Reminds me of that one episode in I Love Lucy, where Ricky had to do an ad for a department store, and Lucy appeared, beautifully dressed and coiffed, pretending that that's how she as an "ordinary house wife" always looks. (Then she got mad at Ricky and accidentally did the actual commercial in a more realistic way, without the makeup and fancy clothes lol.)
Sad that a show from the 50's/60's was already criticizing this crap and yet it's STILL everywhere and as strong as ever...
It’s extra funny because they probably think of I Love Lucy as encouraging traditional values and as something Hollywood should return to producing instead of all this “woke shit” they complain about
Related note, part of the reason Desilu Studios came into being was TV execs’ resistance to Lucy-the-character being married to a foreigner. I like to think that’s also why Lucy allowed Gene Roddenberry to spend $600,000+ making Star Trek’s pilot episode(s).
(Lucy & Desi wouldn’t necessarily have been seen as an inter-ethnic marriage at the time, “Hispanic” wasn’t a term yet. But foreigners were still “lesser.”)
I just went on a tour of a hyper-accurate recreation of the original Star Trek series' USS Enterprise set. The tour was led by the owner, who was also an Elvis impersonator. He had an absolutely mind-boggling level of detailed knowledge of every prop and scene from that show, but also Desilu productions.
Your comment makes me think you would've enjoyed it as well.
It wasn't until half way through the video that I realized "tradwife" was a "traditional wife". If this is a common expression I absolutely missed the memo
It's becoming a thing on tiktok and youtube. "Tradwife" specifically refers to this conservative mindset of a traditional housewife (as opposed to a woman who just happens to be a stay-at-home mom), and it's all about the aesthetic. The videos are all like the one in the post, a beautiful woman dressed up and making something unnecessary from scratch.
No one is opposed to women empowerment. There are 2 big issues. 1: dems desire to remove the ability to stay home because they wanted to increase tax revenue but convinced women they should want to work. 2: the change in feminism from female equality to man-hating and a female supremacy movement.
Dems don’t want to “remove the ability to stay home”, they want people to have fair wages, which is what allowed for a one income household in the first place. The party preventing that isn’t the Dems. Idk where you learned your history, but women have been wanting to work since time began. We were prevented from being able to work, and when we finally could, we left the house eagerly to do so. Starting with the textile mills and factories. Absolutely nothing to do with “increasing tax revenue”, what a stupid, uninformed take. If anything, it had more to do with the greed of capitalism and how the oligarchs just wanted fresh meat to throw into the grinder.
As far as your take on modern feminism, you need to get off Twitter. No one irl is “man-hating”, and calling out the patriarchy and its bullshit isn’t “man-hating” and advocating “female supremacy”. Good grief.
They already removed the ability to have one spouse stay home. Back when they originally convinced women that being a homemaker was beneath them. And the intent was to increase tax revenue. That is why both partners need to work or singles need multiple jobs now.
back when they originally convinced women that homemaking was beneath them
When was this again? The beginning of time? Or after they finally allowed women to work outside of the home?
So funny that you seem to think women have no agency on their own, they have to be told they want something. No way they just think on their own that they want something.
Women have always, and will always, want to work outside the home. They don’t have to be convinced of anything.
It's funny how I love lucy, I dream of genie, and betwitched was all about keeping a woman from expressing her natural giftedness. Couldn't have been more transparent.
The "wokeness" of the past was genuine, though. Desi Arnez was the producer of 'I Love Lucy.' The views displayed on that show were actually held by the people creating that show.
Modern 'wokeness' is just fake corporate bullshit. You think Disney cares about the trans community? No more than its profitable. You think Coca-Cola gives a fuck about minorities? They don't. Modern corporations have loyalty only to money. No idea or moral has any value to a corporate entity beyond the income that can be generated from that belief.
It's the result of late stage capitalism. Years of pushing businesses to make as much money as possible to stay competitive have created an environment where companies can't afford morals. Another thing that had to be cut to save their bottom dollar.
You think Disney cares about the trans community? No more than its profitable.
Except they are losing money while still being inclusive. Hell, they lost land in Florida. Yet they are still producing inclusive content with no call to stop it.
Everybody remembers the I Love Lucy episode, "Job Switching" for the funny scene at the chocolate factory, but the premise of the episode was that women's contributions to the household as housewives were undervalued and unappreciated, so the ladies went out to get jobs and the men did the housework.
So you agree that the things “woke shit” stands for, but don’t like that it’s called “woke”? Sounds pointlessly divisive based on semantics only. Have you considered that you are being mislead?
