Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I would be a "trad wife". Older Gen X, advanced degrees, stay at home mom for the last 15 years. The Great Recession ate my career field, pay scales sank through the floor, we had two little kids, and I decided to stay home with husband's urging and blessing. He makes enough to support us. I have a great life. Maybe I just don't care about money, or my ego. Our kids are teen and young adult, and are doing very well. Tradwife? It's just life, OP. People have to make a decision, and sometimes their decision isn't the same as yours. Live and let live, you know? I don't understand why a woman would have kids not to spend much time with them, and claim that the best example she is setting is to show them how to make money. I'd rather show my kids something else, I guess. I remember going to grade school events during the school day and having teachers ask in a whisper if I would be willing to look at the project of the classmate whose parents weren't there. I'll never forget the grade school girl who burst into tears as I complimented her work. She said through sobs, "I want my mom". She didn't say, "My mom can't be here because she's showing me how to make money at a job." I just said I know and I'm sure she's proud of you. What else can you say. My heart broke for her. I bet her mother never knew that happened, and assumed she was being a great example.

You're not a tradwife, you are a just a regular old SAHM.

It's essentially the same thing--both types of women are fully provided for by their husbands and they stay home and care for kids. UCM sahms will say the difference is they don't obey their husbands but the economic setup is the same and it's a very traditional one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Aren't a lot of tradwives and wife social media types actually the primary earners in their families b/c of social media money?

Kinda like Erika Kirk is ceo of turning point and travels a lot to make money and is the opposite of a tradwife?

Reminds me of all of the opinion writers who advocate for "the trades" while sending their own kids to liberal arts colleges.

Anonymous wrote:I guess I would be a "trad wife". Older Gen X, advanced degrees, stay at home mom for the last 15 years. The Great Recession ate my career field, pay scales sank through the floor, we had two little kids, and I decided to stay home with husband's urging and blessing. He makes enough to support us. I have a great life. Maybe I just don't care about money, or my ego. Our kids are teen and young adult, and are doing very well. Tradwife? It's just life, OP. People have to make a decision, and sometimes their decision isn't the same as yours. Live and let live, you know? I don't understand why a woman would have kids not to spend much time with them, and claim that the best example she is setting is to show them how to make money. I'd rather show my kids something else, I guess. I remember going to grade school events during the school day and having teachers ask in a whisper if I would be willing to look at the project of the classmate whose parents weren't there. I'll never forget the grade school girl who burst into tears as I complimented her work. She said through sobs, "I want my mom". She didn't say, "My mom can't be here because she's showing me how to make money at a job." I just said I know and I'm sure she's proud of you. What else can you say. My heart broke for her. I bet her mother never knew that happened, and assumed she was being a great example.

Anonymous wrote: 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? But if she withholds sex and demands marriage…that’s also bad, apparently?

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.


One income is simply too risky.

As someone who comes from a background (Mennonite) where trad life was just "life", I have bolded what I consider to be false premises. Yes, if you are using some very online caricature of a "tradwife" then you can use almost any premise and reach almost any conclusion you want.

But from my background, and even from non-Mennonites I grew up with who had traditional values, none of the above is true. The truth, in my experience is this:
-Men in their late teens and early 20s did indeed want to settle down and get married
-Marriages are typically between people in the same age range
-Adultery is he fault of the adulterer, always
-It was expected that, although difficult to achieve, sex would wait until marriage
-You can definitely still do it on one income, but not in the beltway

Anonymous wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:Why ask this question in one of our nation's Mecca of liberal women who hate men? Some women want something different than what you want. That is their prerogative. Not a choice I made, but it is not my place to judge other's choices.

Anonymous wrote:These men don't actually want a trad wife, they want a sex appliance that they can abuse. They don't want someone who will stand up to them, they want a child they can order around.

It's all very creepy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The logic is honestly pretty simple: modern women are often unhappy. If all these feminist advances have not made us happier, maybe we should go back to a simpler way of being?

You framed the question in an unbalanced way. The balanced proposition would be, "modern women are often unhappy, maybe we should go back to a time when women were happier." At which point, we'd have to ask whether women were happier before they could open bank accounts or vote or whatever specific time one has in mind as better. I think the answer would be, no they weren't happier. And then the discussion would end.

You are missing the point. A tradwife is embracing simpler day to day life while enjoying modern conveniences. They are not time traveling. OP is asking what the appeal of this lifestyle is.

Anonymous wrote:OP's post highlights the collective action problem. If women exited the labor force, wages would increase for men, thereby making the tradlife more affordable.

There are men who will marry early, but most women don't notice those guys, so women don't think they exist.

As for the comments on game, it's not rehearsed routines. It's a range of attitudes, some of which are healthy, and others that are sadly rewarded by women with low self-esteem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The logic is honestly pretty simple: modern women are often unhappy. If all these feminist advances have not made us happier, maybe we should go back to a simpler way of being?

You framed the question in an unbalanced way. The balanced proposition would be, "modern women are often unhappy, maybe we should go back to a time when women were happier." At which point, we'd have to ask whether women were happier before they could open bank accounts or vote or whatever specific time one has in mind as better. I think the answer would be, no they weren't happier. And then the discussion would end.

Anonymous wrote:

The logic is honestly pretty simple: modern women are often unhappy. If all these feminist advances have not made us happier, maybe we should go back to a simpler way of being?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you’re conflating some things. A lot of try wives are Mormon or various Christian sects that require virginity. So they all marry young simply for that reason. That’s a separate issue from tradwives and what they represent.

The logic is honestly pretty simple: modern women are often unhappy. If all these feminist advances have not made us happier, maybe we should go back to a simpler way of being? I don’t believe this or agree with it personally, but it’s a fair question to ask.

One thing interesting to me is trad wives have a surprising amount in common with Martha Stewart, ironically one of the most successful career women of all time. But Martha Stewart living was all about taking more pleasure in cooking, gardening, entertaining, and creating things with your hands. There is certainly value to these pursuits and women do not need to eschew them to be modern feminists.

I think there is a huge problem with this premise. Is it true that feminist advances haven't made us happier? Who, women? Or men? I ask because marrying later, having kids later, having a career - these are all things that have made me, as a woman, much happier. But the people that I see complaining the most about it are men. So the whole premise behind wanting to go back to a simpler time seems entirely problematic and alarming to me.

Anonymous wrote:I think you’re conflating some things. A lot of try wives are Mormon or various Christian sects that require virginity. So they all marry young simply for that reason. That’s a separate issue from tradwives and what they represent.

The logic is honestly pretty simple: modern women are often unhappy. If all these feminist advances have not made us happier, maybe we should go back to a simpler way of being? I don’t believe this or agree with it personally, but it’s a fair question to ask.

One thing interesting to me is trad wives have a surprising amount in common with Martha Stewart, ironically one of the most successful career women of all time. But Martha Stewart living was all about taking more pleasure in cooking, gardening, entertaining, and creating things with your hands. There is certainly value to these pursuits and women do not need to eschew them to be modern feminists.