tradwife trend

[AngryGromit]

Has anything hear of the new trend among younger women,  becoming a "tradwife" or Traditional Wife. basically it's a throw back to the 1950's where the husband's worked and the wife stayed home. Took care of the kids, did all the cleaning, cooked all the meals, and was submissive to her husband allowing him to make all financial decisions.  Some woman say life is just grand, they do not have the stresses of work, finances, politics, etc, and can concentrate the family and socializing with friends. While this might work fine for some women,  there the husband is responsible and takes care of finances in a responsible matter. The down side of this is some men are simply incompetent with it comes to managing money. One study on young men found only 22% of them were financially stable and responsible with managing the house hold budget.  Another 36% were deemed at risk, which included men which lacked money management skills, and income stability, and the statics only got worse from there.  Another down side to this trend is when Bob dies and Lisa, now a senior citizen has no clue how to write a check, pay bills or doesn't realizes that Bob didn't put anything away for retirement, and they are six months behind on the mortgage. The the bank is going to foreclose on the house any day.    

Edited December 27, 2022 by AngryGromit
spelling error

[Wiseman2]

It seems voluntary now as opposed to when women had fewer professional options. To each their own, but if people want black and white TV show lives, that's fine.

[BaileyB]

I’m not sure how anyone can afford to do this long term with todays cost of living…

[central]

There will always be people who want this kind of relationship. That's fine, if they understand the constraints and potential consequences and accept the risks. I wouldn't respect or trust a woman who couldn't support herself and needed me to do so, barring some illness or disability that prevents self-sufficiency and the ability to contribute to a marriage financially.

[BrinnM]

1 hour ago, BaileyB said:

I’m not sure how anyone can afford to do this long term with todays cost of living…

True, especially with a bunch of kids. Plus, I wouldn’t trust any man to make all financial and other decisions. 

[NuevoYorko]

1 hour ago, AngryGromit said:

 One study on young men found only 22% of them were financially stable and responsible with managing the house hold budget. 

In many traditional marriages of the past, the wives actually took care of the household budget.  My grandmother did.  It was part of her "housework."

Quote

 

  Another 36% were deemed at risk, which included men which lacked money management skills, and income stability, and the statics only got worse from there.  Another down side to this trend is when Bob dies and Lisa, now a senior citizen has no clue how to write a check, pay bills or doesn't realizes that Bob didn't put anything away for retirement, and they are six months behind on the mortgage. The the bank is going to foreclose on the house any day.    

If someone decides to place every aspect of their fate in the hands of another person, that's up to them.  It's possible and probably common for some of this new generation of "tradwives" to have some kind of clue about what is going on in order to be functional when Bob croaks.   

I've seen some IG etc. from these women, though, and it kind of makes me feel pukey.  Again, it's up to them and it's nice that they can have this choice.  Usually thought the SM they put forth is pretty smug and seemingly casting some shade on women who choose to develop themselves in different ways that are not directly connected with the activities of a husband.  I have to admit that I'd be horrified if my daughter had decided on this type of a life, though we did raise her to make her own choices.

Edited December 27, 2022 by NuevoYorko

[BaileyB]

1 hour ago, BrinnM said:

Plus, I wouldn’t trust any man to make all financial and other decisions. 

Not only that, what if he decides to leave the marriage? If he dies, hopefully there is life insurance. But, if he leaves - she is hooped! She will get some child and spousal support, half of assets, but it’s entirely possible that she will need to find a new home and a job because this may/may not be enough to live - certainly not in the style to which she has likely become accustomed (even if they are not wealthy). That is a risky proposition - as was said above, that’s a lot of trust to place every aspect of your fate in the hands of another person… It’s not for me. I would have no problem staying home for a period of time when the kids are young (daycare costs are high), or working part time, but in no way am I not getting an education/getting out of the work force entirely and putting my financial stability in the hands of another… If it goes bad, that’s just not a risk that I want to take. 

[ExpatInItaly]

18 hours ago, AngryGromit said:

Has anything hear of the new trend among younger women,  becoming a "tradwife" or Traditional Wife

This sounds like a moniker young people on the internet made up to give themselves an identity and post on IG or TikTok, much like the infinite "-core" trends (cottagecore, fairy core, etc) It's basically cosplay for adults, only with further-reaching implications. 

This sort of marriage has always existed, but it seems that nowadays youngsters like to imagine it was a nostalgic and simple time and might be fun to try on. My guess is that they don't realize how challenging it would actually be to exist in this sort of lifetsyle when only one person makes a salary. They gave this arrangement a cutesy new name and added a hashtag, but it really is just a home-maker / housewife / stay-at-home-mom. That's all. It's not new whatsoever. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by ExpatInItaly

[BaileyB]

Indeed, everything that is old is new again at some point…

[NuevoYorko]

4 hours ago, ExpatInItaly said:

 

This sort of marriage has always existed, but it seems that nowadays youngsters like to imagine it was a nostalgic and simple time and might be fun to try on. My guess is that they don't realize how challenging it would actually be to exist in this sort of lifetsyle when only one person makes a salary. They gave this arrangement a cutesy new name and added a hashtag, but it really is just a home-maker / housewife / stay-at-home-mom. That's all. It's not new whatsoever. 

