this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024

167 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19251 readers

2396 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

167

Sundresses and rugged self-sufficiency: ‘tradwives’ tout a conservative American past ... that didn’t exist (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/politics

24 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] jimmydoreisalefty -18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think it has to do with the working class; a majority is struggling to live paycheck to paycheck even with both parents having an income. Yes, some remember their parents or grandparents (wathcing families on television) would only have to work 40 hours a week in a single-income home, and that was enough for the family to have a comfortable life.

They were being paid a living wage.

Now the working class continues to struggle while the owner class's profits hit an all-time high.

This article seems to just be fearmongering for the new status quo agenda (the new PR name is Project 2025), while only calling out "far-right" and not the duopoly that is enabling the struggles of the working class.

These are just more articles that help keep diving for the working class without addressing the real systematic problems our society is facing.

Tradwives first began trending online in 2020, when people were looking to wring excitement and comfort out of the smallest household tasks. Although there’s no single definition of “tradwife” – and many female influencers who’ve been decorated with the label don’t use it or even reject it – you know the tradwife when you see her. She is probably baking sourdough in an immaculate outfit, has a gaggle of kids (or wants them), and suggests – either silently or very loudly, like Williams – that life is better when women adhere to “traditional” gender roles and perfect at-home domesticity and nurturing.

Tradwives portray a fundamentally conservative and individual solution to that societal failure: retreat not only into the home, but also into history. Using the iconography of an idealized past, they evoke the economic and emotional fantasy that families, and especially women, can opt out of the complexity of modern society. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could choose to live on one income? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could choose to stay home and raise children, rather than be forced into it because childcare is so damn expensive?

But 19th-century homesteading, the source of so much inspiration for both tradwives and the GOP – was not a private endeavor undertaken by hardy men and their supportive wives. It was the result of the huge government subsidy program known as the Homestead Act. The 1950s, another conservative inspiration, were also shaped by government subsidies for housing and education – as well as a post-second world war movement to pressure women out of the workforce – that briefly made it economically possible for vast numbers of white American women to live as housewives. (These subsidies were nowhere near as available to people of color.)

The social and economic conditions that made the nuclear family structure so dominant in the 1950s were also exceedingly unique. Except for this post-war period, it has been far from traditional for US families to be made up of a breadwinner husband, a wife who stays home to do unpaid cooking and cleaning as well as 2.5 kids who get to enjoy an extended childhood.

Many so-called tradwives do openly work for money – often through home-based small businesses, influencing or a combination of the two, such as selling courses on how to be a stay-at-home influencer. Like all influencers, their product is their own lifestyle.

Tradwifery is not a monolith, and some of the most popular women who have been labeled “tradwives” by the internet don’t talk about politics or gender roles. But social media algorithms and chatter can co-opt them into conservative projects about femininity and families that these women may not personally support.

After I watched several Williams videos on YouTube, the platform started serving me ads for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the powerhouse Christian law firm that masterminded the overturning of Roe and continues to chip away at abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. In May, Media Matters for America found that watching tradwife content on TikTok led its “For You” Page to be flooded with far-right conspiracy theory content “within an afternoon”.

Despite the tradwives’ popularity, it’s not financially feasible for many women to quit their jobs. It’s not even clear that women want to. Almost 80% of women between the ages of 25 and 54 are now part of the US workforce.

[–] yesman 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This idea of a a single income supporting a family is part of that past that never existed. That was never the norm for Americans. (So long as POC and women count as Americans)

Progressives shouldn't look backward. It's gross.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Lets not degrade folks from looking backwards. You can gain a lot of data through historical analysis and maybe even some ideas that can be dug back up and modernized. The problem occurs when folks get blinded by the past. Old World Blues and all that.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty -4 points 5 months ago

An economy where people were better off and were not forced to rely on overtime and muiltiple jobs did exist.

Fifty years ago, nearly a third of U.S. workers belonged to a union. Today, it's one in 10. But the decline has not been the same for every state. Here is a map showing how union membership has changed across the country.^[[1] 50 Years Of Shrinking Union Membership, In One Map | February 23, 2015 | Quoctrung Bui | https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/23/385843576/50-years-of-shrinking-union-membership-in-one-map]

“Those Who Do Not Learn History Are Doomed To Repeat It.”

Tangent critique about labels: When using the word "progressives," it does not hold any meaning if you do not explain what it means to people; everyone has their own definition of such lables.

A similar situation occurs when we use "far left" and "far right," because most of our politicians would be considered Republican-lites, even the Justice Democrats (they are closer to Republicans than to people on the "left', IMO).

I consider myself on the "left," due to being highly critical of the government, our three-letter agencies, our military, and as well as the MSM; I am also antiwar and for the working class people.