Reynand Wu
In recent weeks, a striking phenomenon has become increasingly visible within the political landscape: conservative women adeptly straddling two seemingly disparate archetypes of womanhood – the ambitious "girlboss" and the traditional "tradwife." This intriguing convergence, far from being a mere anomaly, unveils a nuanced and often overlooked connection between conservative womanhood and individualistic feminist ideals, demanding closer scrutiny and a comprehensive analysis of its societal, economic, and political implications.
The Emergence of a Hybrid Identity
Recent public appearances and political narratives have brought this hybrid identity into sharp focus. A notable instance occurred when Senator Katie Britt delivered her response to the State of the Union address not from a traditional political podium, but from the intimate setting of her kitchen. This deliberate choice presented a calculated blend of professional engagement with domesticity, signaling a commitment to both public service and traditional family values. Similarly, Michele Morrow, the conservative activist newly elected as North Carolina’s State Superintendent of Education, has consistently highlighted her credentials first and foremost as a devoted wife and mother. Her public persona, meticulously curated, emphasizes these roles as foundational to her leadership, suggesting that domestic competence and familial dedication are not merely personal attributes but essential qualifications for public office.
These instances are not isolated. They are symptomatic of a broader cultural trend, particularly amplified by social media. The "tradlife" movement, gaining traction since at least 2019, epitomizes a version of femininity that prioritizes homemaking and child-rearing, often under the financial provision of a strong male partner. Influencers within this movement frequently showcase idealized domestic scenes: women in aprons, meticulously clean kitchens, preparing elaborate scratch meals, all while maintaining a perfectly coiffed appearance in serene environments. This carefully constructed aesthetic, often shared across platforms like TikTok and Instagram, skillfully belies the inherent chaos and relentless demands of raising young children and managing a household. The appeal of the tradwife aesthetic, however, extends beyond mere domesticity; it subtly incorporates elements of modern entrepreneurship and personal branding.
The "Choice" and Entrepreneurial Spirit: A Modern Twist
At first glance, the tradwife phenomenon might appear to be a nostalgic regression to an earlier, "backward" mode of femininity and marriage. However, this interpretation misses a crucial modern dimension. The contemporary tradwife’s way of being in the world is unmistakably shaped by concepts of "choice" and entrepreneurship. It is rarely sufficient for a modern tradwife to simply dedicate herself to her husband and children in quiet anonymity. Instead, her lifestyle often becomes a public project, a brand to be cultivated and monetized. She is encouraged, and indeed often expected, to blog about it, vlog about it, and actively become an influencer, sharing her "chosen" path with a digital audience. This is precisely where the "girlboss" mentality, typically associated with corporate ambition and professional achievement, subtly intertwines with traditional domesticity.
The "girlboss" ethos itself gained widespread prominence with the 2013 publication of Sheryl Sandberg’s influential book, Lean In. Sandberg’s core message exhorted women to assert themselves in the workplace, to "lean in" to their careers, negotiate for higher pay, and aspire to leadership positions, much like their male counterparts. The premise was that individual effort, ambition, and strategic self-advocacy could overcome systemic barriers to women’s advancement in corporate America. While Lean In resonated with many, it also faced significant criticism for its individualistic approach and its perceived failure to address the deeply entrenched structural inequalities that women, particularly women of color and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, continue to confront in labor markets. Despite these criticisms, the girlboss framework, which emphasizes individual agency, resilience, and a personal brand of success, has permeated cultural discourse across the political spectrum.
The Shortcomings of Individualistic Feminism
The widespread adoption of girlboss feminism has led to a societal expectation that women should inherently be able to "have it all" – a thriving career, a fulfilling family life, and personal well-being – through sheer individual effort. This perspective, however, often overlooks the persistent realities of gender inequality. Data consistently reveals that women continue to face significant barriers, including the enduring gender pay gap, which sees women earning approximately 82 cents for every dollar earned by men, with even larger disparities for women of color. Furthermore, women disproportionately bear the burden of unpaid domestic labor and childcare, even when working full-time. A 2022 study by the Pew Research Center, for instance, found that mothers spend significantly more time on childcare and housework than fathers, regardless of employment status.
This reliance on a "myth of mutuality" – the idea that modern American families equally share domestic and professional responsibilities – belies the true gendered division of labor that persists. When structural problems, such as a lack of affordable universal childcare, inadequate parental leave policies, and workplace discrimination, are reframed as individual failings, women are left to internalize the blame. The narrative suggests that with sufficient personal effort, meticulous planning, the right domestic support, and a measure of luck and "chutzpah," women can individually overcome systemic societal inequalities. This places an immense and often unsustainable burden on individual women, contributing to widespread burnout and stress.
