I find it so irnoic women complain their labor is under valued, while they under value mens labor 😂 Men literally do all the most dangerus important jobs that keep you alive, but go off on how you being a secretery is undervalued whule my friends are being deleted in a war yall voted for
If someone wants to be a "tradwife" with multiple kids... fine. If someone wants to be a single "girlboss" or a "dink" their whole life... fine. The ability to choose should be there. I find it off-putting when someone leans too much into their choice out of spite and turns it into a strange cosplay
I am the stay at home father for my young family while I re-train at the university and I think the only realistic way to assess wellbeing of homemakers is that if your partner makes enough money to allow you to make homemaking a career and your partner can sponsor your retirement savings, then literally anyone would be happy if that's a career-path they want. If being a homemaker means your whole family struggles while you're expected to provide free and outrageous labour for 100 hour weeks and there isn't even enough money to maintain the family unit, then literally anyone would be unhappy. What is nefarious about the tradwife phenomenon is that its essentially an upper class fantasy that a family can maintain financial stability with one partner working in an era where real wages are less than half the economic productive value they were 50 years ago. Either you're dreaming of being rich, or you're dreaming of owning a person - but neither position is a realistic way to plan for a lifestyle when the median household income requires a wage in the top 30% of earners. The unhappiness of the modern lifestyle has nothing to do with the construction of the family unit compared to generations passed but I think instead everything to do with the continually decomposing material conditions of both adults in a monogamous family unit. All that to say, I like and agree with your video. I hope its okay I add my perspective.
To specifically and personally address the above, my wife does not make enough money for us to live comfortably and my retirement savings are years behind. Thus I've found the entire thing to be an exhausting struggle of keeping above water while trying to sacrifice self for the benefit of the children. Male or female, I cannot fathom wanting to live this way for more than the 5 years I already have and my mental health as a homemaker is the lowest its been in almost 15 years. Its also been interesting seeing the roles reversed to the norm that the wife will work all day and then want to relax in the evening while I work all day with the children but then need to continue to work to get them dinner and ready for bed plus trying to do my study in the evenings. I think unless you've had the opportunity to live on the other side its nearly unfathomable.
@@Rakkeyal this sounds very demanding, and although you speak of your burden, I can not help but be somewhat jealous of the fact that you are with someone who is working with you in a team so many years down the road. It does sound hard, but right now I am confident in the partner I have, but truthfully I will only know in a few years if we will e capable of the teamwork a shared household requires. For that, I still am somewhat happy for you. I widh the economy was better, so that you both would have some of the workload off your backs.
Thank you for not veering in obvious directions. You pull us out quickly from the comfort of the known, from the 'dead dogma' of our assumptions. I did not expect this-Why? I don't know-and find myself relieved at needing to think through my affirmation or disagreement carefully. All this to say, as a thinker, you strike me as a refreshingly honest person. That feels hard to find (and thus so much thinking feels lonely, no?).
I feel like this also highlights your point on being so socially focused on productivity and the death of all thinking - Weil and the death of thinking seems especially relevant to limiting women's role outside of their own choice. Always makes me wonder about Elisabeth Nietzche. Thanks for the video as always!!!
its always frustrating to see women get their own platforms and preach about returning to traditional values and demonize feminism. while it isn't a perfect movement, feminism is the reason you are able to do that in the first place. and it is very much something you can lose in an instant, especially as societies become less stable and populations start to decline. look at Afghanistan for example, over the last several decades women lost the right to hold jobs, go out in public alone and recently, even SPEAK in public. the story A Handmaid's Tale cannot be considered pure fiction anymore. i am actually begging these women to stop speaking against movements that give them the best chance at freedom. all women will be affected by this. one day your daughters and granddaughters will wonder where they lost their voices in history.
"feminism is the reason you are able to do that in the first place". not the fourth wave. modern feminism made women extremely miserable. let's stop pretending that all the feminists have equal merit
Well, I'll tell you everything from my personal perspective. I am a woman. And I love working, but not with dishes and clothes, not with people (especially not with kids: they stress me out), but with intellectual problems. I find them incredibly engaging and interesting, unlike all-home life where my mind would become a miserable and boring mess of never-ending routine-related thoughts. Plus, I think everything is relative, even freedom. But this freedom still has a number (low-average-high), and I think that high freedom is important since it promotes change and progress. Progress isn't something you would see in the past societies where everyone would be constrained by traditional norms of thinking. And you would see a lot of suffering and a big number of deaths in such societies. It's also important to remember that anything we will do in this world would need a certain degree of suffering. And, in my opinion, freedom gives us less suffering rather than tight and omnipresent constraints.
It's really ironic that this video was published today. I'm young and unmarried, but I'm studying really hard to be able to afford to leave my tstrongly right wing traditional christisn family (for context I'm a queer young adult) and just this morning I was thinking, "why am I doing all thiis. It's making me miserable. Why don't I just settle and let my life go, allow myself to reconcile to my family's ideals and wait for a husband in the church and just become a housewife like the rest of my community". But no, that's just an escapist fantasy, one that will not make me happy, because that won't be me.
the struggle is reall. i'm also living with a very conservative family and i know that giving up on my dreams of leaving and just getting married asap will mean love and acceptance from everyone around me. its terrible to have to choose between freedom and familial love. but i would much rather be miserable and free than miserable and trapped lolol
It's unlikely studying will get you very far ahead. It's very likely when you have your career and live in a small apartment alone you will still be miserable. But At the end of the day it's your life and there's only one way to know and that's by trying.
How is doing house work without being paid the way to avoid exploitation? The problem with traditional gender roles is ignoring individual differences. Not all women suit domestic work, there are plenty of women earning more than their husbands, it would be more practical for the husbands to quit the job and take care of domestic duties.
You can apply the same to women being pushed into a career. „The problem with modern gender roles is ignoring individual differences“. Not all women want to work their entire life and either have no children or no time for their children.
If the industrial system did not occur everyone would still work. Men and women worked in the agricultural sector. I think certain behaviors that modern feminism has actually done, has made some aspects of women's lives slightly worse or better yet inconvenient. It did have certainly made lots of improvements in women's lives but no movement is perfect. Two household income parents were actually forced on the household due to insufficient funds or to improve quality of life/make a higher income. Only families with a large net worth and/or high income can support a family with only one breadwinner.