Yes.  If you look at #tradwife you will also see a LOT of "Christian Values" touted, and an insufferable level of smugness and superiority.  Also it seems to be fairly confined to white families.  

[ExpatInItaly]

5 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Yes.  If you look at #tradwife you will also see a LOT of "Christian Values" touted, and an insufferable level of smugness and superiority.  Also it seems to be fairly confined to white families.  

I am not surprised to hear this. It smacks of social media performativeness. 

 

[Els]

22 hours ago, AngryGromit said:

Took care of the kids, did all the cleaning, cooked all the meals, and was submissive to her husband allowing him to make all financial decisions.  Some woman say life is just grand, they do not have the stresses of work, finances, politics, etc, and can concentrate the family and socializing with friends.

Don't think I've heard much of this aside from fringe ultra-conservative groups. To be clear, I know plenty of of SAHMs and even a few childfree women who don't work... but it's not really the same as what you're talking about. With the couples that I know, there isn't really a (discernible) power imbalance, and the woman handles at least some finances, and most certainly votes and has political opinions, lol. Basically, the only difference between them and their spouse is that one person works outside the home and the other person works to maintain the home.

I also know a few 24/7 TPE D/s couples in kink communities that sound more like what you describe - but those aren't always M/f, and also the people involved are usually not young.

[BaileyB]

32 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Yes.  If you look at #tradwife you will also see a LOT of "Christian Values" touted, and an insufferable level of smugness and superiority.  Also it seems to be fairly confined to white families.  

Does not surprise me either. I have a few acquaintances that would fit this description. It is a decision they have made for their family, but all are affluent, deeply religious, white families. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by BaileyB

[Els]

15 hours ago, BaileyB said:

Does not surprise me either. I have a few acquaintances that would fit this description. It is a decision they have made for their family, but all are affluent, deeply religious, white families. 

Wonder if it's an American thing? I've literally never seen that term before, lol. Nor have I ever seen a couple that fits the OP's description exactly.

[Will am I]

"Tradwife", sounds like a new word introduced by a conservatist group in an attempt to spark some new interest in the idea.

SAHM is a more common term.

 

About the virtues of the concept: I believe that people need to do what works for them. My wife didn't do paid work for a number of years and it helped in some areas. At the time we made that decision the ratio between our hourly incomes had gone up from 2:1 when we met to 5:1 when my wife quit her job. So it made sense. I could focus on my work, she could focus on the home and the children and some community volunteering and the prioities were always clear. The clear priorities and stress reduction are the upside.

In her last job before leaving the labour market, my wife was constantly scheduled more hours than she wanted to work and dealing with a boss who often wanted her to take on some shift that was not convenient with ourfamiliy schedule. It have a lot of stress, for us that was out of balance with the marginal contribution to our family income.

But there is also a downside. One thing is: we went "out of sync". I'd come home after a work day and want to mellow out on the couch, she'd practically be waiting for me in the hallway asking to please go out to dinner. She craved so much to be out among grown-ups when I was more into relaxing at home and maybe playing with out little one. Opposite vibes, and after a number of years this did incrementally cause damage to our relationship.

I think there's many angles to this decision and every couple should lay the puzzle as they see fit. And evaluate annually, because circumstances but also people change over time.

[Atwood]

There's lots of stay-at-home arrangements going on for all sorts of family set-ups which work well without turning it into the whole "tradwife" thing, which seems pretty cultish. I understand wanting to ascribe to some kind of structure or rules to manage the stress and overwhelm that life can bring, but I don't see the appeal of replicating the 1950s Mama and Papa roles. 

I'm more interested in the reasons why some people do find it appealing, but it's probably just good ol' misogyny again. 

[glows]

There are personal interests and then there is financial literacy. Ignorance can’t be helped - it’s in every group or an unfortunate outcome of anything especially that’s pursued to an extreme. 

Regardless of whether women choose to work or not, they’re better off being financially literate and understanding where their money comes from with the option to take over or manage the funds if hubs is away or incapacitated for any reason.

Edited December 29, 2022 by glows

[mark clemson]

Nothing like going into a marriage all starry-eyed and being stuck 15 years later with 3 kids and a cheating husband you have no financial means to leave. Or having the husband be ok, but then get sick/unable to work and you're stuck trying to support the family with minimal job skills.

Overall it seems pretty short-sighted to me.

