Talk:Tradwife

floated

Note: probably needs better categories.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

comment

I don't have a reliable source for this, and I apologize for lacking one, but the term "tradwife" originated on alt-right twitter in 2016 and meant *specifically* trans women or "traps". I'm not sure where the unironic use of it for cis women came from, but original research—which I understand is not admissible as a source, but must cite to be truthful—makes it very clear that that usage postdates the other one. In failing to mention that, I think this article also fails to truthfully explain its subject. Unrelatedly, this article is a poorly-cited stub. (Also, I'm very new to editing wikipedia, but I don't understand why this hasn't been deleted, when the talk page says that it was nominated for deletion two years ago, and that the result of the discussion was that it should be deleted.) 2601:14A:4602:7630:93F:5CDF:51A3:1056 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source to back up your claims about the term's etymology, then please alert us, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Backwards Article

The main article it came from stated the positive points, yet this post is trying to spin it. This can be a fruitful and fulfilling lifestyle :) Happy Lifestyles (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the opinions from the definition.

Doug Weller, As stated by the Wikipedia policies and guides, the articles are supposed to avoid making opinions and/or heavily rely on opinionated sources. I think it is not a big issue when that is being stated as an opinion, like the phrase “Annie Kelly suggested that ...”, but in the the definition states that the Tradwife are “submitting [themselves] to male leadership” which a very opinionated sentence (by the nature of the sentence) and the source is an opinion article that explicitly marks itself as an opinion article on the page header and on the article header. Because all of that I edited the page to remove that phrase. After that, you revert that edition. Did you have any reason to do that? If after-contemplating all the reasons I exposed, is there any reason not to redo that? Fcolecumberri (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Who are you? -Roxy . wooF 18:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fcolecumberri, Doug will not have received your ping because you didn't sign your post - that is necessary to trigger the notification system. Courtesy ping:Doug Weller

FWIW, I agree with Doug's revert. All of the sources I've looked at mention the 'submit to their husband's authority' aspect of this trend. None of the sources are great - there's no proper scholarship that I've come across - but if we're going to have an article, we might as well describe the subject in the same terms as the sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I am not saying that we should not describe the subject in the same terms as the sources (that is the reason I didn't remove the other sentences). I am saying that we can analyze the text and split the facts from the opinions. As a less controversial example: “WW2 was a very cruel war” you will not find any serious source that contradicts that and you will find lots of sources that will claim how cruel it was, but still you won't find how cruel it was on the wikipedia page because by itself “WW2 was a very cruel war” is an opinion (by the nature of the sentence). Here it is the same, I am not arguing you will or will not find proper scholarship that back up that claim; nor I am not claiming the statement to be true or false; I am claiming it is not a factual statement, it is an opinion and definitions should not be based on opinions. Fcolecumberri (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fcolecumberri, I'm not persuaded by this line of argument. Which are the high-quality sources that you would turn to with a definition that excludes this part? GirthSummit _(blether) 20:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I am not claiming to have “high-quality sources” (that is besides the point). following my example about ww2, if you find a source that claims “ww2 was a cruel war that ended at 1945”, you can perfectly separate the opinion (ww2 was a cruel war) from the fact (ww2 was a war that ended at 1945) and just state the facts from the source. You are “not persuaded by this line of argument” but you have argued nothing against my argument. while my argument is that “submitting [themselves] to male leadership” is an opinion and Wikipedia's policies and guides explicitly state that opinions should not be added; you have just claim that since the 3 opinion articles you have found have the same opinion and have not found any scholar source then it is fine to write the opinionated statements. --Fcolecumberri (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Fcolecumberri, I'm not convinced that the particular part of the description you disagree with is any more or less opinionated than the rest of the description. A tradwife isn't really a thing; it's not like a squirrel, or a submarine, which have real-world physical characteristics that can be described objectively. The tradwife trend is a lifestyle choice; presumably it means something slightly different to different people, but we have to come up with a way to describe it. If all of the sources say that submission to a male husband is a part of it, I don't see why we wouldn't. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Doug Weller and GirthSummit and Roxy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit you may not be convinced that the other sentences in the description (which are “staying at home”, “fixing meals”, “having children and raising them”) are less opinionated and/or are not objective descriptions. That doesn't change the fact that those sentences are not opinions and are objective descriptions (by the pure nature of the sentence), while “submitting [themselves] to male leadership” is not an objective descriptions and that is the reason it is an opinion. Fcolecumberri (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Fcolecumberri, I don't really know where you're coming from with this 'opinion versus objective description' angle. When I said that there aren't any physical characteristics that we can objectively describe, what I was getting at was that whatever we say about it is going to be someone's opinion - it's a social movement, different people can have different takes on what are the most important aspects of it. Staying and home, fixing meals, raising children, and submitting yourself to male authority: these are all things that one can objectively do, I don't understand what distinction you see between them.