I agree but I feel like the issue is tied more so to gender being necessary for the consideration of who is able to be a homemaker. In the same way Kant would have barred her from “genius” status, for example, it ultimately just shuts out 50% of the discussion from a problem involving 100% of people, imo.
current tradwives literally choose to do that, so how is it subservient, demoralizing, or trapping? these women still benefit from from the wins of feminism, and they literally don’t have to work. they don’t have to have a WAGE LABOR, which IS of demoralizing, subservient, and trapping.
It's a choice that can lead to tragedy and is at the same time totally preventable, criticism is valid. subservience - they are sacrificing their future and present for that of others. They are promised something in return, but the other party is not really bound to make a payback. In terms of working conditions it's good faithed servant work. demoralising - the longer they stay away from other life paths, the harder it is to get back on track and more intimidating. A well self-sustained woman can become a SAHM in the matter of days. The other way around it is often impossible. trapping - having no income, and ever diminishing prospects at employment severely limits your choices in life. They basically become defined by your partner. How is that not trapping? They do work, they just cannot convert their work into assets at will and of their choosing. They get meals, roof, gifts and gratitude. Or they don't.
Is it a sacrifice if it’s what they want to be doing? How is caring for your family a sacrifice? Laboring is IMO a greater sacrifice, of free time and mental and physical health. Trad wives WANT to be dependent, that’s why they make, and will keep making, that choice; it’s almost patriarchal to deny the agency of these women! What exactly do you mean by ”on track“????!! is having kids and nice home not ”on track“? Also, why do you think divorce courts favor mothers they way they do? Oh yeah it’s for the exact reason that SAHMs don’t have any income/resources to sustain themselves. Entrapment necessarily means that the trapped party is there against their will. The assets they’re investing in are children, family, community, and happiness! You really think you’re sticking up for women, eh? Brainwashed dollarcel
Tradwifes, trading independence for simplicity of life. In general I can understand the sentiment. If I didn't have to work, I'd gladly take the opportunity, I'd usually much prefer to work to improve things that are close tho me, like home life and family, rather than slaving away my time for meaningless tasks at a dead-end job, which I'm doing currently. I never had any specific career in mind, so got nothing to look forward in a career path, therefore I'm just surviving the workday and live my life later. But I'd probably never go down the path of a tradwife either. First, the financial independence is really too important to overlook. Even if you have a good partner and no financial abuse happens, what's your life gonna be if he suddenly dies? Or if he has an accident rendering him unable to work, or loses his assets, or anything similar? After missing years of job experience, you're gonna struggle to stand on the your feet and in some cases you'd start to be the one who has to support your family financially. Second, being a tradwife requires more money, simple as that. Most people wouldn't be able to afford going through life on one person's income alone. There are not as many *tradhusbands* to carry the economic weight of their tradwifes if that trend ever starts becoming more common. Third, not every tradhusband who can afford to have a tradwife *should* have one. Not everyone with financial means to cover your expenses is a person you should trust to do so. Financial abuse is a thing, so while it won't happen to everyone, it will happen to some, especially if the trend becomes more common. All in all, being a tradwife seems nice, but only when it goes well. It's cool that some people found happiness in that model, but it would be disastrous for most people if that was the norm.
My mind was screaming, "it's both men and women, and it's because of capitalism," before you even brought it up! Though I don't think you have to be one of the exploited ones to be made more unhappy by the system. I think it affects everyone by making us so much more competitive in our mindset, which weighs on all our relationships and way of life. Social media was no help either, as it shows us versions of other people that look way happier than they actually are, thanks to a positivity bias. It might also be showing us more extremes on the mental health spectrum as well, so we then fall deeper into any unhappiness we already experience.
What is the goal of modern feminism? The original goal of the movement was to alleviate the problems that arose from the power imbalances between men and women. Women were getting harassed, raped, seen as second class citizens, etc. Today, while many such things still happen, they have been alleviated extensively as compared to the way things once were. This is entirely the result of women getting more power, through increased rights, and ability to earn their own wage. While women are still subjected to injustices today, the aggressors are swiftly condemned and punished adequately. The culture has changed. But even still, women face problems that are unique to their gender. So it seems obvious that feminism should still be at the forefront of our minds. The question however is: Is feminism making strides towards alleviating these problems, or is it the case that there is nothing more that can be realistically done? Is it a culture problem, caused by the inequality between men and women, or are other factors at play? The modern feminist movement focuses on liberation and equality, as these have been the driving forces behind the movement since day one. I think it is time to ask whether this approach is the appropriate way to further women's wellbeing. The problems women face today are less about the injustices that come from a sick culture with large gender inequality, and more about the many modern day problems we face today. Therefore it is also the case that future solutions that are gonna serve women's interest the most are gonna come more from the alleviation of the modern issues women face today, and less from the sick culture that has largely been dealt with.
Sir, women’s inequality has NOT “largely been dealt with” on genuinely any level. Not on equal pay, experiences of violence, justice in the legal system, health care quality, holding positions of power. Only 25% of the senate are women, we make up 50% of the population. Your assumption that you have something substantive to say on this topic instead of listening and researching how to be a good ally, is you being part of the problem - a problem for women and a problem for society at large. Do better.
Quite literally google your prompt and read an article or book from a feminist on this topic. You’d find that modern intersectional feminism IS the pursuit of equality for all. Everyone’s oppression, and liberation, is interconnected. People smarter than the both of us have written on this topic. Don’t come into women’s spaces and post uninformed, ignorant musings. Come to learn or don’t come at all.