[Lotsgoingon]

This kind of family can work. But it has a lot of risks, which is why people have turned against it. 

When the man has all the money power, it's not just that if he dies, the wife can't write a check. It's also that he can spend on all kinds of stuff and not be accountable to her. And he is tempted to use that money power to his advantage. I've heard of marriages like this when the guy has a fling, decides to leave, he then closes all bank accounts, moves to accounts under his name only, and the wife literally had not a dime to her name or a claim or any money. Meanwhile the guy hires a super expensive divorce attorney to ensure the woman can't get anything but pennies. 

Try to get a great divorce attorney when you don't have a bank account. And meanwhile the woman often ends up doing the super generous thing and tries to hide all this from the children so that the children "can have a relationship with their father." Dad leaves her broke, she's in poverty or semi-poverty and she has to lie by omission about the cause of this all because she wants to hide the husband's despicable behavior from the children. 

My sense is that for these marriages to work, they have to have a certain equality to them. The guy officially controls the money, but in practice, he runs all important decisions by the wife and truly accepts her input. The guy is really a consensus leader. Flip it, the wife is officially doing the home duties, but she speaks up on family finances, business decisions, on whether the husband should take a new job that requires relocation or longer hours. And she has confidence to challenge the husband, and she has access to all bank accounts!

We all benefit from accountability and need accountability. 

There is a famous sports figure who had a marriage like this, where he had control of the money without the wife's input. He invested recklessly and they lost nearly everything. The first thing they changed in the marriage--and the sports star endorsed this strongly--was that he had to get his wife's agreement on all business decisions. All! Implication: this kind of marriage ironically has lots of downsides for men. 

[Els]

2 minutes ago, Lotsgoingon said:

My sense is that for these marriages to work, they have to have a certain equality to them. The guy officially controls the money, but in practice, he runs all important decisions by the wife and truly accepts her input. The guy is really a consensus leader. Flip it, the wife is officially doing the home duties, but she speaks up on family finances, business decisions, on whether the husband should take a new job that requires relocation or longer hours. And she has confidence to challenge the husband, and she has access to all bank accounts!

Honestly, I grew up in a culture where "traditional" marriages were still fairly common, and I've never known a single one where the woman has no control over finances. In fact, in most of them, the housewife was the one managing the household budget, and thus, by extension, their joint finances.

It could be a cultural thing, but I suspect that these "tradwives" might be a bit misled in their ideas of traditionality...

[stillafool]

My parents had a "traditional" marriage where my mom stayed home and took care of the house and kids.  She managed the finances but; always discussed them with my Dad.

[Lotsgoingon]

Yes, there were women homemakers who controlled the budget and finances.

But there were also a lot of women who would get allowances from the husband and knew NOTHING about the bank stuff. Or they simply thought it was their role to "support" their husband's decisions--to show confidence in him.  And the husband would make big stupid decisions. 

As late as 1974 in the U.S. banks could require women to have a male cosigner for credit cards and certain accounts. Congress passed a law rooting that out. And banks for a long time required women to have a male cosigner.

[Starswillshine]

17 hours ago, stillafool said:

My parents had a "traditional" marriage where my mom stayed home and took care of the house and kids.  She managed the finances but; always discussed them with my Dad.

This is how my home was set up prior to divorce. Basically, my xH's only responsibility was to wake up and go to work each day and make money. I handled 100% of everything else- including the money, the bills, etc. While he had access to everything, he never checked it and was never "in the know". It caused big issues between us at times because he would spend freely- I tried to set weekly financial update meetings or something but to no avail. He rather be blissfully ignorant and spend without stress and left it all for me to deal with. 

It's no wonder I take hone less than 10% of what he did when we first got divorced (and he has doubled that now) and I have been able to save much more money than I could then.... and he is always "struggling "

[stillafool]

1 hour ago, Starswillshine said:

He rather be blissfully ignorant and spend without stress and left it all for me to deal with. 

Oh that's terrible.  Well my parents believed in planning and saving and were good with money.  It's important to be compatible in that area.

[AngryGromit]

This isn't the first crazy idea floated by 20 somethings with new visions of the world. I recall  before the crash in 2008, there was those that cut costs. saved every penny into a a small nest egg with the idea they were going to retire by early 30's. The math worked great with aggressive stock market investments that yielded a 12%+ return to cover living costs. But they were looking at the stock market with rose colored glasses, once the market crashed in 2008, they were certainly not getting the kind of investment returns to continue to be retired, not to mention aggressive investments with high returns comes with the risk of big losses of your principal investment.  

A lot of these 30 something's were retiring with a investment next egg of around of around 300k, but realistically, need about 10 times that amount, around 3 million to earn a sustainable investment returns that cover income and inflation to retire at age 35.  Three million minimum, five million would be more ideal.             

Edited December 31, 2022 by AngryGromit