Photoshoot of a Trad Wife Influencer Wearing a Black Dress w/ a Homestead Backdrop | Trad Wife Influencer Controversy

In Defense of the Trad Wife Influencer

A social media influencer finds fulfillment the way most women choose to. One journalist can’t let that stand.

In January 2024, Utah-based rancher, entrepreneur, and lifestyle influencer Hannah Neeleman made headlines competing in Las Vegas for the Mrs. World pageant only two weeks after giving birth. Photos on her Instagram showed Neelman getting her hair styled and makeup done while she breastfed her new baby, and looking incredibly fit and put together in her gowns during a time when many mothers are still wearing diapers. 

Neeleman, 34, along with her husband Daniel (the son of billionaire JetBlue founder David Neeleman and cousin of NFL quarterback Zack Wilson), document their lives as parents of 8 children and proprietors of Ballerina Farm, their 328-acre beef, dairy, and hog ranch in Utah, on their respective social media platforms, @ballerinafarm and @hogfathering, which have 10 million followers on Instagram alone. Hannah has been dubbed in the media “the queen of the tradwives.”

Most women Hannah’s age have chosen a similar path.

Neeleman rejects the label “tradwife,” a social media genre that encompasses a variety of different lifestyles depending on who is using it. Generally, tradwives are “stay-at-home-moms-plus.” Many homeschool, some homestead, and most talk about their Christian faith. Because these lifestyle accounts are on image-based social media platforms, they usually adopt a very specific aesthetic, which varies from Estee William’s 1950s pinup style to Nara Smith’s supermodel chic to Neeleman’s ranch traditional.

The media frenzy the trad trend has caused is, frankly, extraordinary. “Is Tradwife Content Dangerous, or Just Stupid?” asked the New Yorker last September. In November, Salon warned of “The insidious rise of “tradwives”: A right-wing fantasy is rotting young men’s minds.” Even Christianity today criticized, saying, “Tradwife Content Offers Fundamentalism Fit for Instagram.” And now last week, the Sunday Times published “Meet the Queen of the Tradwives (and her eight children),” a profile on the Neeleman family, in which the author, Megan Agnew, made zero attempt to conceal her contempt for the family’s lifestyle choices. She painted Hannah as an emotionally abused victim whose wants and needs are constantly ignored in favor of those of her family and Daniel as a manipulative puppet master who makes all the major family decisions without considering his wife’s feelings. After receiving serious backlash, the author issued a part II of her profile, softening some of her criticism and providing audio clips that clearly show she removed important context from quotes so they could better align with her preconceptions about the family.

The chief criticism of all “trad” content seems to be the bizarre and cynical take that women could not possibly be happy and fulfilled doing the things that most women around the world are happy and fulfilled doing and have been doing for most of human history. I don’t know many heirs to billion-dollar airlines, but I do know an awful lot of women in their mid-thirties, being one myself. Most women Hannah’s age have chosen a similar path—we married in our 20s and now spend our time chasing kids, taking them to dance lessons and soccer practices, cooking, keeping our families in order, and using our personal talents and interests to contribute to the economy of the family, whether that’s a job outside (or inside) the home, or practicing intentional homemaking in a way to reduce family expenses and live off a single income. Most of us do it in a decidedly less glamorous fashion than Hannah Neeleman, but thus is the way of social media—it’s entertainment, aspirational. No one is concerned that the Real Housewives are promoting an unattainable lifestyle because, well, duh. 

Perhaps what draws so many women to trad content is how happy these influencers are, even when they are milking cows in the snow or burning potatoes. Maybe it is also because it so often shows the beautiful and valuable work of motherhood in a world where moms are often the butt of the joke (see “basic,” “soccer mom,” “Karen”) and motherhood as a pursuit is seen as far inferior to the corporate girl boss life.

A child’s love is worth pursuing, prioritizing, and restructuring your whole life around.

Compare trad content, on the other hand, to “relatable mom content,” or, as I like to call it, “birth control content.”

“Relatable mom” content is another social media genre popular among young mothers and often features women documenting their challenges in parenting. When it’s done right, it can be a lifeline to lonely moms who think they’re the only ones who are struggling with breastfeeding, are late to every other ballet practice, and don’t send their kids with picture-perfect bento box lunches to school every day. When done poorly, it sends the message to young women figuring out what they want out of life: whatever you do, don’t be a mom. Moms are fat, overstimulated, sleep-deprived, miserable, and have no agency over their own lives. This content attacks the types of lives many women choose for themselves. But notably it does not attract the same fervor of criticism.

