Traditional Gender Roles Making a Comeback
– By Howard Seirer –
Several weeks ago, I described how companies are rejecting the progressive left’s diversity, equity, and inclusion criteria in hiring and returning to merit, excellence, and intelligence. I’m happy to report on another trend making headway, this time against the left’s longstanding attempt to eliminate gender in our society.
Social conservatives, especially religious conservatives, have long endorsed traditional views of family and gender roles. In recent years, they have been enlivened by national battles over social issues that attack traditional family values: abortion, gay rights, and transgender rights. The small but vocal progressive wing of the Democratic Party has forced these issues to the forefront of the party’s agenda despite meeting increasing resistance not only from social conservatives but from the public at large.
“I think there’s been a recent resurgence of the defense of the natural family,” said William Wolfe, founder of the Center for Baptist Leadership, a nonprofit that aims to keep the Southern Baptist Convention – the country’s largest Protestant denomination – “theologically conservative.” Wolfe has pushed the Southern Baptist Convention to amend its constitution to say that only men can serve as church pastors. The amendment failed in a recent vote but is seen by many as part of a broader effort to combat the progressive left’s influence.
The traditional roles trend comes as a backlash following decades of major social changes, such as the surge of women in the labor force. More recent changes, including legalizing same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court’s abortion decision, have aroused strong feelings across the political spectrum.
Widespread public controversy erupted when progressives began implementing transgender policies that flew in the face of longstanding gender-based rights. Progressives argued that individuals should be allowed to define their own gender as they see fit, regardless of their sex at birth. The resulting mess included biological men in women’s restrooms and locker rooms and allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports.
Competing rights claims came to the fore when public schools began implementing progressive gender policies that collided with parental rights. Some public school districts introduced homosexuality to children in grades 1-3. Junior high school teachers led classroom discussions on gender identity, including information on gender change treatments and surgery. School boards across the country were confronted by angry parents who saw the government intruding on parental prerogatives and family values.
The most egregious of these progressive practices is gender change hormone therapy and surgery for teens, done in some states without parental knowledge or consent. These practices have been abandoned in Europe, and in this country, about a dozen states have banned them. After several years of supporting gender change for teens, the Biden administration has reversed course and now says it opposes gender-affirming surgery for transgender minors. The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on whether states can regulate transgender treatments as they now do abortion.
A Gallup poll released in June showed that the share of Americans who describe themselves as liberal on social issues has grown over time. But the same Gallup poll also showed a leap in the number of Americans who described themselves as socially conservative. As expected, this divide tends to reflect our country’s partisan political divide.
A 2022 poll of 6,212 people by the Public Religion Research Institute found about two-thirds of Republicans think U.S. society is “too soft and feminine,” up from 53% in 2011. By contrast, the share of Democrats who agree fell from 30% to 15% in that period. An April 2024 Pew Research Center survey of 8,709 adults found that 59% of Trump’s supporters say society is better off if people give priority to marriage and family, compared with 19% of President Biden’s backers.
Social conservatives recognize evolving parental roles. The traditional notion of father as a sometimes aloof family provider is fading, particularly as women’s earning power has grown. The new ideal is a more involved father figure. Lyman Stone who directs the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, says “the good father takes his kids hiking. He takes his kids to do things. He teaches them things very intentionally.”
Likewise, some conservative women are embracing a definition of femininity reminiscent of yesteryear. TikTok and Instagram are filled with beautifully dressed women who embrace a glamorous homemaker role, demonstrating their made-from-scratch baking skills with babies strapped to their chests. Known as “trad wives” for traditional wives, these women have millions of followers and have provoked a fierce debate about the role of women in the family and society.
Ivy Van Dusen explained for her 119,000 Tik Tok followers what she thinks people get wrong about women with lifestyles like hers. “Trad wives are normal,” she posted. “People seem to think it’s some new trend…really it’s the oldest lifestyle in the book.” She said her husband would support her if she decided to work, but “I’m not doing it just for my husband, I’m doing it for me.”
I am quick to acknowledge that I grew up in a traditional family and my adult life has been spent in a traditional family. But when social liberals deride or discard traditional the family structure because it doesn’t fit their latest social trend, they are making a very large bet on unproven alternatives. Social liberals claim to want alternative lifestyles to be part of a diverse society, but publicly shaming traditional family values undercuts their professed ideal of diversity.
Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you!
Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor
I, too was raised in a traditional family, and I’ve lived my life pretty much in that tradition. The difference between you and me, Howard, is that I’m not particularly irritated by those who have made other choices. Think how freeing it is to those who have always been repressed and discriminated against because they are gay or trans. That’s who they are. Could anything have turned you or me gay or trans? Hardly. We behave the way we’re wired, not the way we were recruited. So why not let people be who they are? What’s the harm? I have a gay brother-in-law and a trans granddaughter. Both are good people. Neither are a threat to me or anyone else. Live and let live. Can’t we all just get along?
Mr. Smith, I am very much a “live and let live” person and I believe if you re-read the column, you’d not find anything that is “anti-gay” or “anti-transgender.” Instead, I argue that those lifestyles nor much of any other “sex ed” subjects should be introduced to K-3 children in public schools. Nor should students in their early teens be “counseled” about how to change their gender, and nor should treatments/surgery be started without parental consent. In California, a teen under age 18 cannot get a tattoo without parental consent but can begin gender change without that consent.
What the column points out is that parents have longstanding rights in bringing up their children. Gay and transgender advocates have usurped those rights in some jurisdictions, using government/school systems to teach values that some parents find at odds with their own beliefs. States recognize parental rights to such a degree that they are allowed to keep their children out of public schools entirely. Surely they should have the right to object to the subject matter taught there. Those objections have been codified by state law in a number of states.
Howard thanks for responding! And… I think the misunderstanding comes from the perception of what schools actually teach or advocate for. It seems that the political right is convinced that teachers actually promote gay and trans ideology. It’s just not true. I recognize that some parents think that by refusing to condemn such things feel it is advocating them. Not so. The only “pride” flags that show up in schools or classrooms are not in advocation but acceptance. A surprising number of kids have either non support or condemnation of themselves by their own families. Schools are not advocating for gay or trans kids, only accepting them, as is their responsibility.
I’d also mention that I, and many others, feel it is a mistake to put kids in religiously or politically narrow schools or to home school them. Sure, they may learn to read and write, but public schools do much more by providing a broader view of the world. Kids need to experience differing and opposing ideas. They need to learn how to analyze and consider opposing views. In short, they need to think. “Bubbles” of learning and thinking just divide and define people. And sadly, that is what our country seems to be doing right now. Pick up a book by Tara Westover titled “Educated.” The author more or less explains, in a rather extreme manner, what I’m talking about.
Hope you receive this – I’m writing it on Labor Day. Thanks for your time.
J C Smith
Mr. Smith, you suggest that “pride flags…are not in advocation but acceptance.” How would you feel about displaying the Israeli flag or the Hamas flag in a public school classroom, “not as advocation but acceptance?” Or how about displaying a portrait of “Madonna and child?” Or a Ukrainian flag? Or a Taiwanese flag? Or a Black Lives Matter flag?
If “schools are not advocating for gay or trans kids, only accepting them,” then why are they singling them out for special notice? Why not single out Asian kids who have been and still are discriminated against?
The answer to all my questions above is that progressives have chosen to do what you argue against: “divide and define” a particular class of people who in their opinion need special treatment and acceptance. By definition, special treatment for any group equals discrimination against all others. Per Chief Justice Roberts, “the best way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.”