When tradwife fantasy meets historical reality

Caro Claire Burke’s ‘Yesteryear’ punctures the curated illusion of domestic perfection

|

Estimated time to read:

3–4 minutes
'Yesteryear' by Caro Claire Burke.
‘Yesteryear’ by Caro Claire Burke. (Knopf;Riley Haakon / People.com)

I read Caro Claire Burke’s high­ly antic­i­pat­ed nov­el Yesteryear when it was released in April. When my book club chose it as our August pick, I decid­ed to lis­ten to the audio ver­sion because I was so cap­ti­vat­ed by the book the first time around. 

This entire piece is a spoil­er alert, so if  Yesteryear is still on your TBR list, set this aside until you’ve finished. 

The premise of Yesteryear is lit­er­ary cat­nip. I went in expect­ing an Outlander-style time trav­el tale. Yesteryear is not that. It’s osten­si­bly about a trad­wife influ­encer named Natalie who makes her liv­ing off sell­ing old-fash­ioned val­ues (think @BallerinaFarm, or read my last piece about Trad Wives here if you’re unfa­mil­iar with the term). 

Then Natalie wakes up in the 1800s — no ring light, no pro­duc­tion assis­tant — and is forced to con­front the real­i­ties of a pio­neer life. 

Yesteryear is, among oth­er things, a revenge fan­ta­sy. Not the kind in which a woman escapes a bad mar­riage or brings down a cor­rupt cor­po­ra­tion, but the far more sat­is­fy­ing kind in which an influ­encer who has spent years sell­ing women a fan­ta­sy of domes­tic per­fec­tion is sud­den­ly forced to live inside it. 

Natalie has built an empire around the aes­thet­ics of tra­di­tion­al wom­an­hood. She has eight mil­lion fol­low­ers, six chil­dren, a hand­some cow­boy hus­band, a farm­house that appears to embody rus­tic authen­tic­i­ty, and an Instagram feed full of home­made jam, whole­some meals, beau­ti­ful chil­dren, and care­ful­ly staged domes­tic labor. 

“Natalie’s online life depends on the very moder­ni­ty she claims to reject. She wants sour­dough with­out the end­less labor. She wants sub­mis­sive fem­i­nin­i­ty with­out the legal and eco­nom­ic vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty that has his­tor­i­cal­ly kept women depen­dent on men.” 

Erin Skinner Smith

The joke is that none of it is what it appears to be. The farm­house is sup­port­ed by nan­nies, farmhands, pro­duc­ers, and hid­den indus­tri­al appli­ances. The “effort­less” life is an elab­o­rate pro­duc­tion. The authen­tic­i­ty is a brand. 

When Natalie wakes up in 1855, the woman who has made mil­lions roman­ti­ciz­ing the past has to actu­al­ly live there. The kitchen is no longer a pho­to­genic back­drop for a spon­sored recipe, but a place warmed by a sput­ter­ing fire that must be stoked (Burke spends a lot of page-time describ­ing the bru­tal­i­ties of chop­ping, haul­ing, and stack­ing fire­wood). The chil­dren are no longer adorable acces­sories, but dirty, dif­fi­cult, and strange. Chores are no longer aes­thet­ic rit­u­als, but actu­al work

This is where Yesteryear most effec­tive­ly evis­cer­ates trad­wife cul­ture. It under­stands that the movement’s cen­tral decep­tion is not nec­es­sar­i­ly that women want to cook, gar­den, raise chil­dren, or stay home. The decep­tion is the insis­tence that these choic­es exist out­side sys­tems of labor, mon­ey, tech­nol­o­gy, and pow­er. The lie is that mod­ern women can choose a tra­di­tion­al life with­out acknowl­edg­ing that choice is made pos­si­ble by the fem­i­nists who came before them. 

Never miss a thing with our FREE weekly newsletter.

Natalie’s online life depends on the very moder­ni­ty she claims to reject. She wants sour­dough with­out the end­less labor. She wants sub­mis­sive fem­i­nin­i­ty with­out the legal and eco­nom­ic vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty that has his­tor­i­cal­ly kept women depen­dent on men. 

Yesteryear asks what hap­pens when chil­dren stop being sym­bols and become actu­al peo­ple with needs, resent­ment, ill­ness­es, mess­es, and opinions. 

The gap between the chil­dren Natalie dis­plays and the chil­dren she comes to know is one of the novel’s dark­est indict­ments of influ­encer cul­ture. It seems Natalie likes the idea of chil­dren more than her actu­al kids them­selves. The book asks real ques­tions about the moral­i­ty of turn­ing moth­er­hood into con­tent. Not only is Natalie mis­er­able, but we get the sense the kids will all grow up need­ing lots of therapy. 

Natalie’s tragedy is that she has nev­er per­mit­ted her­self to dis­tin­guish between a real life and an image of one. She has mis­tak­en the per­for­mance for real­i­ty. And once the fil­ters dis­ap­pear, the fan­ta­sy looks a lot like his­to­ry. It’s hard, exhaust­ing, and dangerous. 

Please share this story!