The idea that submission to a husband is a core part of this trend is hardly controversial. All the sources talk about it, and Alena Pettitt herself, on her own website, talks about it. I am really struggling to understand what your concern with it is. It would be problematic if we were to insert some value-laden subjective commentary alongside it, e.g. "submitting to the tyranny of male leadership" or "betraying the sisterhood by submitting to male leadership". However, as it's currently worded, it's fine.

(As an aside, you don't need to use all that bold text - this is discussed in more detail at WP:SHOUTING, but it's really not helping to get your point across.) GirthSummit _(blether) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the statement 'submitting to male leadership' is an opinion but it's shared by enough people, so it is a fact that some people have that opinion. A referenced fact. So it belongs in Wikipedia (my opinion).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this article about "tradwives" or "traditional wives"

It seems to be about both. Looking at Wife I see that article discusses traditional roles so I see no need for this material to be here and the article should return to being about the neologism. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

exactly what about what I have added do you think is not useful? The neologism is a cultural view of traditional wifery and the article is also addressing social dynamic of internalized sexism with the "ideal" wife in a traditional sense. -Opininpossum (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

However I found it an interesting topic to tackle, but I have no argument about if you wish to remove other information I've added.... Probably in 10 years I'll be able to add it back anyway, as I have with other wiki articles in the past. So do as you wish. -Opininpossum (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I undid your revision but removed the parts about traditional wives in other cultures. I did not agree to have the criticism of the Tradwife aesthtic removed, and it more directly relates to the subject. -Opininpossum (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

no prob -Opininpossum (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Similar views OR

The similar views section seems to be largely OR. We would need sources linking these supposedly similar roles to the modern western, largely anglophone, tradwife phenomenon.

I suspect deletion of this section will be warranted, but I've tagged it for now.

Boynamedsue (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

welp. i give up. someone else will prob come along once again to say that this promotes a narrow POV as related to Western culture. I tried. whatever. - Opininpossum (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, were you reacting to some previous criticism saying this article was ethnocentric? It may well be true that these roles are similar, but to include it in the article we need sources that say so. Have you seen any? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I was (someone mentioned it in edits), but honestly it's not important enough to me to do the research. So, I won't debate the section being removed if it doesn't meet standards. -Opininpossum (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue  Done. I agree and have removed the similar views section Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You removed a lot of stuff from the criticism section that I didn't agree to. This discussion ended with me conceding for the section that had to do with traditional values from other cultures being removed. That was all. A good editor (and I don't mean a wikipedia editor) doesn't use a heavy hand when restructuring. You simply deleted a shit load of stuff I put work into that absolutely clearly related to the article. This is why Wikipedia is such a mind-numbing place. - Opininpossum (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Relevant content from recent articles

Check it out:

‘Better martyrs’: the growing role of women in the far-right movement from The Guardian, 12 August 2023, by MacKenzie Ryan

Tradwives: The Housewives Commodifying Right-Wing Ideology from the Global Network on Extremism and Technology, 7 July 2023, by Sophia Sykes and Dr. Veronica Hopner

Content and citations could be added to the Wikipedia article. I will try later, if nobody beats me to it. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-agoraphobic-fantasy-of-tradlife/ this is also quite a good source, if someone wants to add to the article more. Or I will try to get to it when I have time. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-22/tradwife-movement-personal-pleasures-or-extreme-right-ideologies/100356514. Also, this source is really useful, in distinguishing between tradwife as a lifestyle, and tradwife as a far right political ideology. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Brill

@Biohistorian15: I don't have a strong opinion on this edit, but why is Brill Publishers unreliable? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently not this in this case here, but they often just publish mediocre student papers as print-on-demand without much vetting. Biohistorian15 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)