What is a “trad wife”? Reflections on an excellent post by @mrsarialewis on Instagram
Her Instagram channel is focused on "Encouragement for Homemakers," and is usually excellent; but her content in this one is one of the best. But of course, I can’t help adding additional commentary!
Mrs. Aria Lewis’s Instagram channel is focused on “Encouragement for Homemakers,” and is typically quite excellent; but her content in this one is one of the best. Of course, being me, I can’t help adding additional commentary!
At any rate, rhe viewpoint reflected in this post is such a healthy and wholesome one! I wish I could remember who it was that wrote, “the problem with a lot of ‘tradwives’ is that they aren’t ‘trad’ enough.” I’ve used this statement before, but in case anyone is scratching their head, here’s what I mean:
The tendency is to think of “traditional” as the 1950s; but I think we need to be careful: a) that was actually quite recent, and a tiny fraction of human history at that, and b) it was an unusual and probably unique moment, historically and economically: using it as an inspiration is fine; using it as the inspiration and model, or ignoring the differences between then and now, is probably not such a good idea.
The true exemplar of the “traditional woman,” throughout most of history (and prehistory) is the Proverbs 31 woman. And of course, the Scriptures also state that woman was created to be the “help meet” for man (Genesis 2:18-241): that is usually transliterated as “helpmate,” and while that’s not exactly wrong, the fuller and deeper meaning is “a help(er) who is fitting, suitable, or appropriate for him.”
For anyone who has ever seen or used the order for Holy Communion in the traditional Anglican Book of Common Prayer, you’ll have seen or said the line, “It is meet and right so to do” – e.g., it is good and proper so to do; it is the right thing to do. That is what “meet” means.
And the Hebrew word translated as “help” or “helper,” ezer, is the same word used of God (cf. the old hymn, “O God, our help in ages past,” or Psalm 46:1 – “God is our hope and strength, a very present help in trouble”)! One commentator puts it well, I think:
“I wonder if we can take a step back from considering what ezer kenegdo says about what we can or must do and consider what it says we just are... Man and woman are good creations who should enjoy one another, respect one another as gifts from God, and appreciate what we share and how we differ.”
As someone – maybe Mrs. Lewis – has pointed out, being a “help meet for him” can, at times, mean being the one who does the cooking, cleaning, childcare, and other domestic chores so that he can focus on being a provider, and is in the best possible health and frame of mine to do so.
But at other times, or in other relationships, being that help(er who is) meet for him can mean engaging in a (morally and ethically appropriate) “side hustle” that contributes materially to the household’s financial well-being. There is no shame in that, for either party! Many a housewife in my mother’s and grandmothers’ generations “took in piece work” (e.g., did sewing for pay) or sold surplus milk, butter, eggs, or produce to supplement the family income.
As I say, the 1950s was rather an anomaly, and as the linked post points out (and I have commented, many times and in many fora), Proverbs 31 is the true model for a traditional woman, not the 1950s. The societal expectations, and the wage/salary and pricing structure, of the 1950s were set up based on the norm that there would be one “bread-winner” per household; that is emphatically not the case, now.
What makes a marriage “traditional” is not that the husband is the sole bread-winner, and the wife has no paying work; what makes it traditional is this:
That the husband is the head of the household, with the primary responsibility for making sure that it is functioning effectively and sustainably in the economic and political/social sphere, while the wife, whether she brings in an income or not, has as her chief focus and responsibility the inner running of the household: that is to say, her priority is home and family, not career.
Lest anyone misunderstand me: both partners have the well-being of their marriage, family, and home at the center of their concern; but whereas the husband’s way of pursuing this goal is more outward-looking – defending the family from exterior threats to its well-being (whether that be physical enemies, or poverty) – the wife’s (and mother’s, if children are involve) is more inward-looking, working on making the home a more welcoming and nurturing place… a “nest,” if you will!
It’s important not to draw too excessively hard-and-fast lines between these roles, as they may overlap at times. If the husband has a long-term illness, or debilitating injury, the wife may have to take on a more outward-looking role. (And note that pioneer women were often crack shots with their husband’s firearm!) If the wife is busy with “3 under 3,” or simply having an off day, the husband may have to pitch in more with the housework than would normally be the case.
The important thing is how both understand their respective roles, responsibilities, and priorities. In a traditional marriage, they are not, as Mrs. Lewis very accurately states, interchangeable parts. The roles and priorities of husband and wife are, and should be, both distinct and complementary (see here for additional thoughts on ezer kenegdo). But it is essential that all of this be conducted with love – love for one another, and love for the family as a unit – and that the wellbeing of their spouse and of the family as a whole is in the forefront of each partner’s mind.
Only by so doing can they care for one another, and the family as a whole, in the manner which God desires and intends for us.
It is not necessary to take a literalist view of this passage and start counting ribs to understand the point: that woman is to be the true partner of and with man, “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” Or as the 18th century English clergyman Matthew Henry put it:
“The woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” ― Rev. Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.