@@tsib6703 My comment never stated that we have reached complete equality. What is said was that the culture that caused these inequalites historically is not very relevant today, the next question has to be then, why are there still differences between the outcomes of men and women? The obvious answer is that there is a big difference between how men and women are seen in society. They are expected to do different things and are afforded different resources, through their childhood and adolescence. This is the diagnosis, and the cure is therefore to start treating men and women the same, and expect the same from them, in childhood aswell as in adulthood. Of course what is being neglected is the question: why are there these differences in the first place? Perhaps men and women should do differrent things, so that when they join togheter in a relationship they are better off for it. I like to think of it as a football team. Everyone wants to be the quarterback, but if everyone tries to do that job the team will do horribly; theres no one there to catch the ball! If we however diversify our skills sets, so that the man is good and some things and the women are good at others, the team will function much better. Of course i understand that i am writing this under a tradcon wife video, and i want to differentiate myself from this. I don't think that women should be reduced to housemakers only, they can of course do much more than that. It is nontheless a pressing question, what does gender roles even look like in a completely equal society. Any difference in gender role that also produce a difference in earnings potential, or other relevant factors in terms of equality, would have to be eliminated in the name of equality. Is this potentially genderless society really what we want? Is it even what women want?
@@tsib6703 Yes. surely everyone who disagrees with you must be a bot. Don't bother actually engaging with the ideas, or reflecting on the topic at all. just insulate yourself from any and all criticism by claiming everyone who thinks otherwise are bots!
I just finished my masters degree in environmental management and have been home for 3 months. I’ve felt very burnt out so I haven’t been applying to jobs much. My parents really want me to get a job. My boyfriend is well off and he wants me to pursue my passion which is wildlife/macro photography. This seems very appealing to me but if I did this route I’d be financially dependent on him at least until I made it in the field. I also really like my degree and what I studied so I feel like I should at least try that out. I’m struggling to decide what to do because I don’t want to be completely dependent but I’m also so burned out I haven’t had much energy to apply to jobs. Also, my boyfriend told me he wouldn’t expect me to do all the housework we’d do it together. He has a lot of free time with his job and he is a very clean person so I think we actually would contribute to housework equally.
Since happiness is subjective, even the best designed psychological study can't really provide reliable data, as self reporting is the only thing we have to go off. There's no objective way of knowing what happiness looks like on a mass scale in the past. Culture could be affecting the overall results quite heavily. For example, we've completely changed how we relate to happiness and depression by posting our lives online. We could seriously be affecting the ways in which we see, and therefore, report on our happiness. That said, it's still an important thing to seek and we need some way of understanding how content people are with their lives. Bhutan measures their Gross National Happiness instead of GDP, though I'm sure it has its flaws. I'd still be much more comfortable knowing that this was at least being pursued by the people in power. The way it is now we have tent cities popping up and the response is often to just ignore what that says about society and our wellbeing. It's much easier to blame addiction than to ask why it is people become addicted in the first place
Thank you for this video! It’s a great topic to reflect on. Two things which came to my mind while watching: - First of all, were the housewives from ~70s really happier? The authors of this paper themselves warn about the too straightforward conclusions and they also mention the inflated responses as one of the potential explanations: “It has been recognized that an individual’s assessment of their well‐being may reflect the social desirability of responses and Kahneman (1999) argues that people in good circumstances may be hedonically better off than people in worse circumstances, yet they may require more to declare themselves happy. In the context of the findings presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses” I think it kind of aligns with Maslow’s pyramid: previously women did not have a lot of ways to access upper levels of it so they probably didn't even account for these upper levels and might have been more satisfied with their basic needs covered. - The second thing which I would like to mention is that the transition of the main women’s social role from housewives to employed women is not yet finished in a lot of countries and doesn’t not necessarily go as expected. Some women complain today that even if they now are supposed to work at the company they still have to take care of the majority of domestic chores which is clearly not the way it was designed and obviously can lead to in-satisfaction. Also, 30-40 years may seem to be a sufficient amount of time for the analysis but actually it is short enough to include a lot of the same women who were questioned in the first rounds of the survey. I think it also adds to the unreliability of the analysis because for some particular woman who didn’t use to work it may be stressing to start working in her middle age even if she thinks it is strategically better. The change itself causes stress and decrease in happiness and the time is needed to overcome it. It is similar to the emigration. A lot of emigrants don't feel happy at the beginning even if they moved to the place where their quality of live increases, because they have to solve a lot of issues during this journey, they have to get used to the new environment and in some things they have to kind of start from scratch. But after some time they hopefully will feel better and especially their children who is born in this better environment and have avoided the transition stress will benefit from it the most
Is it so that Women were happier then, or rather that there was less attention to Women's health & quality of life, resulting in less reported cases of 'unhappiness'?
These jobs pay their workers so little that you basically need to work 50 hours in order to survive these days. I came to the conclusion that I was shutting myself off to financial opportunities by occupying my time with this low wages when I can make more money through freelance, side hustles, and gig work than wasting all of my time being at a cash register or desk. I used to work two jobs and 80 hour work weeks to pay my bills and now I work on my own time. I was so stressed at my shift jobs that it led to chronic health issues. Constant UTIs, respiratory infections, a kidney infection, and pneumonia. After all of that I said screw it I'm done. My health both mental and physical is way more important than having to deal with adult baby temper tantrums. There's also the fact that women are ending up in more customer service/customer facing roles than men are. Men prefer isolated jobs with little people interaction. Women are being manipulated into these situations because they are simply better at dealing with people. We're ending up in low paying jobs such as retail/customer service, teaching, or arduous jobs such as nursing. Women are dealing with issues where their career suffers if they give birth and want to return to the workplace. Having children to care for is seen as a hindrance to a corporation which wants you to dedicate yourself wholly to them. Women are getting the short end of the stick by corporate America and it's time we pack our bags, leave, and do our own things (start our own business, freelance, side gigs/hustles). What do you do when you're in a toxic situation? You simply leave and take care of yourself.
I love using your arguements with my "red-pilled" friends. Only missing point in my head is the fertility crisis and its long term results. Freedom over happiness yet it should be earned and concious freedom, fenty addicts are free in the form of ghouls
Was there ever a time when people thought feminism was cool? Like, I may have only lived in my 30 years, but I can not remember a time where people didn't scoff at these feminists.
The Kantian argument re freedom is solid. It is ultimately freedom, not happiness that matters. But if the dominant discourse shames women for pursuing a particular lifestyle, isn't it also undermining their freedom to some extent? You could say that even though women are strongly discouraged from pursuing the tradwife lifestyle, they are not technically prohibited from doing so, but I think that's a very bad faith argument. Social structures don't need to be intentionally unethical in order to he problematic. Few people would consider defending something like structural racism on the basis that racial minorities are not explicitly being targeted by racist policies. If racial inequality exists, it's a problem that must be addressed. Similarly, if society is hindering people from freely pursuing their own individual form of happiness (for any reason other than the protection of the freedom and security of other members of society), then that's a problem that must be addressed. Oppression is oppression, regardless of whether we happen to agree with the particular values and norms being imposed.
