WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Strength & Dignity: Trad Wives, a Threat to Democracy?

Episode Date: July 19, 2024

In this episode, Michaela responds to a Ms. Magazine article that strings vastly different ideas together, claiming a dangerous threat to women's rights. She discusses American history, the recent commencement speech of Harrison Butker, and the freedom and rights of women--that face no threat today, despite what is commonly claimed. 

Hello and welcome to strength and dignity. This is Michaela Estruth, and you're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. So it's been a few weeks since I've actually gone through a Ms. Magazine article, and I thought that today I would return to that website and see what I could find, and see if I could talk about anything posted or published on that website. and I found a lot of political things, which given this week being the Republican National Convention makes sense, but also was a little bit overwhelming because I wanted to talk about something related to femininity, womanhood, and all that I saw was articles on J.D. Vance, the running mate of

Donald Trump, or anything about the recent, everything that's been in the news involving the debates and Trump and Biden and all of that. And I just really didn't want to talk about that. So we did the best we could with the article that I found. And it is quite humorous. It makes me laugh. This was published a few days ago on July 10th. And it's called What Do Trad Wives Have to Do With Democracy?

It's by Jill Philipovic. And first of all, I just want to address up front that I see a major issue with this article because it completely lacks an understanding of democracy and especially of what America is and what she is as a nation, basically that she was founded as a republic. And if you read any of the federalist papers, if you know your U.S. history and the founding, the founders intentionally did not want democracy. They wanted a mixed government, which is why we have the three branches. it's why we have a bicameral house and Senate, one based on population, and then the other, as in the Senate, equal across all the states, and the like.

And so you can read all of these federalist papers about the dangers, actually, the dangers of a democracy. If the direct rule of government is in the hands of the people, how dangerous that is and how fickle that is, how unsteady it is, what it leads to, which is completely another case, You look at the ongoing French Revolution at the same time as the American Revolution and the truly democratic way that they were leading where the people were attempting to control everything and that there was no authority. There was no system or structure and the absolute chaos that it brought and the comparison to what was happening in America. So first of all, just the whole article, if you're aware of that history, is here. humorous because it's like none of this is actually a threat to America as a nation because America as a nation was never designed or intended to be this purely democratic rule of the people. So that's my first point.

But I'm just going to basically go straight through the article. I'll quote her and then kind of respond and yeah, we'll go from there. So let's jump in. So she leads saying this, at no time in modern American history has democracy felt so imperiled. We are staring down an election in which a self-styled authoritarian has been clear about his plans to disregard democratic processes, in which a series of far-right activists have published a roadmap to help him do it, and before which the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to unprecedented and unpunished presidential criminality. And a big part of this anti-democratic movement,

like so many others around the world, has been misogyny and the festization of a return to patriarchal male-led culture. Okay, so she really just like gets in right off the bat. She, as I will address later, uses a ton of violent language or battle language, fighting language, just trigger words almost. It's pretty intense to read. It just feels like you're being yelled at the whole time or like everything is about to fail and like all the women are going to die and, you know, things like that that are just kind of absurd. And so I just want to break down that paragraph for clarity because I read a lot of her lead. And so the first sentence where she says,

we're staring down an election in which a self-styled authoritarian, that's Trump, has been clear about his plans to disregard democratic processes. So I'm guessing here, but I'm assuming that she's referring to the January 6th event that apparently no one can stop talking about, especially in the media. and so I think that's what she's talking about. And then she says a series of far-right activists have published a roadmap to help him do it. So that she's referring, it's been in the news, she's referring to the Heritage Foundation's work on Project 2025, which is essentially a conservative plan for if the president elected in November is the Republican president of the Republican Party. this is the plan that they want to give to him to help him aid him in his first, I think, year or year

and a half of office of like, here are the people that you should appoint. Here are the things that you want to get done based off of the Republican Party platform, conservative ideas and things that need changing in his next four years. So I'm not going to dive into Project 2025 other than to say that that's a pretty normal thing for a party platform to have a plan for the next four years of action if in the case of an elected president, right? So it's not like a means to subdue our government or to undermine the proper way of governing. It's not that at all. Okay, so that is just kind of a definition of terms for everything that she's alluding to.

She references the U.S. Supreme Court decision recently, and of course there was an uproar about this also giving the president, any president, partial immunity for deeds done in office. I, again, I'm not going to dive into that, but it is something that people have latched on to as kind of a were in this authoritarian, almost like monarchical government. and we're all doomed, which is just not the case. Okay, so I just love her last sentence that she says it's an anti-democratic movement. Like so many others around the world, I don't know really what she's referring to there, but she says it's misogynistic and it hopes to return to patriarchal male-led culture. Okay, well, there's no references there of source material or any citation of what she might be referring to. So she's basically just like throwing this out there saying this is what everyone wants a male-led culture, patriarchal.

