Why the ‘Tradwife’ debate topic isn’t dangerous — but the outrage might be
In defence of debate, nuance, and letting kids tackle complex ideas.
This week, a Facebook post by writer Rebecca Sparrow went viral after a parent emailed her in outrage: Debating SA — the organisation that sets topics for interschool debates in South Australia — had given Year 9 students the topic:
“The ‘Trad Wife’ movement is good for women.”
Cue public outcry and a write-up in The Guardian (which is where I was made aware of this controversy) — followed by the requisite social media outrage.
Girls, the argument went, were being “forced” to argue for their own subjugation. The whole thing was called misogynistic. Tone-deaf. Dangerous. Fuel for Andrew Tate-style ideology. A parent who complained to Debating SA said she was hung up on and called a fool. Rebecca weighed in too: “A man is not a financial plan, Sam,” she wrote. “You were right to complain.”
Look, I’m not here to defend the way this complaint was allegedly handled by Debating SA. But the outrage over this debate topic? It misses the point entirely. And frankly? It reveals a worrying misunderstanding of what debate is, what kids are capable of, and how we should be teaching them to engage with complex, controversial ideas — especially in the age of the algorithm.
Let me explain.
What debating actually is (and what it’s not)
I feel particularly well qualified to speak on this, as someone who did high school debating for years (both English and History debating — because I’m just that nerdy — and my team were state runners-up), and I then went on to adjudicate high school debates as a job while I was at uni.
Debating is not an argument. It’s not a shouty panel show. It’s not an opinion piece. It’s not TikTok. It’s a formal, structured skill-building exercise where students are taught how to construct arguments, interrogate different viewpoints, collaborate with a team, develop empathy, speak publicly, and — most importantly — think critically.
Students don’t get to choose the side they’re on. Often they have just an hour to prepare. Each speaker has a clearly defined role. Scoring is based on structure, strategy, engagement with the other team’s arguments — not whether the adjudicator personally agrees with their stance.
The purpose isn’t to “win the argument.” The purpose is to understand it. To get in the habit of pulling ideas apart and asking: what is the strongest version of this position? What are the weakest assumptions underneath it? What values underpin each side?
These are exactly the skills young people need if we want them to grow into thoughtful, resilient participants in democracy — especially at a time when social media platforms are serving them unfiltered, uncritical hot takes 24/7.
Controversial topics aren’t new. They’re the point.
The idea that this topic — “The ‘Trad Wife’ movement is good for women” — is wildly inappropriate is, quite honestly, bizarre to me. Not because it isn’t controversial. But because that’s the whole point of debating: learning how to talk about hard (and topical) things in a structured way.
Let me share a few real debate topics I encountered during my time as a high school debater and adjudicator:
That terrorism achieves its goals
That we should legalise performance-enhancing drugs in sport
That we should allow the sale of human organs
That violence has a place in entertainment
That religion is preventing world peace
That we should prosecute domestic violence offenders without the victim’s consent
That the media has a duty to be provocative
That we should end the Northern Territory intervention (2009)
That schools should be able to use corporal punishment
That the federal government deserves to be re-elected (2007)
None of these topics are gentle. They weren’t supposed to be. They were designed to push students to engage with current affairs, values, policy, and politics in a way that stretched their thinking and taught them to consider ideas beyond their own lived experience.
So no — “The ‘Trad Wife’ movement is good for women” isn’t outside the norm. It’s very much within the remit of how debate topics work.
Let’s talk about this topic
Let’s be clear about the wording. The topic is not: women should be tradwives.
The topic is not: being financially dependent on your husband is ideal.
The topic is not: the patriarchy is good, actually.
The topic is: “The ‘Trad Wife’ movement is good for women.”
That wording matters — because it opens space for interpretation, critique, and framing.
The affirmative team could define the “Trad Wife movement” as a modern revival of 1950s housewife aesthetics. They could argue that it has sparked online conversations about labour, choice, financial dependency, or the cost of living. They could even take a satirical approach: that tradwives are good for women because they make feminism look more necessary than ever.
You don’t have to personally believe in the case you argue in a debate. That’s the point. The skill is in building the argument anyway — and in doing so, learning more about why you don’t believe it.
Boys are part of this, too
What’s also notable about the backlash is how focused it’s been on girls. Specifically, on the idea that girls are being forced to “argue against their own rights.” As if the moment a teenage girl is assigned the affirmative team, she’s suddenly betraying the sisterhood.
But what about the boys?
Why are we not just as focused on giving boys a structured, guided opportunity to engage with ideas about gender, power, and domestic roles? If you think the tradwife movement is dangerous, wouldn’t you want boys learning how to deconstruct it in a safe, educational setting — instead of from a TikTok feed that thinks Andrew Tate is a prophet?
This is the real missed opportunity in the conversation. Boys are already being exposed to these messages. What they’re not always being given is the critical toolkit to unpack them.
Kids aren’t fragile. They’re paying attention.
We live in a time when any discussion of a complex or controversial issue gets flattened into outrage. But I think we do teenagers a huge disservice when we assume they can’t handle nuance.
The truth is: they’ve already heard of tradwives. They’ve seen the content. They’re exposed to gender politics — at home, online, in their communities. Pretending they’re too young to have these conversations doesn’t protect them. It just pushes the conversation underground.
Debating gives them a structured, supported, skill-building way to engage with it. It teaches them how to argue — without yelling. How to disagree — without dehumanising. How to test ideas — without internalising them.
And if you’ve ever been in a Year 9 debate, you’ll know: these kids are more insightful, more funny, and more capable than we often give them credit for.
Final thought
I understand that “tradwife” is a loaded word. I understand the impulse to protect kids from damaging ideas. But I also understand how debate works — and how the world works.
Shielding students from controversial ideas doesn’t keep them safe. Teaching them how to interrogate those ideas might.
If the tradwife movement is dangerous, the solution isn’t silence or postponing the conversation. It’s teaching the next generation how to argue against it — properly.
Your piece needs to be in the Guardian, Lauren!
This 🙌 Lauren!