In recent years, some of the most vocal tradwives have left their husbands, renounced their religious faith and promoted financial independence. What is behind this sudden and seismic shift?
Propaganda. Why does the guardian hate their readers? Time and time again one person earning and one person working the home proves to be the optimal family arrangement. Children in these families consistently outperform children in any other arrangement in all areas. Following the advice of the guardian is hurting your kids, permanently.
The article isn’t about how having one person do money work for corporations and another do actual work for people is a bad arrangement, but specifically about the “trad” movement as it relates to the alt-right and their backwards views on men, women, and children. And how it’s just… Not a good time.
“I no longer believe in extreme gender roles, especially when they’re wrapped in spiritual language and used to justify control, silence or harm.”
That’s a snip of the ideology that’s being contested. Notice it has nothing to do with the value of housework or how a single wagie should be able to support a nuclear family.
The guardian is one of the few rags that is independent and highly rated for their factual unbiased reporting, where as garbage outlets like fox news are highly regarded for how much misinformation they spread.
Well kids who’s parents interact with them more do better than kids who don’t receive as much attention. This is well known and consistently proven. But that is a very different statement to ‘one parent staying home and one earning is optimal’. The evidence suggests more access to both parents for children is optimal. Of course with the way things are economically few parents get to choose how much time they spend with their kids.
But the trad wives thing isn’t solely about one parent staying home; it’s also about the wife’s complete submission to her husband and all the other toxic ideas that flow from that. I can assure you that research clearly shows that environments where one parent is deeply controlling of the other is not good for children’s development.
But no you want to twist studies into meaning things they don’t then quietly append an entire ideology into them and then claim others are posting propaganda.
As someone who massively got fucked sideways by my “mom” who stayed at home 24/7:
The best would be if both parents work, half a day each.
Then both the dad and mom can take turns taking care of the kids, and the kids are less likely to become the victim of a parent that goes on a power trip due to being able to control everything at home.
Time and time again one person earning and one person working the home proves to be the optimal family arrangement.
this is true. why, then, do republicans not increase federal minimum wage and stop rolling back worker protections?
Children in these families consistently outperform children in any other arrangement in all areas.
also true. why do republicans insist on forcing two parent homes to work for financial stability? also, why are republicans destroying two parent families by:
illegally deporting citizens
illegally detaining citizens
illegally executing citizens
illegally extracting children from families based on their gender identity
illegally targeting gay/trans families
Following the advice of the guardian is hurting your kids, permanently.
I’d say the guardian is doing less damage than republicans are, though that won’t be a problem for long 😏
your conflating parenting with having money. if you have money you don’t need two incomes. if you have money you can throw that money at your kids education. that’s all that’s happening here. the people with money have more money to pay for better education for their kids, and a lot of rich kids with stay at home moms aren’t getting even good parenting out of their parents.
Propaganda. Why does the guardian hate their readers? Time and time again one person earning and one person working the home proves to be the optimal family arrangement. Children in these families consistently outperform children in any other arrangement in all areas. Following the advice of the guardian is hurting your kids, permanently.
The article isnt about that, its about rigid gendernorms. You didnt even read it
[citation needed]
I think you mean: it’s not optimal to have wages be so low that both parents need to work.
The optimal arrangement is to automate everything and have neither parent work
The article isn’t about how having one person do money work for corporations and another do actual work for people is a bad arrangement, but specifically about the “trad” movement as it relates to the alt-right and their backwards views on men, women, and children. And how it’s just… Not a good time.
That’s a snip of the ideology that’s being contested. Notice it has nothing to do with the value of housework or how a single wagie should be able to support a nuclear family.
The guardian is one of the few rags that is independent and highly rated for their factual unbiased reporting, where as garbage outlets like fox news are highly regarded for how much misinformation they spread.
This is a 4chan argument, derived from the “White male/Asian woman is the optimal racial pairing because they earn the kept money” line of thinking.
Well kids who’s parents interact with them more do better than kids who don’t receive as much attention. This is well known and consistently proven. But that is a very different statement to ‘one parent staying home and one earning is optimal’. The evidence suggests more access to both parents for children is optimal. Of course with the way things are economically few parents get to choose how much time they spend with their kids.
But the trad wives thing isn’t solely about one parent staying home; it’s also about the wife’s complete submission to her husband and all the other toxic ideas that flow from that. I can assure you that research clearly shows that environments where one parent is deeply controlling of the other is not good for children’s development.
But no you want to twist studies into meaning things they don’t then quietly append an entire ideology into them and then claim others are posting propaganda.
As someone who massively got fucked sideways by my “mom” who stayed at home 24/7:
The best would be if both parents work, half a day each. Then both the dad and mom can take turns taking care of the kids, and the kids are less likely to become the victim of a parent that goes on a power trip due to being able to control everything at home.
Who the fuck said anything about having kids?
The tradwife movement? Look, it’s not anything you need to worry about.
this is true. why, then, do republicans not increase federal minimum wage and stop rolling back worker protections?
also true. why do republicans insist on forcing two parent homes to work for financial stability? also, why are republicans destroying two parent families by:
I’d say the guardian is doing less damage than republicans are, though that won’t be a problem for long 😏
your conflating parenting with having money. if you have money you don’t need two incomes. if you have money you can throw that money at your kids education. that’s all that’s happening here. the people with money have more money to pay for better education for their kids, and a lot of rich kids with stay at home moms aren’t getting even good parenting out of their parents.