Reynand Wu
In recent weeks, a discernible pattern has emerged in the public sphere, highlighting how prominent women on the political right are increasingly embodying a hybrid form of womanhood, skillfully navigating the seemingly disparate archetypes of the "girlboss" and the "tradwife." This phenomenon is not merely anecdotal but rather exposes a profound, albeit often unacknowledged, ideological link between conservative womanhood and a particular strain of market-driven feminism that warrants extensive scrutiny. The visibility of these figures brings to the forefront a complex interplay of individual choice, economic pressures, and evolving gender roles within a neoliberal framework, demanding a deeper analysis of its origins, implications, and broader societal impact.
The Rise of Dual Archetypes: Defining the Modern Woman
To understand this convergence, it is crucial first to delineate the two archetypes at play. The "girlboss" emerged as a dominant cultural figure in the 2010s, epitomizing a brand of corporate feminism championed by figures like Sheryl Sandberg, whose 2013 book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead became a global bestseller. This ideology posits that women can achieve professional success and equality by adopting masculine workplace behaviors, negotiating assertively, and aspiring to leadership positions. It emphasizes individual ambition, resilience, and the belief that structural barriers can be overcome through personal effort and strategic choices within existing capitalist systems. The "girlboss" narrative celebrated female entrepreneurship, hustle culture, and the idea of "having it all" – a thriving career, a fulfilling personal life, and financial independence – often under the banner of individual empowerment.
Conversely, the "tradwife" (traditional wife) archetype has gained significant traction, particularly since around 2019, through online platforms like TikTok and Instagram, under hashtags such as #tradlife. This movement promotes a return to historically idealized gender roles, where women prioritize homemaking, child-rearing, and supporting a financially providing husband. The aesthetic often involves meticulously curated visuals: a woman in an apron, preparing elaborate meals from scratch in a pristine kitchen, her hair and makeup impeccable, embodying a serene domesticity that frequently belies the inherent chaos of managing a household with young children. Proponents articulate this lifestyle as a deliberate "opting out" from the perceived exhaustion and stress of modern professional life, a rejection of the "do it all" mandate, and a conscious choice to embrace a life centered on family values and domesticity.
Visible Manifestations: Bridging the Divide
Recent public displays have vividly illustrated this hybrid persona. Senator Katie Britt’s widely discussed Republican response to the State of the Union address, delivered from her kitchen, offered a potent visual synthesis. While her political career positions her squarely in the "girlboss" realm of professional achievement and public leadership, her choice of setting evoked the domesticity central to the "tradwife" image. Similarly, Michele Morrow, the conservative activist newly elected as North Carolina’s state Superintendent of Education, consistently burnishes her public credentials by foregrounding her roles as a wife and mother, even as she actively pursues and secures significant political office. These examples are not isolated incidents but rather reflective of a broader strategic communication trend within conservative politics, where women leverage traditional feminine imagery to connect with a specific demographic while simultaneously demonstrating their capacity for professional and political power.
This performative aspect is a critical differentiator from historical iterations of traditional womanhood. Unlike women who might have been confined to the domestic sphere by societal norms or lack of opportunity in earlier eras, the modern "tradwife" often embraces her role as a choice. More importantly, she frequently transforms this choice into an entrepreneurial venture. It is insufficient for her simply to manage her home; she must perform this role online, blogging, vlogging, and becoming an influencer who monetizes her lifestyle. This active construction and marketing of a domestic identity, often through sophisticated digital media strategies, is precisely where the "girlboss" mentality intersects with the "tradwife" ideal. The entrepreneurial spirit, the self-branding, and the strategic cultivation of an online persona – hallmarks of the "girlboss" – are repurposed to promote a traditional domestic life.
The Neoliberal Underpinnings of "Choice" Feminism
The ideological bridge between the "girlboss" and "tradwife" is largely paved by neoliberalism, an economic and political philosophy that emphasizes individual responsibility, free markets, and limited government intervention. Both archetypes, despite their surface-level differences, are deeply embedded within this framework.
Sheryl Sandberg’s "lean-in" feminism, while ostensibly empowering, was heavily criticized for its individualistic approach. It suggested that women’s advancement was primarily a matter of personal agency – asking for raises, negotiating promotions, and asserting themselves in male-dominated environments. This perspective implicitly placed the onus for overcoming systemic inequalities onto individual women, rather than demanding structural changes like universal childcare, equitable parental leave policies, or mandated pay transparency. Data consistently demonstrates the persistence of structural barriers: the gender pay gap, for instance, has remained stubbornly wide, with women earning approximately 82 cents for every dollar earned by men in the U.S. in 2022, a figure that widens significantly for women of color. Furthermore, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership roles across most industries, holding only about 28% of senior management positions globally in 2023, according to a report by Grant Thornton.
Critics argued that "lean-in" feminism was largely colorblind and class-blind, failing to address the compounded disadvantages faced by women of color, single mothers, or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who lacked the resources, networks, or privilege to "lean in" effectively. It became evident that this market-driven feminism, while appealing to a segment of affluent, educated women, largely ignored the deeper, systemic issues that continue to marginalize the majority of women in the labor market.
The "Opt-Out" Narrative: A Response to Burnout and Economic Precarity
It is within this context of persistent structural inequality and the perceived failures of "girlboss" feminism that the "tradwife" movement finds a significant part of its appeal. Many "tradwives," including a growing number of Black tradwife influencers, explicitly articulate their choice as a deliberate "opting out" from a system they view as inherently exploitative and exhausting. They observe the "lean-in" promise falling short, recognizing the immense burden placed on women to simultaneously manage demanding careers, run households, and raise children – often without adequate societal support.
