view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
The reality of feminism, though, is that if a woman truly desired to be that kind of wife, they'd 100% have that choice. That is kind of the entire point of feminism. If that's the woman they want to be, then more power to them.
But they also want to be sure women aren't being coerced, blackmailed, etc., into that subservient position. Because that's the most important part. It must be her decision.
Sure, feminist ideals require any woman to be free to choose a Leave It To Beaver lifestyle. But that still doesn't make it a realistic lifestyle for most people, because feminism won't provide the means to pay for it.
And just as freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, feminism doesn't mean I can't find certain people's life choices revolting. People who advocate the "tradwife" lifestyle aren't doing so in a vacuum; it's very much a product of the fascist movement and it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind feminism.
Oh, please don't misunderstand. I am not defending these "tradwife"-obsessed psychos...
I just wanted to point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with that lifestyle, as long as the person chooses to live that way.
Its partly a reaction against the financial freedoms women have started to enjoy since they started getting closer to male salaries and a career became a more socially acceptable option for women. In the past if you were a woman you had to marry to get your own place, it was also deeply socially unacceptable for women to remain unmarried into their twenties and thirties, so far more women had to marry men who never really the right choice for them, witness the high divorce rates for the tail end of this group as divorce became easier and more socially acceptable. I would also add its also more socially acceptable for people to be out and in relationships now, rather than marrying a beard or playing full on pretend. This further cuts the pool who needed to marry men rather than wanted to marry men.
Now women can remain single or in more flexible arrangements and a large group of men are now struggling to adapt. Large elements of this group have been targeted by the likes of Crowder for rationalisation and end up on the incel pathway. A trad wife is a fantasy that makes everything easy for this group of men, its going to be attractive to them.
They would hate my household. My wife is much better educated than I am and has always made a lot more money than I do and we have had to go down to a single income so I can help my daughter through online school. We can afford it- just barely, but we can afford it. Total reversal of gender roles.
We've done it twice before. Once when we kept her home and did online school during COVID and once from when she was a baby to age three. I was the one staying home with the kid those two times too.
They'd probably want to throw me in prison for that or something.
Yeah, reality ends up like my ex, who wanted a tradwife who also makes the bulk of the money for him to spend.
And no, I knew none of that beforehand.
I think the principle is popular enough - though certainly not for everyone (it's probably not even close).
The impracticality of surviving on a single income makes the idea laughable, and I wonder how much of its popularity is actually a desire to live a comfy life on a single income - maybe a few kids too.
So really, it's aspirational. Like a hummer in every driveway sort of thing.
I grew up conservative Christian and have some friends in traditional marriages, although they are liberals politically, but it's pretty different from what these grifters sell it as, even Crowder who presumably did it "the right way." The expectation of the man in this arrangement is something these grifters love to gloss over. "The man should lead" means they are leaders in a church community in their free time, the wife is too, everyone knows each other's business to a degree, problems are discussed in small men's groups or women's Bible study etc. It's really not a commodified lifestyle which these grifters sort of treat it as, it's a lot of sacrifice. They sell it here as this easy thing but the ones I know who make it work don't treat it that way.