Reynand Wu
In recent weeks, a striking pattern has emerged in the public sphere, revealing conservative women frequently navigating and embodying two seemingly disparate ideals of womanhood: the assertive "girlboss" and the traditional "tradwife." This visible convergence exposes a profound, often overlooked connection between contemporary conservative womanhood and a particular strain of market-driven feminism that warrants close examination and deeper understanding. The phenomenon is not merely an aesthetic choice but a complex reflection of evolving socio-economic pressures, political strategies, and a narrowing vision of women’s empowerment.
The Emergence of a Hybrid Archetype
Recent examples vividly illustrate this duality. Senator Katie Britt’s highly publicized response to the State of the Union address, delivered from the intimate setting of her kitchen, deliberately invoked an image of relatable domesticity, aiming to connect with a traditional feminine ideal while simultaneously asserting her political authority as a sitting U.S. Senator. Similarly, Michele Morrow, a conservative activist who recently secured the position of North Carolina State Superintendent of Public Education, consistently burnishes her public image by emphasizing her roles as a wife and mother above all else. Yet, her successful political campaign, her active online presence, and her strategic engagement in public discourse unmistakably align with the proactive, entrepreneurial spirit characteristic of the "girlboss." These instances are not isolated anomalies but rather symptoms of a broader trend where conservative women skillfully weave together elements of both the traditionally domestic and the professionally ambitious.
Tracing the Roots: From Second-Wave Liberation to Neoliberal Feminism
To fully grasp this contemporary dynamic, it is essential to contextualize it within the broader history of feminism and women’s roles in society. The second wave of feminism, peaking in the 1960s and 1970s, fundamentally challenged traditional gender roles, advocating for women’s equal access to education, professional careers, and reproductive rights. This era sought to dismantle systemic barriers, famously declaring "the personal is political," and pushing for collective solutions to women’s subjugation. However, as the focus shifted from collective liberation to individual advancement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, a new paradigm emerged: neoliberal feminism.
This shift found its most prominent articulation in the "girlboss" phenomenon. Coined in the early 2010s, epitomized by figures like Sophia Amoruso (founder of Nasty Gal) and popularized by Sheryl Sandberg’s influential 2013 book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, the girlboss narrative posited that women could achieve professional success by adopting masculine traits, working harder, and advocating for themselves within existing corporate structures. The core message was one of individual agency: if women simply "leaned in" to their careers, asked for what they wanted, and navigated the workplace with ambition and strategic planning, they could overcome systemic barriers and reach the pinnacle of professional achievement.
The Critique of the "Lean In" Mentality
However, the "lean in" philosophy quickly faced significant criticism. While inspiring some, it was largely perceived as a privileged form of feminism, primarily accessible to women who already possessed substantial resources—financial stability, access to quality childcare, and supportive partners or domestic help. Critics argued that Lean In shifted the burden of systemic inequality onto individual women, rather than addressing the deeply entrenched structural issues within corporate America, such as the persistent gender pay gap, lack of affordable childcare, and inflexible workplace policies.
For instance, despite decades of advocacy, the gender pay gap remains a stark reality. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2023, women earned 84 cents for every dollar earned by men, a figure that has shown only marginal improvement over the past decade. This gap widens significantly for women of color. Furthermore, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership roles; a 2023 study by McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org revealed that women hold only 28% of C-suite positions. The expectation to "have it all"—a successful career, a thriving family, and a well-maintained home—without adequate institutional support often leads to immense stress and burnout. The "myth of mutuality," as academics have termed it, frequently conceals the true gendered division of labor within American families, where women disproportionately shoulder the responsibilities of domestic work and childcare, even when working full-time. Data from the Pew Research Center consistently shows that women spend significantly more time on housework and childcare than men, irrespective of their employment status.
The Resurgence of the "Tradwife" and Its Modern Twist
Against this backdrop of "girlboss" fatigue and the unfulfilled promises of individual corporate empowerment, the "tradwife" movement has gained considerable traction, particularly since 2019, manifesting prominently under hashtags like #tradlife on social media platforms. The tradwife ideal represents a deliberate pivot away from the career-centric aspirations of girlboss feminism. It advocates for a return to traditional gender roles, where women embrace domesticity, prioritize caring for children and the home, and rely on a male partner as the primary financial provider.
