Reynand Wu
In recent weeks, a striking phenomenon has emerged within the American political landscape, showcasing women on the conservative right who deftly navigate and embody two seemingly contradictory archetypes: the aspirational "girlboss" and the traditional "tradwife." This visible dualism reveals a deeper, often overlooked connection between contemporary conservative womanhood and a particular strain of individualistic feminism that warrants thorough examination.
The Rise of Dual Archetypes on the Political Right
Recent high-profile instances have brought this intriguing blend into sharp focus. Senator Katie Britt’s televised response to the State of the Union address, delivered from the intimate setting of her kitchen, was a meticulously crafted tableau. While she spoke on weighty political issues, the visual backdrop evoked a strong sense of domesticity and traditional family values, positioning her simultaneously as a formidable political figure and a nurturing homemaker. This strategic presentation allowed her to project both power and relatability, appealing to a broad conservative base that values both female agency and traditional gender roles.
Similarly, Michele Morrow, the conservative activist from North Carolina recently elected state Superintendent of Education, has consistently emphasized her credentials as a wife and mother above all else, even as she pursues and achieves significant political office. Her public persona consciously prioritizes domestic roles while her career trajectory is undeniably ambitious and professional. This duality is not an isolated incident but rather a growing trend among conservative women who are increasingly visible in public life, from political office to social media influence.
Deconstructing the "Tradwife" Phenomenon: Beyond Nostalgia
The "tradwife" movement, short for "traditional wife," has gained considerable traction, particularly online, with the hashtag #tradlife trending since at least 2019. This subculture promotes a version of femininity centered on domesticity, motherhood, and unwavering support for a financially providing husband. Influencers within this space typically present an idealized image: an apron-clad woman in a pristine kitchen, perfectly coiffed and made-up, serenely preparing elaborate scratch recipes. This aesthetic, often captured in high-quality videos and photographs on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, projects an image of tranquil domestic bliss that often belies the inherent chaos and demands of raising young children and managing a household.
While one might assume that the "tradwife" ideal harks back to an earlier, perhaps "backward," mode of femininity and marriage, this contemporary iteration is unmistakably modern. Its modernity stems from two critical elements: "choice" and entrepreneurship. Unlike historical societal pressures that often confined women to the domestic sphere, the modern tradwife actively asserts her lifestyle as a deliberate, conscious "choice." This framing is crucial; it redefines traditional roles as an empowered act of self-determination rather than a societal imposition.
Furthermore, the modern tradwife is inherently entrepreneurial. It is often insufficient for her simply to focus on her husband and children within the confines of her home; she is encouraged, and often expected, to monetize or publicize her lifestyle. This manifests through blogging, vlogging, creating social media content, and building an online presence as an "influencer." This is precisely where the "girlboss" mentality intersects with and subtly underpins the tradwife aesthetic. The tradwife, in essence, becomes the CEO of her domestic empire, leveraging digital platforms to build a brand around her chosen lifestyle, attracting followers, and often generating income through sponsorships, advertisements, or product sales.
The "Girlboss" Ethos and its Deep-Seated Critiques
To fully understand this convergence, it is essential to revisit the "girlboss" phenomenon. The concept gained widespread prominence with Sheryl Sandberg’s 2013 book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Sandberg’s thesis posited that women could achieve professional advancement akin to men if they were more assertive, ambitious, and proactive in the workplace. The book encouraged women to "lean in" to their careers, negotiate for higher pay, and overcome internal barriers to leadership.
However, despite the initial enthusiasm, "Lean In" feminism, often termed "market feminism," has faced substantial criticism. While it encouraged individual ambition, it largely sidestepped the systemic and structural barriers that continue to impede women’s progress in corporate America and broader labor markets. Women still contend with a persistent gender pay gap, which in the U.S. has hovered around 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, even when controlling for similar roles and experience. They face occupational segregation, the "motherhood penalty," and a significant lack of representation in senior leadership positions. According to a 2023 report by the Pew Research Center, women hold only 28% of CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies.
The "girlboss" framework, by focusing on individual effort and resilience, inadvertently fostered a cultural narrative where structural problems were implicitly reframed as personal failings or a lack of individual drive among women. The underlying myth was that with enough personal effort, strategic planning, the right domestic support (often outsourced or disproportionately handled by women of color), and a dash of luck and "chutzpah," women could overcome deep-seated societal inequalities. This perspective perpetuated a "myth of mutuality," suggesting an equitable division of labor in American families that often belies the true, unequal burden of domestic and emotional labor still predominantly borne by women.