Would I, as a woman and a person, prefer not to sell 8+ hours on most of my days? Absolutely. But is it wise to rely on a man's continuing good will and attraction towards me in order to be able to live my life in comfort? Absolutely not. I think this tradwife moment is people realizing work sucks, especially if you've got house chores or kids on top of it. But hiding in a 1950s cosplay is not the answer. Unionizing and forcing better working conditions with much shorter hours in the answer.
what is work though, as even a kid can be considered working if he/she gets a dime for throwing out the trash, hence distinction of what's work and what's not hinges more on how independent is the money they receive, as well as how independent and free the expenditure they are to make
What happened, and what nobody really talks about, is that human beings were accustomed to being able to live on "one salary", by which I mean one person, traditionally the husband, going to work, and financially supporting the family, and then when *some* women decided they didn't want to be forced into that setup, and some of them wanted careers of their own, it became necessary for everyone to work for the ownership class, because... capitalism abhors a vacuum. Jobs or in other words "a single salary" now have about half as much buying power, and so now it takes two salaries in most cases, to support a family, or, you can't even support a family on one salary. Great job capitalism!
There's nothing wrong with working and there's nothing wrong with staying at home and raising a family. But realistically, the latter is just more likely to lead to some lasting fulfilment, because most jobs are utterly soulless and meaningless, but having a family that loves you is not. The problem is that the idea is being pushed that having kids/quitting your boring job in marketing is somehow selling out your gender, and is some kind of oppression. It isn't. If people genuinely have no interest in having kids and thinking working in HR or whatever is really amazing, then good for them. But it's not "feminist" or "empowered" to do so, it's just a personal choice. Similarly, there is absolutely NOTHING un-feminist about staying at home and raising kids. In fact I think bringing new life into this world and nurturing it is just about the most magical and amazing responsibility you could have bestowed upon you.
The business world isn’t that fulfilling, even for men at the top. My mom was a dedicated trad-wife (smartest woman I know), and I’ve never seen her so happy with my own success. I’ve come full circle from rebel philosopher to reluctant player, and now I suddenly want the same thing 😅
Everyone is a servant the man to work to provide the wife to provide for the family if staying at home was terrible then more women would be allowing more men to stay home while they work to support men and families. We are all surfs unless we are running our own business.
So your view is that women should be free (not obliged) to be housewives, right? If so I agree with you. It's also worth saying that men should also be free to be househusbands. By the way, I was surprised that Kant was cited to defend women's rights because I suppose that he was conservative on that matter (as were most 18th century men). But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Well it’s not really “liberation” to be expected to work 40 hours a week at a job you don’t enjoy AND on top of that still have to be the primary caretaker/homemaker. It’s better to not have to be financially dependent on a husband however it’s not a recipe for happiness.
2:35 lets call a spade a spade here: you're describing men, not women. regarding whole video, a quote by late barbarossa would suffice: 1. Traditionalism is no longer functional in a society where technology has progressed to a point, where it has cut the network time of a homemaker in half and women sticking to traditionalism are merely enjoying a free ride at the expense of a man - a provider workhorse. 2. Women do not like men for their inherent personhood. They like what you can give them. Once your aren't giving it to them: whether it be excitement, sex that they enjoy, money, clothes, whatever, then you are simply a non-entity. Women have no conceptualization of masculinity outside of the scope of how they can benefit from it, and they see it as nothing more than a transactional mechanism. 3. Even if you are providing to women what they want, they are always testing you to see if you're still man enough to provide it. And in the period of time that you still are man enough to do so, they resent you for being able to do so. 4. There is a real power and strength from being extracted from the "modern Western male", addmitting to himself, that he can and will experience vulnerability and moments of weakness.
You represent liberalism very well. This "autonomy" you talk about has no concrete form or any real material significance. You can only talk about this idealistic notion of "freedom" and "autonomy" that has no real concrete meaning in material reality. You mention zizek's critique but you fall back right into it: freedom to do what? A liberal view, which represents most people engaged with social sciences today. Hegel was right.
Just to be clear, im not defending "trad wives". For me, its nothing more than an ideological cope. They plan to "restore" something that never existed on artificial grounds. Your critique, however, is idealistic
I think you perhaps ignore other graces given to husband and wives, the union of marriage properly pursued entails the completion of different tasks in relation to children, ie the children’s education and provision. There’s some rather significant and continuous data regarding daycares and the insufficient care they provide to children, to say nothing of the incredibly high rate of abuse. It’s difficult to refute and I think very few parents would refute the thought that children are better cared for at home with their parents or close family relations. This being the case, at least for one’s formative years 0-6 the mother should stay at the house. Why the mother? Firstly, I’ll point out the C.S. Lewis objection, is there a reason it should be the father? Most fathers are more suited to labor, mens’ brains have been studied to show that they are wired to focus on one task with more ability than women on average. In addition, men’s bodies and minds fatigue at different rates to women and are much more stable in their rates of fatigue( I am thinking in relation to a monthly occurrence that happens for women and does not for men). Men in addition seem to handle being away from home for long periods better than women, with less psychological stressors present in situations of long absence.
They’re not trad wives, they working from home, making money from social media. If anything they’re very modern women lol
Fr
I find it so irnoic women complain their labor is under valued, while they under value mens labor 😂
Men literally do all the most dangerus important jobs that keep you alive, but go off on how you being a secretery is undervalued whule my friends are being deleted in a war yall voted for
Women just like to feel victimized, by anything or anyone even their own choices, they need something to complain about or they go even more crazy 😂
If someone wants to be a "tradwife" with multiple kids... fine. If someone wants to be a single "girlboss" or a "dink" their whole life... fine. The ability to choose should be there. I find it off-putting when someone leans too much into their choice out of spite and turns it into a strange cosplay
Shout out to the moms that did both, and all the dads that actually picked up the slack
I am the stay at home father for my young family while I re-train at the university and I think the only realistic way to assess wellbeing of homemakers is that if your partner makes enough money to allow you to make homemaking a career and your partner can sponsor your retirement savings, then literally anyone would be happy if that's a career-path they want.
