#tradwife

[HangingOver]

Behold!

www.instagram.com/reel/CosDY4RDOM7/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

I think I threw up in my mouth.

@Onnabugeisha - There is now a small movement of men on social media calling out toxic masculinity, the incel culture and discussing the mental load placed on women and how men need to take on their fair share of family and household duties. They are not religious, and get a ton of abuse from other men. It’s small but it’s refreshing when I see it come up on my SM. It’s a movement I really hope grows.

That’s beautiful! What a lovely model of a relationship.

I think if women choose to be SAHP they need to do it with a feminist analysis that they are entering into a very unequal power relationship that they are on the losing side of. They now have much more to lose from the ending of the relationship than their Husband.

To balance this they should enter into a legal agreement that most of the family asserts and investments will become theirs if the relationship ends. The husband has financial security post marriage due to his job and earning power. The woman through the financial assets accrued over the marriage. This would recognize her contribution to the marriage and family.

I suspect nearly all men would refuse to enter such a contract. They understand very well the financial imbalance of power in most SAHM scenarios and they have no intention of letting go of this advantage.

Women however, happily give up their financial independence, trusting in love and loyalty.

And that’s why we need more feminist analysis in society.

That’s not “feminist analysis” that’s a cost-benefit analysis.

I also disagree that being a SAHP necessarily results in an unequal power relationship where the SAHP is on the “losing end.” The two are not mutually inclusive.

To balance this they should enter into a legal agreement
I suspect nearly all men would refuse to enter such a contract.

This legal agreement exists and is called marriage or civil partnership. Furthermore around a quarter million men agree to either type of legal contract every year in the U.K. with an opposite sex partner.

Feminism has an analysis of how the ‘choices’ women make are culturally influenced in ways that disadvantage women. It has an analysis of how the patterns of social behaviour, and law, and cultural attitudes disadvantage women

Of course feminism has an analytic component as does all part of society, but ultimately feminism is a social movement which champions women.

I don't know how one can argue that the statement that feminism is a movement with the goal of furthering women's rights could be considered a "bastardisation" of feminism. I would argue quite vociferously that while all of the things you are claiming are absolutely key to understanding the societal context of feminism, its intersections and its obstacles, feminism is at its forefront an activist movement. It's women's advocacy in all its forms.

Agree with this. I will always have a problem with ideas that put the onus on individuals in order to solve systemic issues.

I love being at home. My hobbies are here. My kitchen is here. My garden is here. My children are here. Basically everything I love is right here at home.

At home I am free to come and go as I please. I answer to nobody. I'd hate to give that up to go work for and be subservient to the man...

@CandlelightGlow

Who else can solve them?

@SwordToFlamethrower

Im not sure you meant to tag me?

It's lovely you love your home but it's not relevant to me or the thread

It’s funny how there isn’t a comparable men’s movement promoting ideas of being a good and loyal husband and giving yourself over to the life goal of keeping your wife happy.

The movement is called everyday life. Most men take part.

It's misplacement of responsibility to put the onus on individuals and it's a massive (oftentimes deliberate) misconception that the every day person has the tools to make systemic change.

Please look at the history of any social justice movement which has actually invoked change. It's done with hard fought social activism. The idea that we, as fellow citizens, can just tell other citizens that it's "anti-feminist" to stay refuse to stay at home, and this will revolutionise society past the point it's already gotten to, is just almost tragically misinformed.

And again, it hurts women to further police women's actions and make generalisations about what is and isn't okay. The point is, women were in the home because that was where they were mandated to be. There is nothing inherently wrong with looking after children and a home. The problem occurs when it is a forced state of being due to societal expectation and the way that society works.

sorry that should say "with hard fought social activism and sometimes just comes down to a sea change in current circumstances (i.e. WW2)"

Social activism is made up of individuals, no?

Of course its not as simple as telling people not to be anti feminist. No one said it was

But change has to come from some where.

Standing up against what you believe to be anti feminist is as good a place to start as any

Social activism is made up of individuals taking action. It's not how to do with how individuals live their lives. I feel like I've made my points fairly clearly and don't have anything further to add - not in a snarky way, I just don't see the merit in having a back and forth over this, I feel like what I'm saying is demonstrable if you actually look into what drives social change. Feminism can and has made waves in the world even when a majority of people stand against it, same with all other social justice movements. It's definitely not a case of telling people their individual choices being subjectively seen by you as antifeminist is what makes the difference.

Let me make one final point to try and illustrate what I mean. Telling individuals who would otherwise consider themselves feminist that they are not so because you don't consider their views feminist, is a form of gatekeeping. All gatekeeping does is remove voices from the chorus asking for change. So it doesn't have any pragmatic benefits, and it doesn't have any ideological benefits. The only actual benefit is for the moral perception of the gatekeeper. You feel like you're doing your bit by pointing out that someone is living in an "anti-feminist" way.

It's not the same as calling out specific ideas and actions that are directly anti-feminist, there is nuance involved. A #tradwife is a direct detractor of feminist progression because she actively chooses to portray feminism as a direct threat to "femininity" and "womanhood" and calls for "the good old days" when women's only role was to stay at home. That is not the same as it being beneficial for you as an individual family unit for you to stay at home. While it's a valid point to discuss womens' vulnerability if not adequately protected, it is far from "anti-feminist" in and of itself. My partner is a stay at home dad, I am the bread winner. It works for us. Both of us being out the home would not be economically viable and it would conflict with our choices around childcare. It's not about subservience or power dynamics, it's a pragmatic decision. Funnily enough my mum and dad had the exact same set up.

