The points of contention are finer: that the “tradwife” phenomenon is syncretic and ahistorical, and that it’s (in part) a recruitment mechanism for reactionary politics.
Only because "progressive" politics has forced it into that role. There's nothing inherently wrong or problematic with a stay-at-home lifestyle if that's what you prefer and you can afford it.
Besides, I think if you actually went out and sampled the world, you would find plenty of stay-at-home progressives.
It predates progressive politics you complain about. Progressive politics is response to that.
In particular, upper middle class and riches are minority of population. Poor are most frequent ... and their women work for money unless it is illegal ... and it is illegal purely because of politics and feeling of propriety, nothing material.
And also, the small farms mean that everyone working in home, at field and with animals ... men do physically demanding work tho more. There is gender split, but not between "crummy home" and "work". The household produces a lot of what they need - candles, fabric for cloth, you name it. There are some gender exclusive areas and then a lot of basically work that needs to be done.
Or, in mining areas, men die young. They earn more then women, but they live without sun and die and then you have women having to earn for them and children - that is where some of the crafts come from.
There is some kind of patriarchy most of the time, but in some periods and places women actually can earn money, own stuff, do business in their own name. That not being fully case in 1950 America is purely result of politics. That not being case in Saudi Arabia is purely gender ideology and politics, nothing to do with anything material.
[1] https://mashable.com/article/tradwife-feminism-tiktok [2] https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/the-problem-with-the-tradw...
This is quite literally the viewpoint of all progressive politics, ever.
For example the article makes it seem like tradwive sentiment is problematic because it shares some views with the far right. Even if that’s true, which it isn’t inherently, it’s not enough to deem trad wife behavior problematic.
Fundamentally, modern feminism is about women being able to choose. Obviously such freedom can be used to choose to do or share “problematic” things or views, respectively.
And the focus was very much on male leadership and authority, male right to punish a women and expectation of submission. It was not about homemaking itself absent male dominance.
>> And she writes that a tradwife doesn't want to go back to the 1950s, but "she simply likes that time because it was the last time her occupation was celebrated in mainstream media."
One then wonders what “traditional” refers to, of course.
The “tradition” of aspiring to 1950s commercially constructed media images of the lily white, Protestant, working-class but with middle-class wealth, American culture [0], to which modern reactionary white resentment politcs aspires and for which it blames everything not White, not evangelical/fundamentalist, and not similarly reactionary for denying the White working class from being able to fully enjoy the way they did in the 1950s... fictional mass media presentations.
[0] ironically, designed specifically to drive consumerism and extract wealth from the White working class.
Reactionary != White Nationalist
* a reactionary government * reactionary politics"
That's about half of the people in most countries, so your argument just ends up as a sort of statement of your political beliefs.
There are more pejorative uses of the term; I guess we just end up in a semantic debate.
There are certainly places in the world where there are significant local reactionary ideologies that are not White Nationalist, but the US is not among them.
Because, and to the extent, that the thing it pulls people toward is bad.
> We might as well say the glamorization of cosmopolitanism is a recruiting tool for neoliberalism.
That's less true, though, but, yes, glamorization of cosmopolitanism feeds a bunch of ideologies that are not the same ones the “trad... ” movement feeds.
What if progressivism went too far and some reaction to that is needed to bring balance?
Interesting how the OP is about the whole "tradwife" ideology which is damaging for women[1] and feminism[2], but you turn it into a trans-vs.-cis argument, for no reason whatsoever.
The only "clown world" is the one where you think those two entirely disparate topics are comparable.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2020/jan/27/tradwives-ne...
Advocating being a tradwife as an ideal, deviation from which in others should be viewed as inferior, is reactionary in and of itself, even if the person taking the position also has progressive views on other issues.