The Unexpected Intersection: Entrepreneurship in Homemaking
The critiques of "Lean In" feminism exposed its limitations, particularly its colorblindness and its failure to address intersectional inequalities. This disillusionment has, paradoxically, fueled aspects of the "tradwife" movement. Many women, including Black tradwife influencers, openly articulate their decision to "opt out" of the corporate rat race. They voice the exhaustion of attempting to simultaneously excel in demanding careers and manage the extensive responsibilities of family and home. This burnout is a direct consequence of a labor market that often undervalues women’s contributions, penalizes motherhood, and offers insufficient systemic support like affordable childcare or paid family leave.
By choosing to prioritize family and home, these women present their decision as a reclamation of control, a strategic withdrawal from the vulnerability and constant stress of the competitive labor market. In doing so, they consciously or unconsciously reinforce the "dying ideology of the father as breadwinner," positioning their choice as a stand that shores up traditional family structures. The entrepreneurial element comes into play as they leverage social media to showcase the perceived benefits of this "choice," transforming their domestic lives into public brands. Their successful TikTok channels, Instagram feeds, and blogs become platforms to validate their lifestyle, recruit others, and, importantly, generate income through content creation and endorsements. This means that while they reject the corporate environment, they fully embrace the corporate strategies of branding, marketing, and monetization, a clear echo of the "girlboss" ethos applied to a traditionally domestic sphere.
Neoliberalism and the Evolving Gender Order
This complex interplay between "girlboss" and "tradwife" archetypes is deeply embedded within what authors Smitha Radhakrishnan and Cinzia D. Solari, in their book The Gender Order of Neoliberalism, describe as the prevailing "gender order of neoliberalism." For decades, the United States has leveraged the narrative of its "empowered" women as a form of soft power on the global stage. This narrative often contrasts American women – portrayed as independent, career-driven, and capable of making their own choices – with women in other parts of the world, particularly the Middle East, India, or Africa, who are sometimes depicted through a lens of poverty or patriarchal oppression. The image presented is one where American women are not "backward" but rather agents of their own destiny, flying planes, holding high-powered jobs, and even "saving" women in less "developed" nations.
However, this focus on individual "empowerment" and the expectation for women to "do it all" represents a significant departure from earlier visions of women’s liberation. Radhakrishnan and Solari highlight that women involved in transnational feminist organizing in the 1950s and 1960s championed a far more expansive and collectivized vision of empowerment. Their advocacy focused on systemic changes: reproductive justice, fair pay for fair work, universal childcare, universal healthcare, and fair trade between nations. These foundational demands sought to dismantle structural inequalities and create a society where women’s full participation was supported by robust public infrastructure, not solely by individual grit or personal choices.
Today, these ambitious, collective visions of empowerment have largely receded from the collective political imagination. Instead, the discourse often narrows to individual solutions. What would a truly joyful and equitable life look like if society prioritized communal kitchen tables, widespread childcare collectives, and universally accessible healthcare? The visual landscape of "empowerment" today often lacks compelling imagery for such collective well-being, instead saturated with visuals of individual achievement or idealized domesticity.
Implications for Society and Gender Equality
The current "impoverished feminist imagination," as the authors term it, leaves women straddling a narrow divide between the "tradwife" and "girlboss" paradigms. Both, in their own ways, inadvertently reinforce the notion that women should continue to function as "America’s social safety net." Whether by individually "leaning in" to overcome systemic barriers or by "opting out" to manage domestic responsibilities, women are largely left to navigate societal failures without adequate structural support.
This convergence has profound implications for gender equality. The tradwife movement, even when presented as a choice, can inadvertently bolster traditional gender roles and the declining male breadwinner model, potentially rolling back decades of progress towards more egalitarian partnerships. Meanwhile, the girlboss ethos, by overemphasizing individual agency, risks blaming women for their own professional struggles rather than holding institutions accountable.
From a political standpoint, this blended archetype provides conservative parties with a powerful narrative. It allows them to appeal to women who seek both traditional values and a sense of personal agency, bridging a gap that might otherwise exist between these two demographics. It suggests a form of "empowered tradition," where women actively choose and excel within roles that align with conservative ideals, thus validating those ideals in a modern context.
Ultimately, the visibility of conservative women embodying both "girlboss" ambition and "tradwife" ideals signals a complex evolution in gender roles and feminist discourse. It underscores the ongoing challenges in achieving true gender equity, not merely through individual striving or retreat, but through systemic transformations that support all women, regardless of their chosen paths. Addressing these challenges requires a revitalized, imaginative feminist vision that moves beyond individualistic solutions to advocate for collective well-being and structural change.
Smitha Radhakrishnan is Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas and Professor of Sociology at Wellesley College. She is author of Making Women Pay: Microfinance in Urban India.
Cinzia D. Solari is Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Massachusetts Boston. She is author of On the Shoulders of Grandmothers: Gender, Migration, and Post-Soviet Nation-Building.