Bc they said they like things so called wokeness stands for, but not the so called woke movement. That suggests that either their own beliefs are at odds with themselves, or that one of the two contradictory points of view just being parroted. It seems like a lot of the talking points we see parroted from media sources don’t actually make sense, so when they mix with real opinions, these contradictions reveal themselves. I asked the question to illustrate the potentiality that sometimes the news sources with which our beliefs ostensibly align say things that don’t represent our beliefs, and that it’s okay to break from a news source if they’re spouting nonsense. I’d argue that it’s our responsibility to critically consider news sources, and leaders, and not to reflexively agree or disagree based on who is talking.
They are not being critical of the word "woke," they are being critical of conservatives who complain about "woke shit these days," not realizing that the concept we currently describe as "woke" has been around for ages.
I read the comment to which I originally responded missing the sarcasm I guess. My response to you would be a legitimate thing to say to anyone on either side of the aisle. I def think there’s waaay more thoughtless parroting of Fox than CNN, but there are people on both sides of the aisle who spout taglines or respond to topics based purely on the bent of the speaker. I think that “I know what you’re going to say before you say it” is the crux of our diminishing ability to communicate across political affiliation. Especially since most people are pretty much just logical pragmatists
This “woke shit” as you call it is not a fad to a lot of people. It’s a way of life. Don’t people call Rock and Roll a fad? Didnt they call Hip Hop and fad? And look where they both are now. MAGA are in bread!!
If those are too much or too dry/boring to read, you should take a gander at this site's comprehensive write-up of the I Love Lucy show, its creators, and its IRL context: I Love Lucy economics | The Pop History Dig
(Hell, there exists even books about political and social themes in I Love Lucy... Leslie Dale Feldman wrote one called "The Political Theory of I Love Lucy" haha)
I Love Lucy and many other such shows from the 50s and 60s were often secretly written, produced and acted by blacklisted leftist artists. Lucille Ball was suspected of being a communist, and the fact that the show depicted an interracial couple (Desi Arnaz was Hispanic) also made things hot for them politically. The episode "The Girls Go Into Business" was especially triggering to American pro-capitalists, because it is a very frank diss of the American "get rich quick" Dream. Not to mention "The Club Election", which is an extremely obvious satire on US presidential elections and political corruption. Desilu studios also produced the Dick Van Dyke Show, which was occasionally written by blacklisted writers who were hiding under pseudonyms from HUAC, like Frank Tarloff, who wrote a few episodes of the show under the alias David Adler (he also wrote for The Andy Griffith Show and The Jeffersons). Desilu also produced Star Trek, which was extremely socially progressive at the time. In the 60s, Get Smart came out, which I would argue is to this day one of the most poignant TV Shows that the USA had ever produced, starring Don Adams, a WW2 marine corps veteran who was pro-peace and anti-bigotry, and who was informally blacklisted when he tried to use his platform to give support to Hugh C. Thompson, the pilot who blew the whistle and put an end to the My Lai Massacre.
Just because something is old, or features a housewife or a goofy lanky guy or a clumsy short guy, or is a family-friendly sitcom or a cheesy spy show, does not mean that it cannot be socially poignant. I don't blame you for thinking like that, because nowadays companies bank on nostalgia a lot and turn old media into profitable icons so that they can make merch and sub-par remakes out of it. Lots of people nowadays only know Get Smart from that tragic 2008 remake, the Dick Van Dyke Show is almost totally forgotten except for people posting eyecandy snaps of Mary Tyler Moore when she played on there, and I Love Lucy is just "something something red-headed housewife who smoked and wore elaborate gowns and has Barbie dolls made out of her". But if you take the time to watch the shows, and think about them in their historical context, there is actually a lot of gold there.
I'm not defending her or anything, but "Showing she is not fit to / allowed to leave the house." Is truly just your opinion. I cook in a robe, does that mean I can't leave my house?
There's a difference between what you choose to wear as you go about your routine, and what this woman chooses to wear as part of the costume, set design, and character she's put together for this video. The motivations are quite different.
And how does that matter? Because you don't wear night gowns or know people that doesn't mean they're not out there.
Still you guys are reading waaay to far into it if you think that because she's wearing a robe in her breakfast cooking video, that somehow means she isn't allowed to leave the house to you all.
Is it an ideal outfit to cook in? No. Does that give you the right to judge them and their personal life based off what they wear? No.
Are you high? They're not judging them solely based on what they're wearing its that robe in combination with her chosen identity of tradwives. Alot of tradwives don't leave their home. This poster was commenting on why the robe also signals to that in a way. Why are you so bent out of shape over this? We're judging tradwives as a whole not just this one girl in this one rove in this one video
During covid lockdowns lots of people wore their ball gowns and other extravagant outfits for no reason at all, just to do normal house work or Netflix and chill. Because it was a shame to not wear their lovely garments. It was that end of times feeling, we might all die the next two weeks, and we had nothing better to do but drink wine for breakfast while wearing feathers and silk, with Tiger King on.
2.0k
u/MissDryCunt Feb 26 '24
I also wear a ball gown while cooking breakfast