Reynand Wu
In recent weeks, a discernible trend has emerged in the public sphere, showcasing women on the political right who adeptly navigate two seemingly contradictory archetypes: the aspirational "girlboss" and the traditional "tradwife." This visible confluence of roles within conservative womanhood reveals a nuanced interplay with contemporary feminism, warranting closer examination. Far from being mutually exclusive, these identities often coalesce, particularly in how they are presented and perceived, shedding light on deeper societal currents and the evolving landscape of gender expectations in the United States.
The Emergence of a Dual Persona in Conservative Politics
Recent high-profile instances underscore this phenomenon. Senator Katie Britt’s highly publicized response to the State of the Union address, delivered from her kitchen, epitomized a strategic blend of domesticity and political gravitas. The setting, typically associated with the "tradwife" ideal of a nurturing homemaker, was juxtaposed with her position as a formidable political figure, a quintessential "girlboss" in the legislative arena. Similarly, Michelle Morrow, a conservative activist from North Carolina, recently elected as the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, frequently emphasizes her credentials as a devoted wife and mother above all else. This narrative, central to her public identity, aligns perfectly with the "tradwife" ethos, even as she successfully campaigns for and secures a significant elected office, embodying the "girlboss" pursuit of power and influence.
These examples are not isolated anomalies but rather prominent manifestations of a broader cultural shift. The "tradlife" movement, a portmanteau of "traditional life," has been gaining traction since at least 2019, particularly on social media platforms. Tradwife influencers cultivate and perform a specific version of femininity that emphasizes devotion to home, children, and a financially supportive husband. Their online personas are meticulously curated, often featuring aprons, impeccably clean kitchens, and perfectly coiffed, carefully made-up women serenely preparing elaborate, from-scratch meals. This aesthetic, while visually appealing, often belies the inherent chaos and demanding realities of raising young children and managing a household, presenting an idealized vision of domesticity.
The Modernity of the "Tradwife" and the Influence of "Girlboss" Mentality
One might mistakenly assume that the "tradwife" archetype represents a regression to an earlier, more "backward" mode of femininity and marriage. However, this contemporary iteration is unmistakably modern, fundamentally shaped by the concepts of "choice" and "entrepreneurship." Unlike historical homemakers who might have quietly fulfilled their domestic roles, the modern tradwife actively chooses this lifestyle and, crucially, monetizes and promotes it. It is insufficient for her to simply focus on her husband and children; she must be entrepreneurial about it. This involves blogging, vlogging, and becoming a social media influencer, building a personal brand around her chosen lifestyle. This is precisely where the "girlboss" mentality, originally associated with corporate ambition and individual achievement, intersects with and empowers the tradwife persona. The tradwife, in essence, becomes the "girlboss" of her domestic empire, leveraging digital platforms to assert her agency and influence.
The "girlboss" phenomenon itself gained widespread prominence with Sheryl Sandberg’s 2013 book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. The book posited that women could achieve professional advancement by actively seeking opportunities and advocating for themselves in the workplace, much like their male counterparts. This philosophy, while empowering for some, faced significant criticism for its individualistic approach and its perceived failure to adequately address systemic barriers. Despite its limitations, girlboss feminism, with its emphasis on individual effort, good planning, and personal initiative, has become deeply embedded in contemporary culture across the political spectrum. It fostered a widespread belief that structural problems are not societal but rather issues that women themselves can overcome through sheer individual will, strategic planning, access to domestic help, and a dash of luck and audacity. This perspective often relies on a "myth of mutuality," which obscures the enduring gender division of labor within American families, where women disproportionately shoulder domestic and caregiving responsibilities even when employed full-time.
The Critique of "Lean In" and the "Opt-Out" Narrative
The promise of "lean-in" feminism proved to be both colorblind and, for many, ultimately unfulfilled. Critics pointed out its lack of intersectionality, failing to account for the unique challenges faced by women of color and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The continued existence of the gender pay gap, persistent barriers to advancement in corporate America, and the marginalization of women in many labor markets demonstrated that individual ambition alone could not dismantle deeply entrenched structural inequalities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2022, women earned 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gap that has remained largely stagnant for years, particularly for women of color.
It is against this backdrop of disillusionment with "lean-in" feminism that the "tradwife" movement finds a compelling argument. Even Black tradwife influencers have emerged, articulating a conscious decision to "opt out" of the exhausting dual demands of managing a family and navigating a demanding corporate career simultaneously. They argue that the labor market often devalues women’s contributions, offering less pay and greater precarity. By choosing to prioritize family and home, they assert agency, rejecting the constant stress and vulnerability of a system that often fails to support working mothers. This "opting out" narrative also serves to reinforce the "dying ideology of the father as breadwinner," positioning the husband as the primary financial provider and shoring up traditional gender roles within the family unit. The public performance of this choice, often through successful social media channels, further validates and disseminates this alternative vision of female empowerment.
