Reynand Wu
In recent weeks, a discernible trend has emerged within the conservative political sphere, highlighting a fascinating and often paradoxical convergence of two distinct archetypes of womanhood: the aspirational "girlboss" and the traditional "tradwife." This dual embodiment, increasingly visible among prominent conservative women, merits closer examination as it exposes a nuanced and perhaps unexpected link between contemporary conservative womanhood and certain strands of individualistic feminism. This phenomenon challenges simplistic categorizations, revealing deeper currents in American society regarding gender roles, economic pressures, and the evolving concept of female empowerment.
The Dual Persona: Public Manifestations
Recent public displays offer compelling illustrations of this trend. Senator Katie Britt, for instance, delivered her high-profile response to the State of the Union address from the domestic setting of her kitchen, consciously evoking an image of a homemaker rooted in traditional family values. Simultaneously, her position as a U.S. Senator undeniably places her in a high-powered, career-driven role, embodying the very essence of a "girlboss" in the political arena. Similarly, Michele Morrow, a conservative activist from North Carolina recently elected state Superintendent of Education, has cultivated a public persona that prominently features her credentials as a devoted wife and mother, often foregrounding these roles above her professional and political achievements. This deliberate juxtaposition of domesticity with high-level professional engagement is not merely coincidental; it represents a strategic embrace of a multifaceted identity that resonates with a significant segment of the electorate.
These instances are not isolated anomalies but rather prominent examples within a broader cultural movement. The #tradlife phenomenon, which gained significant traction around 2019, particularly on social media platforms, has seen a proliferation of "tradwife" influencers. These women meticulously curate and perform a specific version of femininity, characterized by a strong emphasis on a husband providing financial support, allowing them to dedicate themselves to childcare and home management. Their online content frequently features idyllic scenes: women in aprons, in pristine kitchens, meticulously preparing scratch recipes, all within a serene environment that often belies the inherent chaos of raising young children. The aesthetic is one of calm domesticity and purposeful dedication to the family unit.
The Modernity of the "Tradwife" and the Entrepreneurial Imperative
While superficially appearing to harken back to an earlier, perhaps "backward," mode of femininity and marriage, the modern "tradwife" ethos is unmistakably contemporary. Its modernity is rooted in two critical aspects: "choice" and "entrepreneurship." Unlike historical gender roles that were often dictated by societal norms and economic necessity, the modern "tradwife" explicitly frames her lifestyle as a conscious, deliberate "choice." This emphasis on individual agency aligns directly with a core tenet of modern liberal thought, including certain feminist ideals.
Furthermore, merely focusing on husband and children is insufficient for the modern "tradwife"; she must be entrepreneurial in her approach. This often translates into becoming an influencer, blogging, vlogging, and monetizing her domestic life through various digital channels. This entrepreneurial spirit, the active creation of a personal brand around domesticity, is precisely where the "girlboss" mentality intersects with the "tradwife" identity. The ability to leverage social media, build an audience, and generate income from one’s chosen lifestyle—even if that lifestyle is traditionally domestic—requires a set of skills and a mindset that closely mirrors the "girlboss" ethos of self-promotion, ambition, and business acumen.
The Evolution and Critiques of "Girlboss" Feminism
To fully understand this convergence, it is crucial to revisit the trajectory of "girlboss" feminism. Popularized significantly by Sheryl Sandberg’s 2013 book Lean In, this movement posited that women could achieve parity in the workplace by adopting assertive, confident behaviors traditionally associated with men. The central message was one of individual responsibility: if women would simply "lean in," ask for what they wanted, and overcome internal barriers, they could ascend the corporate ladder.
However, the promises of "lean-in" feminism largely failed to materialize for a vast majority of women. Despite individual efforts, women continue to face significant structural barriers in corporate America and persistent marginalization in labor markets. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and various research organizations consistently show that the gender pay gap, while narrowing incrementally, remains significant, with women earning approximately 82 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2022. This gap is even wider for women of color. Moreover, women remain significantly underrepresented in senior leadership positions and corporate boardrooms, despite making up nearly half of the workforce.
The Lean In philosophy, while seemingly empowering, was criticized for being both colorblind and a sham for many. It often overlooked the intersectional challenges faced by women of color and low-income women, for whom "leaning in" was not a viable solution to systemic discrimination and economic insecurity. This individualistic approach to systemic problems inadvertently shifted the burden of overcoming inequality from institutions onto individual women, fostering a belief that structural problems were primarily internal failings rather than external societal deficiencies. The "myth of mutuality"—the idea that modern partnerships equally share domestic and professional burdens—also persisted, masking the true gendered division of labor that still predominantly places the brunt of household and childcare responsibilities on women.
The "Opt-Out" Narrative and Economic Realities
It is within this context of the perceived failure and exhaustion of "lean-in" feminism that the "tradwife" narrative gains traction. Many women, including a growing number of Black tradwife influencers, openly articulate their decision to "opt out" of the demanding and often unrewarding dual burden of managing both a career in a discriminatory labor market and the extensive responsibilities of family and home. They express a conscious choice to disengage from the constant stress and vulnerability of a labor market that demonstrably undervalues their work, embracing instead a focus on family life.
