justify it, but understand the logic behind it.

Redpill men and tradwife women believe that a woman should marry in her early 20s, preferable as a virgin, and stay home and raise children. Got it.

This means that a woman that young needs to be able to find a man willing to settle down. Men in their 20s rarely want to settle down or take anything seriously. So, they need to find much older men? And if the man lies or cheats or uses her, it’s her fault for not being able to read minds and know his intentions? These same men also want a woman who is good in bed and “sex-positive.” But if the man doesn’t marry her, and she has to start over, that counts against her “body count.” But if she withholds sex and demands marriage…that’s also bad, apparently? She has to work some kind of magic to make a man want to settle down and marry her, without trying to trap him into a marriage?

Now the economics of it all. Tradwife at 22? Stay at home? One income, IN THIS ECONOMY? This requires her to only aspire to marry rich. But then it’s her fault for being a gold digger.
But then what happens if his high paying job is offshored to India? What if he’s replaced by AI? Who is going to pay for that rustic kitchen where she bakes bread from scratch?

Look, I’m all for the choice of early marriage/stay at home wife if that’s the life you want. I just don’t think the math adds up. Today’s economy has layoffs all over the place and everything is unstable. One income is simply too risky. It also puts all the blame on the woman if anything goes wrong. If she dates too many men before marriage - it’s her fault for having a high body count. If she settles down with the first guy who courts her, and it doesn’t work out, or if the guy lies and cheats, it’s her fault for not being a proper judge of character at age 20. If her husband loses his job, she has to suck it up and be poor, or it’s her fault do not being a supportive enough spouse.

Never mind feminism, the math just isn’t mathing.

Some young men wish to settle down and have little intererst in "playing the field." When I was in my 20s I had a couple of friends who got married and were never interested in being wannabe playboys. They were good-looking guys too, the type that women threw themselves at.

Some careers (e.g., law enforcement, trades) allow men to earn enough to support a family at a relatively young age, especially in a low cost of living place.

One of my friends who pursued this route was religious and would have like the notion of a tradwife, the other one was more eglitarian and his wife worked.

[Anonymous]

It's unrealistic nostalgia in service of patriarchy. The facts don't have to hold up because the vibe is right for some people. They don't like modernity. They want a return to male-dominated hierarchy. They long for a simpler time when, among other things, men were men and women were women (or so they believe.)

But there's a reason that we moved on from the olden days. It's not because we were foolish and didn't realize how good we had it. It's because things were bad for a lot of people. But, time has a way of softening the rough edges and making the past seem gauzy and pleasant. Meanwhile, the unpleasantness of the present always looms larger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, you have to tease it out a little bit more and not caricature in the manner you do. There are really two aspects of this: one is the structural critique, the second is how you respond to the situation in which you find yourself.

On the first, it seems to me a reasonable point of view—debatable of course—is that in the aggregate the current trend of late marriage, late childbearing, many sexual partners—is, on average, less conducive to a happy life than earlier marriage and childbearing with fewer sexual partners would be. So if you are saying that this view is incomprehensible or indefensible, I strongly disagree. But, it’s a collective action problem and, as you correctly point out, there are a lot of economic incentives that led to the way things currently are. So perhaps there is nothing to be done with this observation, but I think it’s a reasonable position.

2. So then, what is to be done? Obviously there are all sorts of potentially negative scenarios of a more traditional approach, the ones you posit are of course possible negative outcomes. But, there are also many negative outcomes to the current way of doing things too, not least of which are many women who are strung along by feckless guys with no intention of ever settling down into their mid-30s or beyond. It’s a world of trade-offs, and how you weigh the relative risks depends on your priors about human nature and how the world works.

And while people get all wound around the axle about the “body count” discourse—and I agree there is a lot of negative, unrealistic, and indeed crazy discussion of this issue in places—it seems obvious to me that someone with a body count of, say, 4 very likely has a different perspective on sex and relationships than someone with a body count of 87. You can’t expect people not to notice this or take it into account in making such an important decision as whom to marry.

I actually don’t disagree with your first point, but your first point is compromised by a component of your second point, regarding the feckless men with no intention of settling down.

I am a professional woman who married in her 30s. I would have loved to get married younger, but I didn’t meet my husband until age 35. The men I met earlier were just not interested in marriage. I also knew plenty of my female peers would have loved to get married in their 20s but couldn’t find anyone suitable. It takes both genders cooperating. The only thing this points to is for every woman to pursue a man 10+ years older. Fair enough, but then you have the gap in life experience. Of course “not all men,” but a 35-years older-old man could easily promise the world to his 22-year-old girlfriend only to renege on his promises. In this case, the onus is on the 22-year-old woman to properly assess the honesty and integrity of a man with a decade plus of experience? If she doesn’t hedge her bets, I.e, withhold sex, then she notches her body count before starting all over in the pursuit of marriage, and a year or two older.

Not every woman who marries late or gets to her mid 30s with no husband is there because she “wasted her 20s partying” or something like that. Sometimes it just doesn’t work out. Long term relationships run their course, or someone gets a job in another state, or other life events happen.

That entire post you replied to is just AI slop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am trad wife and my husband is the complete opposite of red pill. We are both pretty liberal.
He doesn’t demand that I am a housewife. It was a decision we made together. I wanted it and he was ok with that. The traditional “gender roles” come naturally to us and we just go with that.

It works for us without the need to follow some script or ideology.

That’s different than what OP is talking about.

Do you think you should have the right to vote? Or your h’s vote is all the unit needs? If you say you want to vote you are not a trad wife.

That is not the defining characteristic of trad wife.