The idea of becoming a “soft girl” – a woman who embrace values that are seen as soft, such as beauty and family life, at the expense of a career – is an emerging trend among some social media influencers. Soft girls often opt to be financially supported by a boyfriend or husband. In this way, the soft girl can be seen as similar to an aspiring housewife or “trad wife”, another popular role on social media.
Even in Sweden, a country famous for its gender equality policies and repeatedly ranked as number one among countries in the Gender Equality Index, soft girls are reportedly on the rise.
This has lead to a heated debate in the country over the past year. Soft girl was even recognised as a “new word” by a Swedish government authority, the Institute for Language and Folklore, in December 2024.
The influence of this social media trend stands in stark contrast to the movement that stopped housewife from being a common role for women in Sweden by the 1980s, after a government campaign to encourage women to get jobs.
The traditional housewife emerged in Sweden and other parts of the world in parallel with the transition from a rural to an industrial society. While men were employed in industry, more and more married women became homemakers in the 1930s, peaking in the 1950s.
Far from all married women were housewives at the time, but a flourishing housewife ideal underpinned certain cultural and social behaviour, not least in middle class families. However, the role of the housewife was already being questioned by the early 1960s.
Specifically, its strict definition according to gender was heavily criticised for undermining women’s rights and opportunities. Alongside these demands, an increasing labour shortage paved the way for a new understanding of the family, marked by individual social rights and gender equality.
Internet Archive Book Images, CC BY-SA
This transformation of the family was made possible through various reforms such as individual taxation, the introduction of the parental leave insurance, the expansion of public childcare and active labour market policies.
However, reforms were not the only means used at the time. Innovative campaigns and opinion-shaping activities also took place.
The campaigns in Sweden in the 1960s were mainly orchestrated by the then powerful government authority, the National Labour Market Board (AMS). To reach out to the homemakers, civil servants working within AMS developed and launched several highly profiled campaigns.
They were broadcast on TV and radio and published in national and local newspapers. One example was the radio show Hemmafru Byter Yrke (The Housewife Switches Jobs) in which housewives could learn more about the possibilities that came with a paid job.
Activation inspectors
To make it even more attractive for housewives to go back to work, AMS also introduced a specially designed civil servant position, the activation inspector. These inspectors were tasked with informing housewives about working life on a local level, and to “influence and change” negative opinions and prejudices concerning women as wage workers.
These activation inspectors were effectively the influencers of the 1960s. They worked in close cooperation with local job centres but also through direct contact with women. They used public places for information purposes, like the lobbies of cinemas or community centres, often offering a cup of coffee while discussing how women best could enter the labour market. Even door knocking was used as a method to reach housewives.
The argument was straightforward. A paid job contributed not only to personal growth, but to economic independence and freedom for the woman, and ultimately a better life. A society built on such premises benefited all citizens’ wellbeing, they argued, and it was a prerequisite for a prosperous welfare state.
No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.
Read more from Quarter Life:
-
Why don’t more women choose to propose to their male partners?
-
Early pregnancy endings are an overlooked workplace issue – here’s how that could change
As my research has shown, many housewives hesitated when approached by activation inspectors. They wondered if they could they meet the expectations placed on them by having a job.
But most women eventually started working. Having your own income and not beinf dependant on your husband appears to have become more attractive than being a housewife.
It is difficult to establish exactly how many women entered the labour force because of these campaigns. What we do know is that in 20 years, between 1960 and 1980, the housewife nearly disappeared and was replaced by a gainfully employed woman. This suggests the influencers in combination with the policies enacted may have been very successful.
Lessons for today
Today, women and men work almost the same amount in Sweden. And most young women will probably continue to pursue careers.
But it’s still important to critically debate why the soft girl trend has emerged.
There remain many gender inequalities in Sweden, including differences in disposable income, the labour market segregation, women taking the lion’s share of unpaid care responsibilities. Some women probably feel sick of doing it all.
But the the solution doesn’t have to be for women to step away from the labour market. The alternative would be to put even more pressure on men to take on care and household responsibilities.
Employers could also be pressured to take more responsibility, offering better working conditions. The fact that women are struggling doesn’t mean equality isn’t beneficial – it means we don’t have equality yet.
Perhaps it is instead time to activate some of the arguments from the 1960s influencers, to meet the arguments made by the soft girls. Becoming an independent woman is still an ideal to fight for.
Åsa Lundqvist receives funding from: Swedish Research Council