The argument is compelling for those experiencing burnout: why strive for professional success in a labor market that undervalues women’s labor, offers limited flexibility, and provides insufficient childcare infrastructure, when one can choose a path that, ideally, offers domestic fulfillment and a perceived escape from this rat race? The average annual cost of infant care in the U.S. ranged from approximately $8,000 to over $24,000 in 2023, often exceeding college tuition in many states, making dual-income households financially precarious even with two working parents. For many, the "choice" to become a tradwife is presented as a rational response to these economic and social pressures, a way to reclaim agency and reduce stress.
By "opting out," these women also implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, reinforce the "dying ideology of the father as breadwinner." In a cultural moment where traditional male roles are often perceived as under threat, the "tradwife" actively shores up a patriarchal economic model, positioning herself as a supporter of male financial provision and family leadership. This choice, framed as an individual decision, is then broadcast across social media platforms, inviting others to witness and emulate its perceived benefits, thereby merging the entrepreneurial spirit of the "girlboss" with the domestic ideals of the tradwife.
Historical Context: From Collective Action to Individual Choice
This contemporary emphasis on individual choice stands in stark contrast to earlier visions of women’s empowerment. From the mid-20th century, particularly in the 1950s and 60s, transnational feminist organizing championed a much broader and more structurally oriented agenda. Activists involved in these movements understood women’s liberation not as a matter of individual women climbing corporate ladders, but as a collective struggle for systemic change. Their demands included:
- Reproductive Justice: Access to contraception, safe abortion, and comprehensive maternal healthcare, recognizing bodily autonomy as fundamental to women’s equality.
- Fair Pay for Fair Work: Legislative and policy changes to eliminate gender-based wage discrimination and ensure equal opportunities in the workplace.
- Universal Childcare: Government-subsidized or publicly provided childcare services, acknowledging that childcare is a societal responsibility, not solely an individual burden.
- Universal Healthcare: Accessible and affordable healthcare for all, recognizing women’s particular health needs and the disproportionate impact of healthcare costs on female-headed households.
- Fair Trade Between Countries: Addressing global economic inequalities that disproportionately affect women in developing nations.
These visions were rooted in a recognition of the interconnectedness of social, economic, and political factors that shaped women’s lives. They sought to dismantle patriarchal structures and establish robust social safety nets that would empower all women, regardless of their individual career aspirations or marital status. They envisioned community kitchen tables, childcare collectives, and widely available healthcare as foundational elements of a joyful, equitable society, not as luxuries or individual struggles.
However, as documented in works like The Gender Order of Neoliberalism, these expansive visions of empowerment have largely receded from mainstream political discourse. The focus shifted, particularly in Western nations like the U.S., towards an individualistic narrative, often promoted internationally as a form of "soft power." The narrative became: "Our women are empowered because they make choices, work outside the home in high-powered jobs, and are not ‘backward’ like those in patriarchal cultures." This reframing conveniently sidestepped the deep-seated structural issues within the U.S. itself, such as the lack of universal childcare or paid family leave, by celebrating individual women’s achievements as proof of empowerment.
Broader Impact and Implications
The convergence of the girlboss and tradwife archetypes, particularly within conservative political spaces, carries significant implications for society:
- Reinforcement of Traditional Gender Roles: While framed as "choice," both archetypes, in their current manifestation, ultimately reinforce a gendered division of labor. The girlboss strives to succeed in a male-dominated corporate world, often still bearing the primary burden of domestic responsibilities, while the tradwife explicitly returns to a domestic focus. Neither fundamentally challenges the underlying societal expectation that women are primarily responsible for caregiving and maintaining the social fabric.
- Erosion of Collective Action: By emphasizing individual solutions to systemic problems, these narratives inadvertently undermine the potential for collective action and policy advocacy. If women believe that personal effort (leaning in) or individual choice (opting out) is the primary path to fulfillment, the urgency for universal policies like childcare, paid leave, or comprehensive healthcare diminishes. This privatizes solutions to public problems.
- Impact on Social Safety Nets: The article correctly identifies that this impoverished feminist imagination leaves women straddling a "skinny divide," effectively reinforcing the notion that women should continue to function as "America’s social safety net." When public support systems are inadequate, the unpaid labor of women – in childcare, elder care, and household management – fills the void, often at the expense of their own economic independence, health, and well-being.
- Political Strategy: For conservative women in politics, embodying this hybrid persona can be a highly effective political strategy. It allows them to appeal to a base that values traditional family structures while simultaneously demonstrating their competence and ability to navigate powerful public roles. This duality can be seen as an attempt to modernize conservative womanhood without abandoning its core tenets.
- Perpetuation of Unequal Structures: Ultimately, by focusing on individual adaptability within existing systems rather than demanding fundamental systemic change, this convergence risks perpetuating the very unequal structures that both the "girlboss" and "tradwife" narratives implicitly acknowledge (e.g., the exhaustion of trying to "have it all," the undervaluing of women’s labor). It offers different coping mechanisms within a flawed system, rather than advocating for a truly transformative one.
The ongoing public discourse surrounding women’s roles, work-life balance, and economic security reveals a deep societal unease. The visible straddling of the "girlboss" and "tradwife" personas by women on the political right is not merely a cultural curiosity but a significant indicator of how contemporary gender ideologies are being shaped and contested. It highlights the enduring tension between individual aspiration and systemic barriers, and the urgent need to revisit and revitalize a collective, structural vision of women’s empowerment that transcends market-driven individualism and truly fosters equitable and joyful lives for all.
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*.
This article draws upon insights from their new book, The Gender Order of Neoliberalism (Wiley, 2024), which provides an in-depth analysis of these complex dynamics.