The aesthetic of the tradwife is meticulously curated and broadcast across digital channels. Influencers in this space typically present an idealized version of femininity: perfectly coiffed, carefully made-up women in serene, immaculately clean kitchens, often donning aprons and preparing elaborate, scratch-cooked meals. This visual narrative, while appealing, often belies the chaotic realities of managing a household with young children. The motivation, proponents argue, is to "opt out" of the exhausting dual burden of managing a demanding career and a family simultaneously. They contend that the labor market often undervalues women’s contributions, making the pursuit of corporate success a financially and emotionally draining endeavor. By choosing to focus on the home, tradwives assert their agency and reclaim a sense of purpose and stability, often reinforcing the "dying ideology of the father as breadwinner."
What makes the modern tradwife phenomenon distinct from historical models of domesticity is its inherent entrepreneurial spirit. Unlike their historical counterparts, today’s tradwives are not simply homemakers; many are active content creators, bloggers, vloggers, and social media influencers. They meticulously document and market their lifestyle choices, offering advice on homemaking, cooking, and traditional values, often monetizing their platforms through sponsored content, affiliate marketing, or selling related products. This performative aspect—the choice to "blog about it, vlog about it, become an influencer"—is precisely where the "girlboss" mentality intersects with the "tradwife" identity. It is a conscious, strategic, and often financially driven endeavor to brand and disseminate a lifestyle choice, transforming personal decisions into public content and commercial opportunities.
The Paradoxical Link: Entrepreneurship in Service of Tradition
The visible examples of conservative women like Katie Britt and Michele Morrow illustrate this paradoxical link. They leverage the entrepreneurial tools and self-branding strategies of the girlboss era to promote a vision of womanhood that is fundamentally traditional. Senator Britt’s kitchen backdrop, far from being a sign of disengagement, was a calculated political maneuver to convey authenticity and traditional values, while simultaneously exercising significant political power. Michele Morrow’s emphasis on her roles as wife and mother, while seemingly aligning with tradwife ideals, is deployed within the context of a highly successful, modern political campaign, demonstrating a shrewd understanding of public relations and influence—quintessential "girlboss" traits.
This convergence highlights a critical point: both the girlboss and the tradwife, in their contemporary iterations, are deeply embedded within a neoliberal framework that prioritizes individual choice, personal branding, and market logic. Whether a woman chooses to "lean in" to corporate ambition or "opt out" to embrace domesticity, the narrative often frames these as individual solutions to systemic problems. The focus remains on what individual women can or should do, rather than on broader societal reforms that could alleviate the pressures on all women.
Broader Societal Implications and the Impoverished Feminist Imagination
The entrenchment of these individualistic narratives has profound implications for the collective pursuit of gender equality. As authors Smitha Radhakrishnan and Cinzia D. Solari argue in their book, The Gender Order of Neoliberalism, the United States has historically projected an image of "empowered" women as a form of soft power, contrasting them with women in "backward" or "patriarchal" cultures. However, this narrative often overlooks the deep structural inequalities that persist domestically and the narrow scope of what "empowerment" has come to mean.
Historically, transnational feminist organizing in the mid-20th century championed a much broader vision of empowerment. Advocates lobbied for universal reproductive justice, fair pay for fair work, widely accessible universal childcare, comprehensive universal healthcare, and equitable trade relations between nations. These were collective demands aimed at creating a supportive societal infrastructure that would enable women to thrive, regardless of their individual choices regarding career or family. These visions, however, have largely receded from the collective political imagination, replaced by a discourse that oscillates between individual corporate success and individual domestic fulfillment.
The lack of robust social safety nets in the U.S. exacerbates this dilemma. The absence of universal paid parental leave, affordable high-quality childcare, and comprehensive healthcare means that women often bear the brunt of managing family responsibilities, frequently forcing difficult choices between career advancement and family care. The cost of childcare in the U.S., for example, often rivals college tuition, making it economically unfeasible for many women to pursue full-time careers. In this context, both the "girlboss" striving to "do it all" and the "tradwife" opting out are, in their own ways, responding to systemic failures. By framing these responses as individual choices, society avoids addressing the underlying structural issues, effectively reinforcing women’s traditional role as America’s de facto social safety net.
The current landscape, therefore, presents a limited and often exhausting set of options for women. The celebration of individual "girlboss" achievements risks masking the collective struggle for equity, while the rise of the "tradwife" movement, despite its entrepreneurial veneer, can inadvertently reinforce gendered expectations and potentially undermine progress towards equal partnership in all spheres of life. The challenge lies in rekindling a broader, more inclusive feminist imagination—one that advocates for systemic change, community-based solutions, and policies that truly empower women to pursue joyful and fulfilling lives, supported by a robust social infrastructure rather than being confined to navigating a narrow divide between two demanding, albeit different, individualistic ideals.
