“No, ‘trad’ is not merely esthetic” | Isa Ryan: A Homemaker’s Manifesto
“The movement is a response to some of the most cosmically significant moral and spiritual issues of our day. Let’s not belittle this.”
Source: “No, ‘trad’ is not merely esthetic” | Isa Ryan: A Homemaker’s Manifesto
Social commentary blogger Isa Ryan, writing in her substack “A Homemaker’s Manifesto,” notes:
“For 10 years, I have been both aligning with and critically examining ‘trad’ culture, a term that can only be applied to a very broad movement of younger people who believe that pre-postmodern values (if you will) were likely better for society than this whole hot mess we’ve got going on around us now...
“Traditional values are not mere empty esthetic values. Trad culture is not an empty, shallow movement. It is the growing voice of a generation that is fed up with the postmodern values that have so obviously wreaked so much havoc on marriages, families, and society as a whole.
The prevalence of classical feminine fashion, slow living and a simpler lifestyle, baking from scratch, drinking raw milk, eating sourdough, homesteading, and homeschooling is not a mere trend, nor hardly a coincidence. There is a theme here, and it is no superficial or shallow one.
“Wives and mothers, husbands and fathers in this day and age, many of whom were reared in and harmed by the Sexual Revolution, desire and are pursuing a life that reflects their values of classical Christian morality, self-reliance, and social cohesion.”
She opens her essay by noting, “I heard recently that the ‘trad wife’ trend is on its way out.” And it is indeed possible that it has peaked, as a “lifestyle trend.” Here’s the deal, though: that may not be a bad thing!
I have commented before on the fact – or at least my observed conclusion – that many so-called “tradwives” are not nearly “trad” enough; indeed, some seem to use traditional gender roles as an excuse to escape the daily 9-5 grind, sip tea or chai, wear flowy clothes, walk out in the yard, and post dreamy Instagram images and video clips, all the while expecting her husband to support all this on a single paycheck.
For those who are able to make this work, more power to ’em, I suppose; but not many people are going to be able to step into a situation like that, and that’s probably for the best! It’s certainly not “trad” in any kind of meaningful sense: especially not for those to whom, as Isa points out,
“the lifestyle is merely that; a personal lifestyle choice. And while they enjoy things like keeping house, wearing vintage fashion, and keeping cozy ‘grandma’ hobbies, [they nonetheless] have socially liberal or libertarian values that differ little from those living LGBT lifestyles, disregarding the institution of marriage, or having children out of wedlock.”
If that’s what has peaked and is on its way out, I might almost say “good riddance to bad rubbish.” Mind you, there’s nothing wrong with “keeping house, wearing vintage fashion, and keeping cozy ‘grandma’ hobbies”; in fact, there’s a lot that’s good about all of the above. I strongly encourage all of them! But if you scratch the “cottage-core” surface and find that’s it’s just a coat of pretty paint over the same old Leftist mindset (or equally problematic, a “sugar-daddy / sugar-baby” relationship), that’s not actually traditionalism.
Being “trad,” at least in Western culture, means keeping the traditions that made Western culture strong, and that means traditional Christian values, rooted in traditional Christian faith: values that include sacramental and covenant marriage between one biological man and one biological woman as being the only properly-ordered context for sexual intimacy and the bearing and raising of children; the family thus constituted being the basic building block of local communities, and thus, of society at large; and theologically, what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity.”
Without that core element, you have what Isa describes, quite accurately in my view, as being a hollow, superficial shell of traditionalism – to The Anglophilic Anglican’s mind, all too reminiscent of the grand cathedrals of England, which nowadays often serve as showy backdrops for banal services, and venues for often-heretical dilutions or adaptions of the Faith which, in its living form – what some call “The Great Tradition” – caused them to be built in the first place. As she points out,
“[Some ‘trad wives’] may play the part superficially, but they ultimately do not adhere to the Christian social values as we understand our traditional values to be.
“These externally-oriented [e.g., objective] values — as starkly opposed to the self-oriented [subjective] paradigm of contemporary postmodern understanding of life — holds both men and women accountable to the higher calling of marriage and family, involving self-sacrifice, individual responsibility, and social accountability.
“Yet since the movement is overwhelmingly defined by a desire to return to the traditional ideal for the family unit, we must concede it is simply not just about being a housewife and not just a matter of personal choice.
“The ‘trad’ movement necessarily includes both men and women who are defying the depraved sexual values of postmodern culture. We look at the landscape of government, corporatism, and entertainment culture and seek to break free from the hold these things have on social and family values. This is what defines trad.
“This is a lofty aim.”
Indeed it is! But it is one well worth pursuing. And maybe, just maybe, “trad life” as a “trending aesthetic” being on its way out may help, rather than hinder, the revival of traditionalism not as a “lifestyle,” but as a rule of life. May God grant it!