@CandlelightGlow
👏👏👏 agree with all your posts. (My DH was a SAHD like yours).
I

I would never trust a man enough to be a trad wife.

I've always had a career, my exH persuaded me to go part time 3 days a week so I could take it easy for a few years as I had been ill with a chronic condition and then promptly left me for a younger woman leaving me unable to pay the mortgage and bills as my employer had no more days to offer me.

I felt absolutely betrayed and ended up having to do all kinds of crap work to pay the bills and fill those 2 days with.

I've got another job now but I've learned my lesson.

@CandlelightGlow

I understand your point. I just disagree with it.

You seem fairly focused on the sahp aspect which is odd as I haven't mentioned it. If you want to have a sahp, crack on. However I don't think there's any denying that the sociatal expectations of women as sahm as the ideal is harmful

It's not moral gatekeeping to point out the obvious drawbacks and harms from promoting anti feminist ideals.

In fact it could be said that your view is gatekeeping. That you're preventing others from discussing their views with accusations of gatekeeping.

Feminism has a definition. Some choices are demonstrably anti feminist.

Choosing to be a trad wife is an anti feminist choice. Of course its ok to point that out and to say you can't be a feminist if you choose to be or role play being subservient to men. Even if that man is your husband.

And of course society would be impacted if no one made that choice.

It might not be how we get big social changed but individual choices do matter

It's nonsense to say other wise

Marriage divides current assets 50/50. I am arguing for an arrangement that recognizes the loss of earning potential of the SAHP because she has been the SAHP. She will always be worse off financially than the man. . Women continue to come out of marriages in much worse financial positions than men.

That is what I mean by the unequal power dynamic in a SAHP arrangement. The financial inequality which means one partner has much more to lose by the marriage breakup. You see it on here, and in real life, all the time.

I don’t understand how you think my posts argued against what you are saying here.

I never said that feminism that empowers women is a bastardisation of feminism.

I did say that feminism which has a simplistic ‘choice’ message, (the choice to be a prostitute! The choice to be choked during sex! The choice to engage in race play! ). Is a bastardisation of feminism. I am not sure how you got from that, that I am against a social movement that advances women!

Lol, no marriage doesn’t divide assets 50/50. 50/50 is the starting point, from there the courts or mediator take into account everything you are banging on about. Usually, a SAHM will get more than 50% of assets plus CMS.

I don’t know quite how to articulate what my problem with the choice argument is. But I’m going to try:

I’m a sahm, by a confluence of circumstance rather than direct choice, but I acknowledge that I could still have made a different choice so maybe that’s neither here nor there.

I don’t advocate that other women become sahms because it’s inherently risky. And I’ve posted many times on MN about this.

I’m also aware that while I’m making the microcosmic choice to be a sahm that works well in our family unit, there is a macrocosmic effect. And dh gains an advantage compared to women of his age who don’t have a facilitating sahw. It might serve the greater good of women for me to go to work despite the disadvantages to my dc with SN, so in that sense it’s an anti feminist choice. I’m choosing to put the welfare of my dc first.

I would argue staunchly that I can be a feminist despite these personal choices. In fact I am extraordinarily grateful for feminists who have secured my legal rights and made it possible for me to safely stay at home. I’m fully aware of the hard won legal changes in the last 60 years and how different my circumstances would have been in the past.

I support and contribute to many feminist causes. And I would also advocate for respect for all work, not just paid work.

Breaking down the trad wife aesthetic further - it’s a choice to care about looking nice/keeping a nice house/cooking nice dinners. But there’s a difference between prioritising something and advocating for others to share the same priorities on the basis of gender.

What you get up to in your sex life is your own business, and if you want to live a 24 hr dom/sub lifestyle go for it. Or be a lesbian. Or have missionary sex every Saturday mornings. It’s all fine. What is not okay is telling others they should do things your way too.
It’s not okay to decide that heterosexuality is the only acceptable sexuality.
It’s not okay to tell women they should be submissive to men.

But it’s equally not okay when feminists say that sexually submissive women are womanning wrong. We don’t get to pick our sexuality; but we also don’t have a right to force it on other people.

I don’t have an issue with an individual choosing to stay home, dress up, fetishise domestic work, opt out of financial decisions but I absolutely object to them promoting a lifestyle without any awareness of the dangers, particularly to potentially vulnerable women.

I also object to other forms of duplicitous advertising, to MLMs, scammers and anyone who makes a living exploiting people who haven’t the intelligence, experience, or protective privileges to avoid them.

People are free to make any choice they wish. They can be anything they want.

They just can't claim anti feminist choices are feminists because they chose them.

You can be a feminist and make anti feminist choices up to a point.

It doesn't make the choices feminist

Personally, I think choosing to be a SAHP can be a feminist choice because it actively adds value to a role that under patriarchy is considered to be wholly unimportant and thus traditionally relegated to the sex once considered to have the intelligence of a ten year old boy.

Especially in an environment where the goal is to close the gender gap in SAHPs…get more men to become SAHDs. I think a man’s choice to be a SAHD is also feminist for the same reason.

To me it is anti-feminist to not only perpetuate the traditional patriarchal view of a SAHP as being of little value but by further denigrating this role to be worthless by advocating that no one should be a SAHP, but every adult should be pursuing careers and children should be raised in State subsidised child care centres.

@Onnabugeisha

'get more men to become SAHDs'

How do you do that?

Promoting sahp as the ideal implies there is something wrong or lesser about being a working parent.

Which is obviously not the case

None of the parenting choices are inherently better

All have pros and cons

I don't really understand the obsession with sahp ING and the need to value it above all else