Recently a number of hit pieces and critiques of the cultural phenomenon known as “tradwives”  seem to suggest that progressive feminists are beginning to have a change of heart. Although their stated intention is to detract from the phenomenon, the coverage often ends up looking a bit like a paid endorsement.

Consider a recent viral essay from The Times, “Meet the queen of ‘tradwives’ (and her eight children).” Writer Megan Agnew interviews the popular online influencer Hannah Neeleman who, although she doesn’t understand herself to be what is commonly labeled a “tradwife,” embodies the type more or less completely. Neeleman champions domesticity, motherhood, and traditional femininity at the wildly popular Ballerina Farm, popularized on her eponymous Instagram account which has almost 10 million followers. She also happens to be a beauty queen who is married to a fabulously wealthy husband with whom she lives on a large ranch with their eight beautiful children.

Along with describing Neeleman’s many virtues, Agnew’s piece also includes stunning pictures of Neeleman’s domestic bliss. Somehow, Neeleman can make activities like milking cows, serving dinner to her brood of children, or even giving birth to her seventh child look glamourous.

For those who struggle understanding the appeal of tradwife influencers, this attempt at a hostile profile solves the mystery: Here is a beautiful woman who has scaled the heights of womanhood as our corrupt world stood against her, and yet she has made such a life possible. It’s hard not to be mesmerized by such a person and impulsively purchase the products featured at her website and on her Instagram.

Of course, the great irony is that Agnew’s intention was to disparage tradwives, not celebrate them. While she expresses some qualified sympathy and admiration for Neeleman, she not-so-subtly suggests that her children are an intolerable burden to her and that her husband is a retrograde tyrant: “I can’t, it seems, get an answer out of Neeleman without her being corrected, interrupted or answered for by either her husband or a child.” In Agnew’s telling, Neeleman could have lived a rich and fulfilling life as a ballerina in New York City were it not for the fact that she was strong-armed by a rich Mormon man who wanted to marry and have lots of children.

Agnew mentions other tradwife influencers, such as Nara Smith and Estee Williams who, although popular and ostensibly wholesome, according to Agnew sound as if they were “brainwashed by a cult” and give off “a submissive Fifties housewife vibe.” Agnew insists these influencers cast a dark spell on their audience that turns them into mindless tradwives as well: “Many women I know, who have and want a life that looks totally different, are addicted to watching all this, though others are served it by an algorithm as if it is grooming us into submission.”

Even if Agnew’s worst fears were correct (spoiler: they aren’t), it’s not clear why it would be such a bad thing. When popular media is replete with girlbosses and most major institutions are run by what many on the right have described as the “longhouse,” would society be any worse if more women followed the tradwife example? With ever lower birthrates, a moribund dating culture, and skyrocketing rates of mental illness, it’s entirely sensible to encourage younger women to marry, have children, and master the domestic arts. Moreover, men would also benefit by seeking to measure up to women who could complement and support them instead of thwart and limit them.

But for writers like Agnew, all of this is nothing less than a real-life instance of the dreaded Stepford Wives, the 1975 horror story about a group of strong, independent women turned into soulless submissive housewives by the machinations of their evil husbands. It’s obvious that she believes she is describing every young woman’s nightmare. And yet, much like a now famous Washington Post article denouncing Texas’s pro-life laws by telling the story of a young mother of twins getting her life together, Agnew’s condemnation of the tradwife lifestyle comes off unwittingly makes it even more appealing.

Naturally, given her audience, there were still more than a few people who read the article in the spirit the author intended, expressing pity for Neeleman while spewing endless invective against her husband and his unconscionable mansplaining. But it’s hard not to see at least some of this as the defensive posture of insecure people who envy Neeleman and all she has. Indeed, it is difficult not to imagine a scene where Neeleman confronts these critics, much like the famous scene from Mad Men where a younger character tells his superior, Don Draper, that he feels bad for him. Draper cooly replies, “I don’t think about you at all.”

While the temptation for fans who follow Neeleman and support the tradwife movement is to deride detractors as pathetic “cat ladies,” this is both counterproductive and unfair. Most women (and men) have been conditioned to view empowerment through the unimaginative lens of affluence and status. Consequently, the sacrifices made for the sake of marriage and children overshadow the long-term benefits that result.

And, in all fairness, it’s important to acknowledge that Neelemen is an outlier. Her sacrifices are not so obvious, and her life certainly comes across as glamourous. Most women, however, are not ballerina beauty queens, and most men are not the sons of billionaires who can afford to play farmer and build a brand from the effort. Not only is pretending otherwise futile, but it can also lead to truly horrific stories—like that of popular right-wing influencer, Lauren Southern, who, by aspiring for the tradwife ideal too zealously, did herself great harm.

This is not to say that the tradwife trend is necessarily mere escapism, although it certainly can be for some. Yet its popularity and allure point to something fundamental about the human condition today: the great desire in today’s world to recover a more organic, traditional, and innocent way of life. Instead of scorning the instinct, we should be asking how we might best answer it. Therefore, it would be far more constructive and persuasive to promote policies and values that would enable more women to become the best wives, mothers, and homemakers they can be. Rather than attacking or defending various famous tradwives living out unattainable fairytales, we should seek a happy medium of truly empowered generations of women freely embracing their femininity and succeeding on their own terms.