Historical Context: Shifting Visions of Women’s Empowerment
To fully appreciate the contemporary paradox, it is crucial to understand the historical evolution of "women’s empowerment" in the United States. For decades, the U.S. 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 free to make their own choices, with women in other parts of the world, particularly those in the Middle East, India, or Africa, who are frequently depicted as oppressed and constrained by patriarchal cultures or poverty. The image of American women in high-powered jobs, flying planes, or even engaging in humanitarian efforts abroad, has been a potent symbol of American exceptionalism and modernity.
However, as Smitha Radhakrishnan and Cinzia D. Solari discuss in their book, The Gender Order of Neoliberalism, focusing solely on the individual choices of women who must "do it all" was not always the dominant definition of "women’s empowerment." Earlier iterations of transnational feminist organizing in the 1950s and 1960s championed a far more collective and structurally focused vision. These movements lobbied for systemic changes such as reproductive justice, fair pay for fair work, universal childcare, universal healthcare, and fair trade between nations. These were not demands for individual women to overcome obstacles on their own but rather calls for societal restructuring to support women’s full participation and well-being. This collective vision of empowerment, which aimed to create a more equitable society through robust social support systems, has largely receded from the collective political imagination.
Data and Broader Implications: The Strain on American Families
The current landscape of gender roles and expectations places immense pressure on American families, regardless of whether women identify as "girlboss" or "tradwife." The average cost of childcare in the U.S. continues to escalate, often surpassing housing or college tuition costs in many states. For instance, in 2023, the average annual cost of infant care was over $15,000, with some states seeing costs exceed $20,000. This financial burden forces difficult choices for families, often leading one parent, predominantly mothers, to reduce work hours or leave the workforce entirely.
Moreover, the lack of universal paid family leave in the U.S. exacerbates these challenges. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides unpaid leave, which many families cannot afford. Only 27% of private industry workers had access to paid family leave in March 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This stark reality means that the "choice" for many women is not between two equally viable and supported paths, but often a forced negotiation between economic necessity and personal well-being, heavily influenced by the absence of a comprehensive social safety net.
This economic and social pressure feeds into the dual archetypes. The "girlboss" narrative, while celebrating individual ambition, often implicitly demands a high level of self-sufficiency and the ability to outsource domestic labor, which is inaccessible to many. The "tradwife" narrative, in turn, offers an escape from this perceived rat race, but often at the cost of economic independence and perpetuating traditional gender roles that can limit women’s autonomy and career potential should circumstances change. Both, in their current manifestations, can be seen as responses to an inadequate societal framework rather than purely liberated choices.
Official Responses and Public Discourse
The phenomenon has elicited varied reactions across the political spectrum. Progressive groups often view the "tradwife" movement as a regressive step, undermining decades of feminist progress toward gender equality and economic independence. They argue that while individual choice should be respected, the glorification of a lifestyle that limits women’s public sphere engagement can have broader negative societal impacts, including reduced female representation in leadership and decision-making roles.
Conversely, conservative commentators and politicians often celebrate the "tradwife" ideal as a return to traditional family values, portraying it as a healthy antidote to what they perceive as the excesses of modern feminism and the stresses of contemporary life. They emphasize the importance of stable family units as the bedrock of society and view the domestic sphere as a legitimate and fulfilling domain for women. The "girlboss" archetype, when adopted by conservative women, is often reframed to align with conservative values – emphasizing achievement within a framework that respects traditional gender roles or promotes conservative causes. For instance, a conservative "girlboss" might be an entrepreneur selling products that align with faith-based values or a political operative fighting for policies that strengthen "traditional" families.
Social media platforms, while facilitating the rise of "tradwife" influencers, also serve as arenas for intense debate. Comment sections and discussion forums are rife with arguments over the merits and drawbacks of each lifestyle, often highlighting the deeply personal and emotional nature of these choices for women. The visibility of these archetypes online amplifies their cultural impact, creating aspirational models that shape perceptions of womanhood for millions.
Reimagining Empowerment: A Call for Collective Solutions
The current impoverished feminist imagination, as highlighted by Radhakrishnan and Solari, leaves society straddling a narrow divide between the individualistic "girlboss" and the domestically focused "tradwife." Both archetypes, in their prevalent forms, inadvertently reinforce the notion that women must continue to serve as America’s de facto social safety net, absorbing the deficiencies of inadequate public services and structural support. This places an undue burden on individual women to solve systemic problems related to childcare, healthcare, elder care, and community building.
What would a truly joyful and equitable life look like if it were supported by robust collective solutions? Imagine a society where community kitchen tables, widely accessible and high-quality childcare collectives, and universal healthcare were commonplace. These are the kinds of inviting visuals and systemic supports that were once championed by earlier feminist movements. They represent a vision of empowerment rooted not in individual struggle and choice within a flawed system, but in collective well-being and shared responsibility.
The challenge for contemporary society is to move beyond the narrow confines of these individualistic archetypes and reignite a collective political imagination that prioritizes systemic change. This involves advocating for policies that genuinely support families and women, such as comprehensive paid family leave, affordable and accessible childcare, equitable pay, and universal healthcare. Only then can women truly choose their paths from a position of genuine empowerment, free from the false dichotomies and societal pressures that currently define their choices. This shift requires acknowledging that the well-being of women, whether they choose to lean in, opt out, or forge a new path, is a societal responsibility, not merely an individual one.