If being a homemaker means your whole family struggles while you're expected to provide free and outrageous labour for 100 hour weeks and there isn't even enough money to maintain the family unit, then literally anyone would be unhappy.
What is nefarious about the tradwife phenomenon is that its essentially an upper class fantasy that a family can maintain financial stability with one partner working in an era where real wages are less than half the economic productive value they were 50 years ago. Either you're dreaming of being rich, or you're dreaming of owning a person - but neither position is a realistic way to plan for a lifestyle when the median household income requires a wage in the top 30% of earners.
The unhappiness of the modern lifestyle has nothing to do with the construction of the family unit compared to generations passed but I think instead everything to do with the continually decomposing material conditions of both adults in a monogamous family unit.
All that to say, I like and agree with your video. I hope its okay I add my perspective.
Only 1 person working while the other is only taking care of food and the house was also not the standard for families back when.
To specifically and personally address the above, my wife does not make enough money for us to live comfortably and my retirement savings are years behind. Thus I've found the entire thing to be an exhausting struggle of keeping above water while trying to sacrifice self for the benefit of the children. Male or female, I cannot fathom wanting to live this way for more than the 5 years I already have and my mental health as a homemaker is the lowest its been in almost 15 years. Its also been interesting seeing the roles reversed to the norm that the wife will work all day and then want to relax in the evening while I work all day with the children but then need to continue to work to get them dinner and ready for bed plus trying to do my study in the evenings. I think unless you've had the opportunity to live on the other side its nearly unfathomable.
@@Rakkeyal this sounds very demanding, and although you speak of your burden, I can not help but be somewhat jealous of the fact that you are with someone who is working with you in a team so many years down the road. It does sound hard, but right now I am confident in the partner I have, but truthfully I will only know in a few years if we will e capable of the teamwork a shared household requires. For that, I still am somewhat happy for you. I widh the economy was better, so that you both would have some of the workload off your backs.
Thank you for not veering in obvious directions. You pull us out quickly from the comfort of the known, from the 'dead dogma' of our assumptions. I did not expect this-Why? I don't know-and find myself relieved at needing to think through my affirmation or disagreement carefully. All this to say, as a thinker, you strike me as a refreshingly honest person. That feels hard to find (and thus so much thinking feels lonely, no?).
I feel like this also highlights your point on being so socially focused on productivity and the death of all thinking - Weil and the death of thinking seems especially relevant to limiting women's role outside of their own choice. Always makes me wonder about Elisabeth Nietzche. Thanks for the video as always!!!
its always frustrating to see women get their own platforms and preach about returning to traditional values and demonize feminism. while it isn't a perfect movement, feminism is the reason you are able to do that in the first place. and it is very much something you can lose in an instant, especially as societies become less stable and populations start to decline. look at Afghanistan for example, over the last several decades women lost the right to hold jobs, go out in public alone and recently, even SPEAK in public. the story A Handmaid's Tale cannot be considered pure fiction anymore. i am actually begging these women to stop speaking against movements that give them the best chance at freedom. all women will be affected by this. one day your daughters and granddaughters will wonder where they lost their voices in history.
"feminism is the reason you are able to do that in the first place". not the fourth wave. modern feminism made women extremely miserable. let's stop pretending that all the feminists have equal merit
They just don't want to be hateful single bitter femcels
It says a lot about society that one thinks that being an influencer is more honorable than being a housewife!
Well, I'll tell you everything from my personal perspective. I am a woman. And I love working, but not with dishes and clothes, not with people (especially not with kids: they stress me out), but with intellectual problems. I find them incredibly engaging and interesting, unlike all-home life where my mind would become a miserable and boring mess of never-ending routine-related thoughts.
Plus, I think everything is relative, even freedom. But this freedom still has a number (low-average-high), and I think that high freedom is important since it promotes change and progress. Progress isn't something you would see in the past societies where everyone would be constrained by traditional norms of thinking. And you would see a lot of suffering and a big number of deaths in such societies.
It's also important to remember that anything we will do in this world would need a certain degree of suffering. And, in my opinion, freedom gives us less suffering rather than tight and omnipresent constraints.
It's really ironic that this video was published today. I'm young and unmarried, but I'm studying really hard to be able to afford to leave my tstrongly right wing traditional christisn family (for context I'm a queer young adult) and just this morning I was thinking, "why am I doing all thiis. It's making me miserable. Why don't I just settle and let my life go, allow myself to reconcile to my family's ideals and wait for a husband in the church and just become a housewife like the rest of my community".
But no, that's just an escapist fantasy, one that will not make me happy, because that won't be me.
the struggle is reall. i'm also living with a very conservative family and i know that giving up on my dreams of leaving and just getting married asap will mean love and acceptance from everyone around me. its terrible to have to choose between freedom and familial love. but i would much rather be miserable and free than miserable and trapped lolol
It's unlikely studying will get you very far ahead. It's very likely when you have your career and live in a small apartment alone you will still be miserable. But At the end of the day it's your life and there's only one way to know and that's by trying.
Couples need to find their balance. The responsabilities and trade-offs each person is confortable with.
How is doing house work without being paid the way to avoid exploitation? The problem with traditional gender roles is ignoring individual differences. Not all women suit domestic work, there are plenty of women earning more than their husbands, it would be more practical for the husbands to quit the job and take care of domestic duties.
You can apply the same to women being pushed into a career.
„The problem with modern gender roles is ignoring individual differences“.
Not all women want to work their entire life and either have no children or no time for their children.
@GilgameschUruk And they have a choice not. Find a man who wants a wife like that.
@@katara2021 more men want that than you think
@@GilgameschUruk Good for them. Leave the rest of us alone!
@@katara2021 sure will 👍
If the industrial system did not occur everyone would still work. Men and women worked in the agricultural sector. I think certain behaviors that modern feminism has actually done, has made some aspects of women's lives slightly worse or better yet inconvenient. It did have certainly made lots of improvements in women's lives but no movement is perfect. Two household income parents were actually forced on the household due to insufficient funds or to improve quality of life/make a higher income. Only families with a large net worth and/or high income can support a family with only one breadwinner.