This is the picture that Agnew attempted to paint of Hannah—a young woman whose promising ballet career was smashed when she was tricked into marrying a manipulative man who forced her to have baby after baby while he lived out his own dreams to be a cowboy. Forget that Daniel himself first gave up his collegiate athletic career to move to New York and support Hannah in her Julliard ballet training. Forget that Hannah is a literal beauty queen with the most extraordinary collection of beautiful dresses, that she has a home ballet studio and a social media empire, and runs a massive farming and market operation that includes everything from beef and dairy cattle to baked goods to florals.  All Agnew could see was those pesky kids who kept interrupting, and she knew that there was no way a smart, empowered woman could choose this life.

A couple of years ago, after an exhausting day, I climbed into bed to find a drawing on bright orange construction paper sitting on my pillow. In the center of the picture was a saguaro cactus surrounded by hearts. Written in the sweetest little kindergarten handwriting were the words, “Do not let a cactus poke you; let love poke you.” That was the first of many quirky homemade greeting cards made by my now-8-year-old, and it’s the most treasured of my earthly possessions—you’d have a hard time stopping me from running into a burning building to get it. It represents the extraordinary love I never knew existed before I became a mother. It is a love that I suspect Hannah Neeleman knows a little bit about. A child’s love is worth pursuing, prioritizing, and restructuring your whole life around. Christ described the paradox of the pain and joy of motherhood well, “When a woman gives birth to a baby, she has pain because her time has come. But when her baby is born, she forgets the pain because she is so happy that a child has been born into the world” (John 16:21, NCV). The joy of motherhood truly overcomes its pains, sorrows, and sacrifices. This used to be common knowledge, but now few truly understand it.

It is absolutely possible to enjoy some of these content creators as entertainment.

Do I know for sure that Daniel Neeleman isn’t a controlling monster? Of course not. Some abusers are very good at hiding in plain sight, appearing as charming, handsome, doting family men. But everything about what I can see of their lives depicts Hannah as an empowered woman blessed with many resources, and who uses those resources to create a very intentional life for her family.

Do I think that the Neelmans’ life is attainable or realistic? Again, of course not. No one who has a healthy understanding of social media could possibly think that with just the right aesthetic touch, they too can live like the billionaire farming princess on Instagram. It is absolutely possible to enjoy some of these content creators as entertainment and even use the content as inspiration for choices we make for our own homes and families while remembering that the content is a created art, not a documentary of everyday life. I assure you Hannah Neeleman’s day-to-day life is not fully represented in the little snippets she shares online. Neither is mine.

But I can see why she chose the life she did. Unlike Agnew, I see the beauty in not just Hannah’s glamorous gowns or the perfect bouquets of flowers she arranges but the beauty in the dirty-faced smiles of her Crocs-wearing toddlers, the pride of watching her son make a rhubarb cake from vegetables he had planted and tended to and picked himself, the romance of a twilight walk with the husband she’s grown up with or the home that they’ve built together with a baby snuggling warm against her chest. This is not a life to be sneered at. The most beautiful parts of Hannah’s life are not so different from the best parts of my life—the nightly calming ritual of sandwich making and orange-wedge slicing for the next day’s lunch boxes alongside my sweetheart, the joy in watching my children work hard and develop their talents, the peace, and sacredness in listening to the prayers of my children as they develop a desire to love and serve the Lord. This is a life worth pursuing—pursuing at the expense of worldly accolades and success. There are many types of lives that are glamorized on social media. I’m glad Hannah is glamorizing this one.