Well, first of all, patriarchal is a trigger word now. It has just become a trigger word. Patriarchy has become apparently a bad thing. Even though for a majority of the world, patriarchy literally just means of the father. It means like the rule of the father. And that's from Latin, the rule of the father. and it's like how you would, you know, a father's name is the one that is passed down through the family and his land is passed down and his money is passed down.

That's what that refers to. So the fact that it's become a trigger word is just kind of my blowing. But it's just she doesn't make any argument of why she thinks that that's what these are aiming for. She just claims that that's the point, which it's not. But, okay, so that's her lead. And now she provides two examples throughout the article of two people who we should all be afraid of who are monsters and trying to take away women's rights. And bear with me, these are her two main targets or her main two examples. They are Donald Trump, which is classic because she introduced him in the lead and everything was kind of around his running to be reelected.

Or Harrison Bucker, who was, if you remember I talked about him a few episodes back, he spoke at a commencement address. He's a Catholic. He's a football player. He's a good Christian man. And apparently he is out to get all the women and to rob them of their rights and to impose his masculinity on all of us is what she says. So let's dive into what she says. First, starting with Donald Trump, she says. When Donald Trump took the debate stage, he dodged the question about how he would handle helping families pay for child care in America.

My women friends were righteously angry. I won't read what she said. My women friends were righteously angry. I was also served a series of conservative memes on Instagram saying that the government wouldn't need to pay for child care if women just stayed home. Friends told me they saw the same kind of content that night and many for the first time. Okay, so she's basically saying that Trump is forcing all women to stay in the home and that he will rob women of any rights and women won't be able to work at all and they will all be abused and lose everything, which is not the case. She, again, did not cite anything of any content of where he said that except for the debate, which she says he dodged the question about helping women pay for child care. Okay, so first of all, that's not the job with the president.

about someone leading the nation and all of the things that they have to face. Seriously, we're going to latch on to the fact that he doesn't have a clear plan for child care. And also, shouldn't we just question, is it really the role of the government to pay for every single child to be in a daycare from nine to five? Really? That's the rule of the government. It's not national security or, you know, overseas or any potential warfare or dealing with allies. No, no, no. It's, it's paying nine to five child care. Okay, that's a little bit concerning, honestly, if you ask me. But the other important thing is that she latches onto these videos that she says people,

she basically says that they're horrible. But, I mean, it makes a good point, which is this, that statistically, a two-income family, so both mom and dad are working, paying for child care, makes less money or saves less money than a one income family with one of the parents at home with a kid. Okay? Because that's how expensive child care is. And so everyone's upset about how expensive child care is. And then people like this woman who wrote this article are saying, well, it's the job of the government to fix that and to pay for it. And other people are saying, actually, maybe it's just the job with a family for one person to take care of the kid and one person to make the money. Call me crazy. Okay. So,

that's her Harper with Donald Trump. And then she mentions Harrison Buckker. And she says when Harrison Buckker took the stage at Benedictine College and told the crowd that women are the receiving end of diabolical lies about their ability to find fulfillment in the professional sphere rather than fulfilling their vocation in their home, there was a righteous uproar from nearly every woman I know. Which is really funny because there was a lot of women I know who were like, wow, that was great. I can't believe.

Like, why aren't other people saying that? That was really encouraging. Also, she's totally misquoting him. That's not what he said. He did say diabolical lies, but he's saying diabolical lies, meaning people saying that you can't be a woman or that, like, your femininity is wrong or bad and that you should flee that. That's what he's calling a lie. He's not saying that, like, being in the workplace is a lie or something like that. So she's misquoting him, first of all.

Second of all, he, if you listen to this speech, it's like the most, the most. affirming kind-hearted thing like he does not sound demeaning in the slightest he sounds compassionate he sounds empathetic and so she's painting him out to be this monster and I mean I already did a whole episode on this so I won't go into his speech but he in reality was just speaking truth to women who needed to hear it okay continuing on in her article she says the kinds of conservative forces behind butker and tradwives are are good at tapping into young women's insecurities and desires in a way that those on the left are not. Okay, so basically this is what's underlying her whole article is that there's this some sort of, like, grand scheme and grand plot that is somehow associated with Donald Trump, Bucker, and Tradwise.

Okay, first of all, trying to tie those three together is very strange and incoherent because, like, if you asked any three of them, they might be aware of the other, but they are not. in league at all. They are like completely like Donald Trump and Harrison Bucker very very different for very obvious reasons and Trump would probably he probably wouldn't condemn what Bucker said but I don't think he would be like affirming everything that he said right because that's just what Donald Trump would do in the political realm same with Bucker like I don't know what his political views are and he probably wouldn't express who he votes for just like given his career okay and then the Tadwife movement Well, we've talked about this before also and the importance of definition. But the trad wife movement, it depends on how you're defining it,