I agree but I feel like the issue is tied more so to gender being necessary for the consideration of who is able to be a homemaker. In the same way Kant would have barred her from “genius” status, for example, it ultimately just shuts out 50% of the discussion from a problem involving 100% of people, imo.
current tradwives literally choose to do that, so how is it subservient, demoralizing, or trapping? these women still benefit from from the wins of feminism, and they literally don’t have to work. they don’t have to have a WAGE LABOR, which IS of demoralizing, subservient, and trapping.
It's a choice that can lead to tragedy and is at the same time totally preventable, criticism is valid.
subservience - they are sacrificing their future and present for that of others. They are promised something in return, but the other party is not really bound to make a payback. In terms of working conditions it's good faithed servant work.
demoralising - the longer they stay away from other life paths, the harder it is to get back on track and more intimidating. A well self-sustained woman can become a SAHM in the matter of days. The other way around it is often impossible.
trapping - having no income, and ever diminishing prospects at employment severely limits your choices in life. They basically become defined by your partner. How is that not trapping?
They do work, they just cannot convert their work into assets at will and of their choosing. They get meals, roof, gifts and gratitude. Or they don't.
Is it a sacrifice if it’s what they want to be doing? How is caring for your family a sacrifice? Laboring is IMO a greater sacrifice, of free time and mental and physical health. Trad wives WANT to be dependent, that’s why they make, and will keep making, that choice; it’s almost patriarchal to deny the agency of these women! What exactly do you mean by ”on track“????!! is having kids and nice home not ”on track“? Also, why do you think divorce courts favor mothers they way they do? Oh yeah it’s for the exact reason that SAHMs don’t have any income/resources to sustain themselves. Entrapment necessarily means that the trapped party is there against their will. The assets they’re investing in are children, family, community, and happiness! You really think you’re sticking up for women, eh? Brainwashed dollarcel
That was my thought exactly lol
Tradwifes, trading independence for simplicity of life. In general I can understand the sentiment. If I didn't have to work, I'd gladly take the opportunity, I'd usually much prefer to work to improve things that are close tho me, like home life and family, rather than slaving away my time for meaningless tasks at a dead-end job, which I'm doing currently. I never had any specific career in mind, so got nothing to look forward in a career path, therefore I'm just surviving the workday and live my life later.
But I'd probably never go down the path of a tradwife either. First, the financial independence is really too important to overlook. Even if you have a good partner and no financial abuse happens, what's your life gonna be if he suddenly dies? Or if he has an accident rendering him unable to work, or loses his assets, or anything similar? After missing years of job experience, you're gonna struggle to stand on the your feet and in some cases you'd start to be the one who has to support your family financially.
Second, being a tradwife requires more money, simple as that. Most people wouldn't be able to afford going through life on one person's income alone. There are not as many *tradhusbands* to carry the economic weight of their tradwifes if that trend ever starts becoming more common.
Third, not every tradhusband who can afford to have a tradwife *should* have one. Not everyone with financial means to cover your expenses is a person you should trust to do so. Financial abuse is a thing, so while it won't happen to everyone, it will happen to some, especially if the trend becomes more common.
All in all, being a tradwife seems nice, but only when it goes well. It's cool that some people found happiness in that model, but it would be disastrous for most people if that was the norm.
People dont fight for freedom, they fight for idealism, and idealism is a killer of freedom. At least that is my point of view.
My mind was screaming, "it's both men and women, and it's because of capitalism," before you even brought it up!
Though I don't think you have to be one of the exploited ones to be made more unhappy by the system.
I think it affects everyone by making us so much more competitive in our mindset, which weighs on all our relationships and way of life.
Social media was no help either, as it shows us versions of other people that look way happier than they actually are, thanks to a positivity bias.
It might also be showing us more extremes on the mental health spectrum as well, so we then fall deeper into any unhappiness we already experience.
What is the goal of modern feminism?
The original goal of the movement was to alleviate the problems that arose from the power imbalances between men and women. Women were getting harassed, raped, seen as second class citizens, etc. Today, while many such things still happen, they have been alleviated extensively as compared to the way things once were. This is entirely the result of women getting more power, through increased rights, and ability to earn their own wage. While women are still subjected to injustices today, the aggressors are swiftly condemned and punished adequately. The culture has changed.
But even still, women face problems that are unique to their gender. So it seems obvious that feminism should still be at the forefront of our minds. The question however is: Is feminism making strides towards alleviating these problems, or is it the case that there is nothing more that can be realistically done? Is it a culture problem, caused by the inequality between men and women, or are other factors at play?
The modern feminist movement focuses on liberation and equality, as these have been the driving forces behind the movement since day one. I think it is time to ask whether this approach is the appropriate way to further women's wellbeing. The problems women face today are less about the injustices that come from a sick culture with large gender inequality, and more about the many modern day problems we face today. Therefore it is also the case that future solutions that are gonna serve women's interest the most are gonna come more from the alleviation of the modern issues women face today, and less from the sick culture that has largely been dealt with.
Sir, women’s inequality has NOT “largely been dealt with” on genuinely any level. Not on equal pay, experiences of violence, justice in the legal system, health care quality, holding positions of power. Only 25% of the senate are women, we make up 50% of the population. Your assumption that you have something substantive to say on this topic instead of listening and researching how to be a good ally, is you being part of the problem - a problem for women and a problem for society at large. Do better.
Quite literally google your prompt and read an article or book from a feminist on this topic. You’d find that modern intersectional feminism IS the pursuit of equality for all. Everyone’s oppression, and liberation, is interconnected. People smarter than the both of us have written on this topic. Don’t come into women’s spaces and post uninformed, ignorant musings. Come to learn or don’t come at all.
@@tsib6703 My comment never stated that we have reached complete equality. What is said was that the culture that caused these inequalites historically is not very relevant today, the next question has to be then, why are there still differences between the outcomes of men and women?