Editor’s Note: The article was corrected to include the first name of Megan Agnew, the author of The Times profile

About the author

Amanda Freebairn

Amanda Freebairn is an associate editor at Public Square Magazine. She is a proud wife, mother, writer and teacher, and holds an M.Ed. from Arizona State University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven

In an age that claims to value “own voices” media, it is sad that Under the Banner of Heaven is probably going to be the biggest story that the public sees about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this year or this decade. While the tale it tells is based on an actual occurrence and about some actual problems within the broader movement of people hearkening back to Joseph Smith, one thing that can’t be said for either the book or the show was that they were written by a member of our community. The producer may have “grown up” as a Latter-day Saint, but he left the faith before he was an adult. If you’ve never had the experience of holding a calling, making temple covenants, or negotiating the relationships that make up a ward (Latter-day Saint congregation), are you really the best person to interpret our community? So I’m stepping in to offer my perspective. I am not a historian or theologian. So, though I try to be informed about the difficult parts of our religion’s past, I can only give you the perspective of what an average member would know or believe about these situations. I undoubtedly will get some of the nuances wrong. This will not be the best place if you’re looking for information about the historical accuracy of the show. (Consider checking FAIR’s guide or Book of Mormon Central.) However, I am an active participant in the larger Latter-day Saint literary community. I’ve written essays about my own life as a woman in the Church and fictional stories about others. I studied Latter-day Saint literature in college and continue reading contemporary Latter-day Saint literature. I am on the board of the Association for Mormon Letters, an organization that promotes literature written by, for, or about those who tie back to the prophet Joseph (including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but not exclusive to our denomination). So you might say I have some experience with portrayals of the Latter-day Saints and separate fundamentalist communities. The purpose of this series of recaps is two-fold. First, I want to summarize the series for ordinary Latter-day Saints who don’t intend to watch it so they won’t be surprised around the metaphorical watercooler this week. Second, I will catalog the series as it compares to Latter-day Saint literature more broadly. As a writer, reader, and advocate of Latter-day Saint literature, this is my home turf. I am interested to see where the show gets things right and wrong. Granted, my experience isn’t the experience of every member; like any community, Latter-day Saints are not a monolith. But I will compare the show to my personal knowledge of our community and talk about what sticks out. Without further ado, here are my impressions of the first two episodes of Under the Banner of Heaven. Episode 1, “When God Was Love”  Summary—The episode opens with Detective Pyre being called away from his family’s Pioneer Day celebrations to visit a crime scene. At an ordinary suburban house, he finds a scene of chaos with a mother (Brenda Lafferty) and her 15-month-old daughter (Erica) murdered in a gruesome way. (Luckily, we are only shown large quantities of blood on the floor and walls; the show shies away from showing the bodies, though we will get hints through dialogue about the exact method of killing.) Soon the husband (Allen Lafferty) is taken into custody, his clothes soaked in his wife’s blood. The killer claims that his wife was murdered by men with beards like “Mormon prophets” and continually ties his wife’s murder back to early church history stories, particularly Joseph and Emma marrying against her father’s will. We then get a flashback to a young Brenda. She is an energetic and ambitious young woman who transfers to BYU after being tired of “holding girl’s hair back while they puked” at her party school in Idaho. Allen introduces Brenda to his family at a large family dinner. His brothers seem both strangely attracted to her and judgmental of her for her ambition and less strict faith (caffeinated soda is mentioned). The Lafferty family band together to clear a neighbor’s land to prevent it from being seized by the federal government to build a highway. In the present, Detective Pyre’s partner Bill visits Allen’s brother Robin’s home and finds the house abandoned and papers burning. They arrest Robin after a chase through a motel. This episode depicts the First Vision. It shows Joseph going to the woods to pray and a light shining down on him. The script draws parallels between Joseph’s prayer and Robin’s prayer in the woods before he is caught by the police, which doesn’t really make much sense except that they are both kneeling in a natural setting. We also get a scene of Joseph and Emma discussing whether to marry against her father’s wishes. The show tries to make a big deal of them choosing between “God’s will” and her father’s authority, implying that the problem is that they can justify almost anything as God’s will. I found this assertion pretty strange, given that Joseph and Emma were hardly the first couple to marry against a parent’s wishes. It seems a thin justification on which to hang a condemnation of trusting God. Shibboleths—It’s apparent that the showrunners have made an effort to try to include jargon of Latter-day Saints in the dialogue. Sometimes this works: the Pyre family prayer scene feels exactly like the ones that take place in my family. Others make it apparent that the writers are not members of the community. While we do refer to God as Heavenly Father, particularly in prayer, we don’t use this term exclusively like the characters in the show. I regularly hear members refer to him as “God” or “the Lord,” and a brief search of the church’s 1980’s general conference talks shows that this isn’t a new innovation. While there is

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This