The "Opt-Out" Narrative: A Response to Burnout
The #tradwives movement, in many ways, represents a reaction to the exhaustion inherent in this "do-it-all" girlboss paradigm. Influencers within this space, including a growing number of Black tradwife influencers, openly articulate their decision to "opt out" of the relentless demands of simultaneously managing a demanding career and a family. They argue that attempting to run a household and excel in corporate America simultaneously is simply too exhausting and unrewarding, particularly given that the labor market often undervalues women’s contributions. By focusing solely on family and home, they present their choice as a strategic withdrawal from the vulnerability and constant stress of a labor market that systematically disadvantages women.
In making this "choice," tradwives also implicitly, and often explicitly, take a stand with men, shoring up the traditional ideology of the father as the primary breadwinner. This narrative consciously pushes back against the perceived erosion of traditional gender roles and offers a seemingly tranquil alternative to the pressures of modern life. The visibility of their "successful TikTok channels" and perfectly curated online personas serves to validate this lifestyle, presenting it as an appealing, deliberate choice that others, too, can embrace. This very act of publicizing and monetizing their domesticity, however, reflects a deeply ingrained girlboss entrepreneurial spirit, highlighting the paradoxical nature of their message.
Neoliberalism, Soft Power, and the Narrowing of Feminist Imagination
This complex interplay between girlboss ambition and tradwife domesticity is deeply embedded within what scholars Smitha Radhakrishnan and Cinzia D. Solari, in their book The Gender Order of Neoliberalism, identify as the prevailing "gender order of neoliberalism." Neoliberalism, an economic and political philosophy emphasizing free markets, deregulation, and individual responsibility, has profoundly reshaped societal expectations. In this framework, collective social safety nets are dismantled or diminished, and individuals are increasingly expected to manage their own risks and responsibilities. For women, this has translated into an intensified pressure to achieve individual success across multiple domains, often without adequate structural support.
The United States, in particular, has historically drawn significant "soft power" from the narrative of its "empowered" women. This narrative positions American women as progressive and free, making independent choices, pursuing high-powered careers, and actively participating in global leadership, in stark contrast to the often-stereotyped "oppressed women" in other parts of the world. This narrative, however, often simplifies the complex realities faced by American women and sidesteps critical discussions about systemic inequalities. It focuses on individual success stories while obscuring the broader context of limited collective support and persistent gendered expectations.
The current emphasis on individual choices, whether to "lean in" or "opt out," represents a significant narrowing of the feminist imagination. Historically, women involved in transnational feminist organizing in the 1950s and 60s advocated for a much broader vision of empowerment. Their efforts were directed towards systemic changes: reproductive justice, ensuring fair pay for fair work, establishing universal childcare, guaranteeing universal healthcare, and promoting fair trade practices between countries. These were collective demands aimed at restructuring society to support women’s full participation and well-being, rather than placing the burden of adaptation solely on individual women.
Today, these expansive visions of collective empowerment have largely receded from mainstream political discourse. The focus has shifted from demanding structural changes to celebrating individual resilience or endorsing individual withdrawals. Consequently, the cultural landscape lacks inviting and compelling visuals or narratives for a type of empowerment rooted in community support, shared responsibilities, and robust public services. What would a truly joyful and empowered life look like if it were underpinned by readily available universal childcare, community kitchen tables that foster shared resources, and comprehensive healthcare for all? The current discourse, by largely ignoring these possibilities, leaves women navigating a thin divide between the demanding girlboss ideal and the traditionalist tradwife model, inadvertently reinforcing their historical role as America’s de facto social safety net, absorbing societal needs that public policy fails to address.
Conclusion: Reimagining Empowerment
The visible presence of conservative women embodying both girlboss ambition and tradwife domesticity is more than a cultural curiosity; it is a critical indicator of the ongoing challenges in achieving genuine gender equality. It underscores how deeply individualistic narratives of success and choice have become embedded, even within movements that outwardly reject modern feminism. While the "choice" to pursue either path is valid on an individual level, the broader societal implications demand a re-evaluation of the systems that constrain women’s options and intensify their burdens. Moving forward, a truly enriched feminist imagination must transcend these narrow categories, re-centering collective action and advocating for systemic reforms that empower all women, not just those who can individually navigate a flawed system. This requires reigniting discussions around universal support structures and fostering an environment where women’s empowerment is defined not by individual feats, but by equitable opportunities and shared societal responsibility.
