The original Trad Wives were the first feminists
Why we all--including trad wives--still benefit from feminism today
We don’t talk enough about how many gains in the women’s rights movement were to benefit “traditional” wives and mothers. I realized this while composing a reply to a comment from a reader on my post No One Wants To Do Housework. She is a proud stay at home wife/mother in an ideal situation and outlined the many perks of the gig. She is the one who does want to do housework. But I had to ask what would happen if her husband died or lost his ability to support the family. She then outlined her Plan B. It was then that I realized something: her plan B is made possible by our feminist foremothers. And those feminists were the original trad wives.
When American women started fighting for their rights in the 19th century, things like wearing pants, an office in the c-suite, a credit card of her own were not at the top of list—or even on the wish list. It wasn’t a failure of imagination. Many women were happy in their roles and wives and mothers and saw no need to disrupt the status quo. In fact, they fought for more rights in order to support their traditional roles as wives and mothers. They fought for things to benefit their families.
Prior to the 20th (ish) century, if a woman lost her husband, she lost everything. Because women could not own property, have their own money or even custody of their own children, a happily married wife and mother was one carriage accident away from being homeless and childless.
By law, the home she helped create did not belong to her—even though we all know the real work and love that goes into creating and maintaining a home. A widow lost not just the roof over her head, but the linens she sewed, the furniture she picked out, the jams she made, the pillow she embroidered. In some places, at some times she might receive a small portion of the estate but this wasn’t going to go far. (The husband, of course, kept everything if his wife died. Frances Ellen Watkins Harpers points out the injustice of this in her famous speech.)
By law, if a woman lost her husband she also lost her children. The very children she birthed, nurtured and raised would be whisked away and sent off to the nearest male relative or whoever the husband had deemed to be guardian (he could not make the mom guardian). There is a harrowing tale in the Complete History of Women’s Suffrage about a woman who lost her husband while pregnant and had to give up her infant as soon as it was born to some guy her husband picked out. Women wanting custody of their children was one of the driving forces of the women’s rights movement.
Furthermore, women didn’t have a way to earn their own money and any wages they earned belonged to her husband—so she couldn’t save up for a rainy day. The job options available to her—sewing, laundry, factory work—all paid pennies. She’d barely be able support herself, let alone her whole family. A woman who lost her husband had the following options: hope that some relatives could take her in or find a new husband immediately. This likely wouldn’t be marriage for love, but for survival. This fact prompted Victoria Woodhull—a Suff who championed free love—to ask how this wasn’t a form of prostitution?
Unfortunately for some women, a bad husband was even worse than no husband. The Temperance Movement to prohibit alcohol was driven in part by women whose husbands spent their money on booze instead of food and who abused their families.
These traditional wives and moms wanted better for themselves and their families. In order to do that, they recognized that they needed to prohibit alcohol, liberalize divorce laws, change the laws to allow women to keep their own children, and give her real opportunities to be financially self sufficient—that meant education and an end to double standards of morality. To obtain all these things, they needed the vote.
When it comes to protecting home and family, women will do whatever it takes. For many 19th century women, that meant audaciously stepping out of their traditional role at home and getting involved in the community in order to change laws for their benefit (because the men weren’t doing it! Soft power at home wasn’t getting the job done).
But they didn’t do it alone—the late 19th century was the era of the “women’s club” where they banded together to advocate for their interests. Being pre-telephone, they dressed up and called on their reps in person, to lobby for the reforms they wanted (so don’t get nervous about calling your reps today!). They reached out to their community, solicited signatures on petitions, they involved the press, they held fundraisers. They got political.
There was even a cool slogan to unite all the various reforms they were fight for: HOME PROTECTION.
It was championed by a woman named Frances Willard, who led the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WTCU) from 1876 to 1898. The WTCU had tens of thousands of members of nice, middle-class housewives. Their main cause was getting rid of alcohol, but they embraced women’s suffrage as well because if they had the vote then they could enact the reforms they wished to see.
What else did they fight for?
They fought for sewers and clean water, to raise the age of consent for their daughters, for the right to stay in their homes and have custody of their children in event of death or divorce. These things were wildly radical and totally feminist—and they were championed by both the trad wives and raging liberals of the day. They benefitted all people.
Let’s be clear: a lot of these women did not want to undermine the traditional family structure or the status quo. They saw these reforms as necessary to protect their families in case things went sideways. Thanks to their advocacy…
Married women and widows are able to control their own wages and property. They are able to inherit more in the event of their husband’s death. It’s a step toward recognizing the value of their work.
A mom can have custody of her children in the event of death or divorce.
A woman can go to work if she has to or needs to. She might have trouble finding a job that pays well without an advanced degree or years of workplace experience, but she can at least start climbing the ladder. The culture has shifted so she won’t be socially ostracized for working for money.
Thanks to education, economic opportunities and an higher age of consent, she and her daughters will not be forced into loveless marriages out of necessity.
My reader commented about how she considered running a daycare out of her home as a backup plan. I love this; when I was a little kid my mom dropped me off at a home daycare and I consider the woman who ran it to be my second mom. But for a woman to run a home childcare center, she needs the very existence of working women who do not stay home with their children. She needs other women with access to their own cash and the freedom to decide how to spend it.
This is the thing: we need a diversity of life experiences to support each other. Watching other people’s kids, or taking in laundry or sewing, cleaning houses, or selling crafts on Etsy only works if there are other people who don’t want to do it and can afford to pay for it. Living completely self-sufficiently is probably not feasible these days; we’re all connected in this together.
The rebel trad wives of the 19th century realized that they needed legal recognition for their work and personhood. They realized that opportunities outside the home made their position inside the home safer. A better world outside meant the work they did at home wasn’t undone when their kids left the nest.
Not all women want to be trad wives. Not all men want to be trad husbands. The beauty of embracing a wider community and diversity of life opportunities is that we can support each other in granting the freedom, safety and security to discover and live out our dreams, whatever they may be. It is the foundation for happier humans, happier families and happier homes.
I hate seeing a rift between “Trad Wives” and “feminists” because we all benefit from feminist reforms—or should I say humanist reforms?
Yes! Well and thoroughly argued, Maya. I wish it were less common for folks to be ignorant of how much they have benefited from the work of others whose views are different from their own.
It's interesting to me, as I research the 14th century in northern England, to find how much more advanced women's lot was then, in many ways. For example: In Durham County (where my novel in progress is set), widows had a "widow-right" to inherit, for their lifetime, ALL of their husbands' effects -- leases, buildings, furniture, businesses, and all, if they chose. Only if they refused this widow-right or were deemed incapable for some reason (not all that common) did primogeniture kick in. In other parts of England at the time, widows inherited 40% of their husbands' possessions. Further, widows could control their own money and act for themselves legally. (Not sure about keeping their kids, though, as my characters don't have any minor children.)
With all the historical negative connotation, I really don’t like the words husband and wife, although I use them to avoid confusion. She is my best friend and life partner. We do everything together. All big decisions are made together. She is my ally, and I hope she can say the same about me. I say hope because I’m fully aware of the fact that I’ve been swimming in a sea of patriarchal conditioning full of blindspots.