because she seems to be painted a very broad stroke from a very large brush, apparently. Because, like, the idea of a trad wife that she's picturing that we'll get into later is actually really small in comparison to all of the conversations going on in the modern day. And a very, it has a very small following as well. So it's just a little strange that she's tying all three of these together. And then to imply or even come out and directly say that this is a scheme and that it's a plot and they're all working in alliance is just wrong actually. And finally, what I just wanted to say is she makes it sound like they're targeting poor young women

who are just trying to find their identity and then they see these reels or they hear Harrison Bucker's speech. and all of a sudden they're hooked and, you know, they've been confused and they've been, you know, taken under this scheme or this plot, which is just simply, A, not true, not the goal at all. And also, I will briefly mention this and then move on. But if we're going to point fingers about taking advantage of children or young teens who are truly struggling, and looking for answers, I would immediately point to something. If you have heard of Abel Schreier, she just wrote a book called Bad Therapy, and that's what I would point to, is that we are taking children who are having mental health issues and immediately putting them in quote-unquote therapy, which is actually code for biological sex change or LGBTQ ideology.

and so if we're going to talk about taking advantage of kids and manipulation, I think that's where we should start, in my opinion. Okay, moving on in her article. This is how she defines the trad wife movement. She says, the trad wife movement is more than just eye-catching images of open land, barefoot kids, chickens, and sourdough perfectly cultivated for an Instagram grid. It's a cultural movement to influence young women to willingly check out of the workforce and give up their rights. and agency. Okay, so her idea is what she just said about sourdough and barefoot kids, which cracks me up. I don't know why it's a huge deal that they're barefoot, but apparently it is. And land and chickens, okay? So she is painting all of that as the tradwife movement. But then she says, but their real

goal is to influence young women to just go check out of society and stay in the home and give up your rights and agency. Okay. Show me who's saying. that. Like tell, prove it to me, like quote someone or show me, which she doesn't. Again, no facts or backup data or links or anything like that. So that's immediately an issue. And also, giving up their rights and agency. My mom has been a mom for over 25 years now. And she would not at all say that her rights and agency have been given up or robbed or taken away from her or that she doesn't have a thought outside of the children. Like, not at all. So that idea is also profoundly just false. All right, we have two more quotes. She says, stringent gender norms, hatred of non-heteronormative

sexuality, idealization of fictionalized history of whitewashed family life in America, mixed together with a toxic soup of rage-bated masculinity, growing income inequality, lack of parental support, and a media environment where aesthetics reigns supreme to build a powerful point of the spear. Okay, this is towards the end of her article. And this is what I was alluding to at the beginning of fighting language. That, first of all, it's very clunky. She uses like three adjectives for every noun. And she has one verb, which is mixed together, which you can.

even argue, is that a verb? I mean, like, it is in this sentence because there's no other place that there would be a verb. But she's really not saying anything except just kind of like freaking people out by using all of this doomsday language as if, you know, we're all under threat of losing our lives. So take, for example, stringent, hatred, toxic, rage, rain, powerful, and spear. Those are all words that she's. uses in there. Those are nouns that I've taken out, well, some of them are adjectives. But from all of the clunky verbiage or adjectives, all the words around it, it just really doesn't make any sense. Like, she doesn't really have a point except to push people into action by saying that this is all coming.

Okay, so finally, she says, women have a decision to make this year and it's between tapping out or tapping in. The thing about tapping out is that it's not without consequence. It's a decision to give up your agency to people who want you to lose your rights. So I hope that we all choose to tap in for democracy, for our daughters, and for ourselves. Okay, that's how she ends. And frankly, I think that she's right. I think that anyone, man or woman in this country, has a decision this year to tap in or tap out, to stay engaged or be disengaged.

And listen, I hate conflict. I hate, I get so exhausted from all of the political clamor. but you can't tap out. No one can because we need to be talking about these things and we need to make clear our stances on them, right? So in that way, she's correct. I'm a little bit confused, again, on why she says that people are trying to force you to give up your agency and you, and they want you to lose your rights. I think that's entirely unfounded and not true, but that's what she claims. And so, again, I would say, point me to the source, tell me who's saying that, who wants to make women give up their agency

and lose all of their rights, because that's just not true. Which is why it's important that we all stay engaged, that we still talk about these things and these issues. And frankly, why we remember that America is not a democracy, like I started at the beginning. America was not founded as a democracy. Also, she mentions the founding fathers at the beginning of her article and almost speaks of the founding as if it was misogynistic because of its quote-unquote patriarchal leadership, meaning it was founded by the founding fathers. So I guess my point is that if you still hold honor for the founding of America and for the identity of America, then this article really shouldn't scare you because, first of all,

we're not a democracy. Second of all, having good, strong mail leaders is not a bad thing. and no one is pushing for the end of women's rights or the end of female agency or, you know, the complete subjugation of them. That's just not what is happening in our modern day. And so we need to speak the truth and we need to speak it boldly and we need to stay involved. All right, that's all I have for today. Thanks for listening to Strength and Dignity. This is Makila S Truth and you're listening to Radio Free Hill 101.7 FM.