Tradwives and Lean–In style, corporate feminism offer opposing visions of womanhood. But both mistake individual choice for freedom and leave the systems constraining women intact.Sheryl Sandberg and then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter speak after hosting a Lean In Circle with women in the military at the Pentagon on Sept. 21, 2015. Critics of Lean In-style corporate feminism argue that its focus on individual ambition asks women to adapt to unequal institutions rather than transforming the systems that produce inequality. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

This summer’s buzziest book was the instant bestseller Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke. The novel chronicles a tradwife influencer who wakes up in the 1850s and is forced to live the life she had been promoting online. Tradwives—a portmanteau of “traditional wives”—portray domesticity, homesteading and subservience to male authority as the basis of their aspirational and chosen lifestyle.

The popularity of Yesteryear reflects the curiosity and condemnation piqued by women who use their online platforms to promote so-called traditional gender roles. Feminists are rightly alarmed by tradwife content, as it serves to glamorize the backlash against women’s rights. Behind the carefully curated images of homemade bread, gingham dresses and backyard chickens, is an economic vision that depends crucially on normalizing women’s secondary status in society.

On the surface, tradwives appears to be the opposite of girlbosses, boss babes or Lean In-style corporate feminists. These terms all describe women who devote themselves to their high-powered careers, not homemaking.

But reviving girlboss feminism is no answer to tradwives and their reactionary politics. It merely repackages the same economic system that constrains women’s freedom as a path to empowerment.

What Tradwives and Girlbosses Have in Common

These two internet archetypes—girlboss or tradwife—appear to offer women fundamentally different articulations of womanhood: one embracing unpaid domestic labor, the other paid work.

It’s true they hold opposite views on the importance of marriage, family and feminism: While the tradwife promotes patriarchy, the girlboss has embraced feminism (at least a corporate-friendly version).

But their differences hide that both tradwives and girlbosses share a conviction that rugged individualism—hard work, personal liberty and self-reliance—is the path to the good life. While they appear different, both tradwives and girlbosses work to convince women that freedom can be achieved at the level of the individual, and that we do not have a responsibility to the collective. Both tradwives and girlbosses spread the same political philosophy: neoliberalism.

… They are capitalizing on real frustration. Many American women who work outside the home, especially those with young children, feel exhausted and overwhelmed due to the lack of institutional and familial support.

In fact, tradwives and girlbosses are different expressions of the neoliberal cultural project, which is ubiquitous in U.S. society because it has both conservative and liberal manifestations. Both share a vision of society where people “pull themselves up from their bootstraps” and take full responsibility for their own well-being—and no one else’s. Tradwives often promote homesteading, homeschooling and a rejection of vaccines.

It’s a similar self-centered mindset of so-called female independence that makes girlbosses “move fast and break things” and pursue their careers, even at the expense of other people. Because the girlboss defines a feminist as a woman who “breaks the glass ceiling” and “has it all,” she believes the most important action she can take to advance the women’s movement is by advancing herself.

The Tradwife and Girlboss Mentalities Are Dishonest and Dangerous

Tradwife social media content is often seriously misleading, both about the division of labor within their own families and what “traditional” domestic labor was actually like for women. Former tradwives warn women about the vulnerability the lifestyle entails, especially when the marriage dissolves.

While tradwives may be depicting a disingenuous lifestyle, they are capitalizing on real frustration. Many American women who work outside the home, especially those with young children, feel exhausted and overwhelmed due to the lack of institutional and familial support. “Hustle culture” has given them no respite from their paid and unpaid work. Antifeminists, through social media content, political rhetoric and public policy, are attempting to appeal to women’s dissatisfaction with the status quo many years in the making.

But the girlboss mindset has similarly misled women about the ultimate purpose of feminism and how it interacts with our economic system. Many American women try to balance paid and unpaid work, or simply make ends meet—a consequence of decades of economic policies that have harmed women and families.

Since the 1980s, both Republicans and Democrats have pursued policy agendas based on free enterprise, deregulation and lower taxes, as well as rolling back worker protections and social safety net programs.

Trump worsened these already difficult conditions through the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” which cut essential health, nutrition and education programs to give more tax breaks to corporations and the rich. These neoliberal economic policies have had devastating consequences for women and children—especially families of color.

Our society has asked American women to embrace an economic system that requires them to perform both paid and unpaid work with little support from their partners, employers, or the state. Some liberals, believing that paid work is inherently emancipatory for women, have celebrated this, telling women that their increased workloads and diversified responsibilities are “empowering.” Those with conservative politics and social values have mostly worked to make life harder for the average woman by curtailing reproductive rights and undermining efforts to expand the social welfare state through public provisions like childcare, healthcare and paid leave.

Yesteryear has been criticized for its bleak portrayal of women’s options by making all the female characters—liberals and conservatives alike—miserable. It’s true: Neither Natalie (the tradwife main protagonist) nor her college roommate and foil (the girlboss Reena) are portrayed as admirable or aspirational. But Yesteryear never fully explores why both archetypes fail to grant women satisfaction, freedom or real happiness. What’s missing is an alternative vision of feminism.

Luckily, there is a long and rich history of feminism from which contemporary feminists can draw anticapitalist inspiration. In addition, there is a revived and increasingly popular democratic socialist left calling for crucial feminist demands: universal childcare, Medicare-for-All and all manner of public investment into our care system that would create low carbon and high-quality jobs.

This type of feminism-for-all promotes collective responsibility, human flourishing and people over profits. It is based on a vision of the good life, not a social media fantasy. The potential of a renewed feminist movement able to meet the moment is not fiction—but it will only be possible if we ditch both tradwife and girlboss mentalities.

*

A note from Ms. editors: We want to hear from you for The Majority, a new campaign collecting stories about how reproductive freedom has enabled readers to build the lives they want and need. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support reproductive healthcare access. Yet public debate overlooks the lives shaped by abortion access, contraception, IVF, miscarriage care, maternal healthcare or comprehensive sex education—countless women who chose to pursue an education, have children, not have children, protect their health and chart their own future. Add your voice and complete the sentence: “Access to reproductive choices gave me the freedom to….” Together, these stories will help show not only why reproductive freedom remains a majority value, but also what it makes possible.