This "opting out" can be seen as a strategic response to the economic and social pressures faced by modern women. For instance, the soaring costs of childcare in the United States often render a second income from a woman’s job economically negligible after expenses. According to Child Care Aware of America, the average annual cost of center-based childcare for an infant ranges from approximately $9,000 to over $20,000, often exceeding housing costs in many states. This economic reality, coupled with the gender pay gap, can make the "choice" to focus solely on home and family appear financially rational for some couples, especially when framed as a way to shore up the "dying ideology of the father as breadwinner." By embracing this role, "tradwives" assert agency, even if that agency is exercised within traditionally defined gender parameters, and they leverage modern platforms like TikTok to showcase the perceived benefits of this lifestyle.
Academic Perspectives and Broader Implications
Smitha Radhakrishnan, Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas and Professor of Sociology at Wellesley College, and Cinzia D. Solari, Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Massachusetts Boston, delve into these dynamics in their book, The Gender Order of Neoliberalism. They argue that the United States has historically leveraged the image of its "empowered women" as a form of "soft power" on the global stage. This narrative positions American women as free, self-determining individuals who make their own choices, pursue high-powered careers, and contribute globally, in stark contrast to often stereotypical portrayals of "oppressed" women in other parts of the world.
However, Radhakrishnan and Solari contend that this focus on individual choices and the expectation for women to "do it all" represents a significant departure from earlier, more collective visions of women’s empowerment. They highlight that transnational feminist organizing in the 1950s and 60s advocated for systemic changes such as reproductive justice, fair pay for fair work, universal childcare, universal healthcare, and fair trade between nations. These broader, community-focused visions, which would alleviate individual burdens through collective support, have largely faded from the contemporary political imagination. The current discourse, instead, is largely confined to the narrow spectrum between the "girlboss" ideal of individual career triumph and the "tradwife" ideal of individual domestic mastery, both of which place the onus of success and well-being primarily on the individual woman or her immediate family unit.
The implications of this impoverished feminist imagination are profound. It perpetuates the notion that women must continue to function as America’s informal social safety net, absorbing the deficiencies of inadequate social support systems through their unpaid labor, whether in the home or by stretching themselves thin in the workplace. This trend also reinforces the idea that women’s value is tied to either hyper-productivity in the market or perfect domesticity, rather than inherent worth or collective societal contribution.
Reactions and Critiques from Diverse Perspectives
The convergence of "girlboss" and "tradwife" archetypes elicits varied reactions across the political and social spectrum. Mainstream feminist organizations often express concern that the "tradwife" movement, despite its claims of choice, risks reinforcing patriarchal structures and undermining decades of progress toward gender equality. They argue that individual choices, when made within a system that limits options, can inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequalities. The celebration of a retreat from the public sphere, even if framed as a conscious decision, could be seen as a step backward for collective women’s rights, particularly if it implicitly suggests that women should be the primary caregivers and homemakers.
Conversely, conservative commentators and media outlets frequently champion the "tradwife" model as a return to traditional values, a rejection of what they perceive as radical feminism, and a pathway to family stability. They often celebrate women who embrace these roles as strong, principled figures who prioritize family well-being. The "girlboss" aspect, when present, is then reframed as entrepreneurial spirit within the context of supporting traditional family structures, for example, by creating content that promotes a family-centered lifestyle.
Economists and social policy analysts often point to the long-term economic implications. A large-scale "opting out" from the formal labor market by women, while offering individual respite, could exacerbate existing gender pay gaps, reduce women’s retirement savings, and diminish the overall productive capacity of the economy. It also places significant financial dependence on a single earner, potentially increasing vulnerability to economic downturns or changes in family circumstances.
Conclusion: Navigating a Complex Landscape
The visible examples of conservative women straddling the "girlboss" and "tradwife" archetypes are not simply cultural curiosities; they are significant indicators of a complex and evolving landscape of womanhood in contemporary America. This phenomenon underscores the enduring pressures on women to navigate both personal ambition and societal expectations, often without adequate systemic support. It highlights the lasting impact of neoliberal ideologies that prioritize individual choice and entrepreneurialism, even within the most traditional of roles.
As Radhakrishnan and Solari prompt, envisioning a truly joyful and empowering life for women requires moving beyond the narrow confines of these two archetypes. It necessitates a renewed collective political imagination that champions universal social provisions: robust public childcare, equitable pay, comprehensive healthcare, and community-based support systems. Only by addressing the systemic issues that create the "either/or" dilemma for women can society foster an environment where genuine, unburdened choices can be made, and women’s empowerment is understood not just as individual triumph, but as a collective societal flourishing. Until then, women will continue to find themselves navigating a skinny divide, perpetually tasked with being America’s unofficial social safety net, whether through their "girlboss" endeavors or their "tradwife" dedications.