The obvious answer is that there is a big difference between how men and women are seen in society. They are expected to do different things and are afforded different resources, through their childhood and adolescence. This is the diagnosis, and the cure is therefore to start treating men and women the same, and expect the same from them, in childhood aswell as in adulthood. Of course what is being neglected is the question: why are there these differences in the first place? Perhaps men and women should do differrent things, so that when they join togheter in a relationship they are better off for it. I like to think of it as a football team. Everyone wants to be the quarterback, but if everyone tries to do that job the team will do horribly; theres no one there to catch the ball! If we however diversify our skills sets, so that the man is good and some things and the women are good at others, the team will function much better.
Of course i understand that i am writing this under a tradcon wife video, and i want to differentiate myself from this. I don't think that women should be reduced to housemakers only, they can of course do much more than that. It is nontheless a pressing question, what does gender roles even look like in a completely equal society. Any difference in gender role that also produce a difference in earnings potential, or other relevant factors in terms of equality, would have to be eliminated in the name of equality. Is this potentially genderless society really what we want? Is it even what women want?
@@krizdafixare you bot?
@@tsib6703 Yes. surely everyone who disagrees with you must be a bot. Don't bother actually engaging with the ideas, or reflecting on the topic at all. just insulate yourself from any and all criticism by claiming everyone who thinks otherwise are bots!
I just finished my masters degree in environmental management and have been home for 3 months. I’ve felt very burnt out so I haven’t been applying to jobs much. My parents really want me to get a job. My boyfriend is well off and he wants me to pursue my passion which is wildlife/macro photography. This seems very appealing to me but if I did this route I’d be financially dependent on him at least until I made it in the field. I also really like my degree and what I studied so I feel like I should at least try that out. I’m struggling to decide what to do because I don’t want to be completely dependent but I’m also so burned out I haven’t had much energy to apply to jobs. Also, my boyfriend told me he wouldn’t expect me to do all the housework we’d do it together. He has a lot of free time with his job and he is a very clean person so I think we actually would contribute to housework equally.
Since happiness is subjective, even the best designed psychological study can't really provide reliable data, as self reporting is the only thing we have to go off.
There's no objective way of knowing what happiness looks like on a mass scale in the past. Culture could be affecting the overall results quite heavily.
For example, we've completely changed how we relate to happiness and depression by posting our lives online.
We could seriously be affecting the ways in which we see, and therefore, report on our happiness.
That said, it's still an important thing to seek and we need some way of understanding how content people are with their lives.
Bhutan measures their Gross National Happiness instead of GDP, though I'm sure it has its flaws.
I'd still be much more comfortable knowing that this was at least being pursued by the people in power.
The way it is now we have tent cities popping up and the response is often to just ignore what that says about society and our wellbeing.
It's much easier to blame addiction than to ask why it is people become addicted in the first place
Excellent breakdown. You're very articulate
lot of video's lately, I like it!
Thank you for this video! It’s a great topic to reflect on. Two things which came to my mind while watching:
- First of all, were the housewives from ~70s really happier? The authors of this paper themselves warn about the too straightforward conclusions and they also mention the inflated responses as one of the potential explanations:
“It has been recognized that an individual’s assessment of their well‐being may reflect the social desirability of responses and Kahneman (1999) argues that people in good circumstances may be hedonically better off than people in worse circumstances, yet they may require more to declare themselves happy. In the context of the findings presented in this paper, women may now feel more comfortable being honest about their true happiness and have thus deflated their previously inflated responses”
I think it kind of aligns with Maslow’s pyramid: previously women did not have a lot of ways to access upper levels of it so they probably didn't even account for these upper levels and might have been more satisfied with their basic needs covered.
- The second thing which I would like to mention is that the transition of the main women’s social role from housewives to employed women is not yet finished in a lot of countries and doesn’t not necessarily go as expected. Some women complain today that even if they now are supposed to work at the company they still have to take care of the majority of domestic chores which is clearly not the way it was designed and obviously can lead to in-satisfaction. Also, 30-40 years may seem to be a sufficient amount of time for the analysis but actually it is short enough to include a lot of the same women who were questioned in the first rounds of the survey. I think it also adds to the unreliability of the analysis because for some particular woman who didn’t use to work it may be stressing to start working in her middle age even if she thinks it is strategically better. The change itself causes stress and decrease in happiness and the time is needed to overcome it. It is similar to the emigration. A lot of emigrants don't feel happy at the beginning even if they moved to the place where their quality of live increases, because they have to solve a lot of issues during this journey, they have to get used to the new environment and in some things they have to kind of start from scratch. But after some time they hopefully will feel better and especially their children who is born in this better environment and have avoided the transition stress will benefit from it the most
Interesting video, but could you use dark background in sections like 5:44 or 8:31? These light backgrounds are too bright, at least for me
Is it so that Women were happier then, or rather that there was less attention to Women's health & quality of life, resulting in less reported cases of 'unhappiness'?
These jobs pay their workers so little that you basically need to work 50 hours in order to survive these days. I came to the conclusion that I was shutting myself off to financial opportunities by occupying my time with this low wages when I can make more money through freelance, side hustles, and gig work than wasting all of my time being at a cash register or desk.
I used to work two jobs and 80 hour work weeks to pay my bills and now I work on my own time.
I was so stressed at my shift jobs that it led to chronic health issues. Constant UTIs, respiratory infections, a kidney infection, and pneumonia. After all of that I said screw it I'm done. My health both mental and physical is way more important than having to deal with adult baby temper tantrums.
There's also the fact that women are ending up in more customer service/customer facing roles than men are. Men prefer isolated jobs with little people interaction. Women are being manipulated into these situations because they are simply better at dealing with people. We're ending up in low paying jobs such as retail/customer service, teaching, or arduous jobs such as nursing.
Women are dealing with issues where their career suffers if they give birth and want to return to the workplace. Having children to care for is seen as a hindrance to a corporation which wants you to dedicate yourself wholly to them.
Women are getting the short end of the stick by corporate America and it's time we pack our bags, leave, and do our own things (start our own business, freelance, side gigs/hustles). What do you do when you're in a toxic situation? You simply leave and take care of yourself.
I love using your arguements with my "red-pilled" friends. Only missing point in my head is the fertility crisis and its long term results. Freedom over happiness yet it should be earned and concious freedom, fenty addicts are free in the form of ghouls
Society as we know it is not and can not be about freedom
Was there ever a time when people thought feminism was cool? Like, I may have only lived in my 30 years, but I can not remember a time where people didn't scoff at these feminists.
The Kantian argument re freedom is solid. It is ultimately freedom, not happiness that matters.
But if the dominant discourse shames women for pursuing a particular lifestyle, isn't it also undermining their freedom to some extent?
You could say that even though women are strongly discouraged from pursuing the tradwife lifestyle, they are not technically prohibited from doing so, but I think that's a very bad faith argument. Social structures don't need to be intentionally unethical in order to he problematic.
Few people would consider defending something like structural racism on the basis that racial minorities are not explicitly being targeted by racist policies. If racial inequality exists, it's a problem that must be addressed.
Similarly, if society is hindering people from freely pursuing their own individual form of happiness (for any reason other than the protection of the freedom and security of other members of society), then that's a problem that must be addressed.
Oppression is oppression, regardless of whether we happen to agree with the particular values and norms being imposed.
Would I, as a woman and a person, prefer not to sell 8+ hours on most of my days? Absolutely. But is it wise to rely on a man's continuing good will and attraction towards me in order to be able to live my life in comfort? Absolutely not. I think this tradwife moment is people realizing work sucks, especially if you've got house chores or kids on top of it. But hiding in a 1950s cosplay is not the answer. Unionizing and forcing better working conditions with much shorter hours in the answer.
what is work though, as even a kid can be considered working if he/she gets a dime for throwing out the trash, hence distinction of what's work and what's not hinges more on how independent is the money they receive, as well as how independent and free the expenditure they are to make
What happened, and what nobody really talks about, is that human beings were accustomed to being able to live on "one salary", by which I mean one person, traditionally the husband, going to work, and financially supporting the family, and then when *some* women decided they didn't want to be forced into that setup, and some of them wanted careers of their own, it became necessary for everyone to work for the ownership class, because... capitalism abhors a vacuum. Jobs or in other words "a single salary" now have about half as much buying power, and so now it takes two salaries in most cases, to support a family, or, you can't even support a family on one salary. Great job capitalism!
Not true. It was an anomaly, possible in very specific economic circumstances. Not only did Western women work for most of history, so did children.
@hydratejsn and let's not forget the slaves.
There's nothing wrong with working and there's nothing wrong with staying at home and raising a family. But realistically, the latter is just more likely to lead to some lasting fulfilment, because most jobs are utterly soulless and meaningless, but having a family that loves you is not.
The problem is that the idea is being pushed that having kids/quitting your boring job in marketing is somehow selling out your gender, and is some kind of oppression. It isn't. If people genuinely have no interest in having kids and thinking working in HR or whatever is really amazing, then good for them. But it's not "feminist" or "empowered" to do so, it's just a personal choice. Similarly, there is absolutely NOTHING un-feminist about staying at home and raising kids. In fact I think bringing new life into this world and nurturing it is just about the most magical and amazing responsibility you could have bestowed upon you.
The business world isn’t that fulfilling, even for men at the top. My mom was a dedicated trad-wife (smartest woman I know), and I’ve never seen her so happy with my own success. I’ve come full circle from rebel philosopher to reluctant player, and now I suddenly want the same thing 😅
Everyone is a servant the man to work to provide the wife to provide for the family if staying at home was terrible then more women would be allowing more men to stay home while they work to support men and families. We are all surfs unless we are running our own business.
i think the early "trad wife" was heavily influenced by religion
So your view is that women should be free (not obliged) to be housewives, right? If so I agree with you. It's also worth saying that men should also be free to be househusbands.
By the way, I was surprised that Kant was cited to defend women's rights because I suppose that he was conservative on that matter (as were most 18th century men). But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Well it’s not really “liberation” to be expected to work 40 hours a week at a job you don’t enjoy AND on top of that still have to be the primary caretaker/homemaker. It’s better to not have to be financially dependent on a husband however it’s not a recipe for happiness.
Have you considered that it is not just our culture that is placing limitations on us but our biology is contributing to those limitations too?
2:35 lets call a spade a spade here: you're describing men, not women.
regarding whole video, a quote by late barbarossa would suffice:
1. Traditionalism is no longer functional in a society where technology has progressed to a point, where it has cut the network time of a homemaker in half and women sticking to traditionalism are merely enjoying a free ride at the expense of a man - a provider workhorse.
2. Women do not like men for their inherent personhood. They like what you can give them. Once your aren't giving it to them: whether it be excitement, sex that they enjoy, money, clothes, whatever, then you are simply a non-entity. Women have no conceptualization of masculinity outside of the scope of how they can benefit from it, and they see it as nothing more than a transactional mechanism.
3. Even if you are providing to women what they want, they are always testing you to see if you're still man enough to provide it. And in the period of time that you still are man enough to do so, they resent you for being able to do so.
4. There is a real power and strength from being extracted from the "modern Western male", addmitting to himself, that he can and will experience vulnerability and moments of weakness.
You represent liberalism very well. This "autonomy" you talk about has no concrete form or any real material significance. You can only talk about this idealistic notion of "freedom" and "autonomy" that has no real concrete meaning in material reality. You mention zizek's critique but you fall back right into it: freedom to do what? A liberal view, which represents most people engaged with social sciences today. Hegel was right.
Just to be clear, im not defending "trad wives". For me, its nothing more than an ideological cope. They plan to "restore" something that never existed on artificial grounds. Your critique, however, is idealistic
I think you perhaps ignore other graces given to husband and wives, the union of marriage properly pursued entails the completion of different tasks in relation to children, ie the children’s education and provision. There’s some rather significant and continuous data regarding daycares and the insufficient care they provide to children, to say nothing of the incredibly high rate of abuse. It’s difficult to refute and I think very few parents would refute the thought that children are better cared for at home with their parents or close family relations. This being the case, at least for one’s formative years 0-6 the mother should stay at the house. Why the mother? Firstly, I’ll point out the C.S. Lewis objection, is there a reason it should be the father? Most fathers are more suited to labor, mens’ brains have been studied to show that they are wired to focus on one task with more ability than women on average. In addition, men’s bodies and minds fatigue at different rates to women and are much more stable in their rates of fatigue( I am thinking in relation to a monthly occurrence that happens for women and does not for men). Men in addition seem to handle being away from home for long periods better than women, with less psychological stressors present in situations of long absence.