Subscribe
In contemporary debates about gender dynamics, the dominant narrative in the Western world tends to promote an idea of female empowerment and well-being that is closely tied to the standards of hyper-connected modernity. Self-esteem, personal fulfilment, and a sense of one’s own strength are often measured through very specific indicators: a career within the global labour market, individual financial independence, and the pursuit of physical and psychological well-being through gyms, aesthetic treatments, mental coaching, and dietary supplements.
This vision undoubtedly represents a hard-won achievement for millions of women, who find in these tools a space for freedom, self-care, and personal fulfilment. The opportunities offered by contemporary society are a valuable set of resources for those who wish to make use of them. The purpose of a genuinely conservative reflection should never be to judge, belittle, or demonise the individual choices of modern women, nor to make those who benefit from the fruits of progress feel guilty.
Yet the conceptual limitation of this model lies in its claim to be the only valid one. When a particular form of empowerment is elevated into the sole acceptable standard, it can produce a paradoxical and unintended effect: the cultural marginalisation of those who choose—or simply find themselves living—a different path. A woman who devotes her life to caring for her home and family, a homemaker looking for employment but struggling to find a place in the labour market, or a woman whose daily life unfolds far from the dynamics of large metropolitan cities may often find herself exposed to a subtle form of social devaluation. Sometimes portrayed with condescension or pity, she is mistakenly perceived as weak, incomplete, or lacking the tools needed to develop a strong sense of self-worth.
There is, however, another narrative: an alternative model rooted more deeply in the lived history of Southern Europe, showing that dignity and emotional resilience can grow from entirely different foundations. It is the lesson offered by women raised in small rural villages, mountain towns, and farming communities—women who went through life without ever being exposed to the constant bombardment of mass media, wellness marketing, or the validation of social networks.
This phenomenon, particularly evident in southern Italy, is by no means merely a local exception. The same central role played by women in family and community life can be found, in different forms and to varying degrees, across other rural societies of the Mediterranean and its historical sphere of influence. Elements of this structure can be recognised in rural Spain, particularly Andalusia and Galicia; in rural Anatolia in Turkey; on the Greek islands and in the inland regions of Epirus; in the Portuguese countryside; and in various rural communities across the Maghreb. Despite the profound differences in their histories, religions, traditions, and social structures, these regions often share a strong centrality of women in managing the family, passing down collective memory, and maintaining the continuity of community life.
What emerges, therefore, is a kind of widespread everyday matriarchal structure across the Mediterranean: not necessarily a form of matriarchy understood as women’s political or institutional dominance, but rather a form of concrete, informal authority exercised through care, responsibility, the organisation of the household, and the preservation of family relationships.
The lives of these women bear little resemblance to the sanitised formulas of modern communication. Their lives were marked by hard work, stripped of excess, and shaped by the natural rhythms of the land and the community. In homes that were often large and inhabited by extended or patriarchal families, individual needs were consistently subordinated to those of the collective. Their days were structured around tangible responsibilities: working the fields, preparing seasonal preserves, processing meat, keeping the home meticulously clean, and managing the household’s limited financial resources.
This form of female strength is not exclusive to the Mediterranean. Northern Europe, too—particularly its rural societies—has a tradition of women accustomed to hard work, responsibility, running a household, and confronting life’s difficulties in practical terms. In the countryside of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, in rural Icelandic communities, and in agricultural areas of Denmark, women have historically—and continue today—to play an integral role in the family economy and in the everyday management of the home and farm.
The context is, of course, different. In the Mediterranean, traditional female strength tends to be above all a strength rooted in relationships: the woman is the centre of the family network, the link between generations, and the custodian of memory and kinship ties. In Northern Europe, particularly in more isolated rural settings, the same strength may take the form of practical self-reliance: the ability to deal with work, long distances, harsh weather, geographical isolation, and everyday difficulties without always being able to rely on an extensive family network.
These are therefore different expressions of the same fundamental quality: the confidence that one can rely on one’s own abilities.
In the Mediterranean, this sense of self-efficacy tends to express itself through responsibility towards others; in Northern Europe, it may emerge more strongly through independence and self-reliance. In both cases, however, strength does not necessarily arise from the pursuit of external approval. It comes from the concrete experience of having faced reality.
Alongside physical hardship, the factor that shaped their character more than anything else was direct confrontation with suffering. Far removed from the forms of support or theoretical frameworks offered by contemporary psychology, these women witnessed devastating and premature losses. Many lost their husbands at a young age to work-related exhaustion or illness; many others endured the immense tragedy of losing a child, taken from them by sudden illness or road accidents on provincial roads.
According to the contemporary paradigm of fragility, such a burden of suffering and deprivation should, theoretically, lead to surrender, depression, or a loss of identity. Yet observable reality tells a different story.
When we observe these women in their everyday surroundings—in their dark clothing worn as a sign of mourning, their hair tied back, their faces marked by deep wrinkles, and their hands hardened by soil and work—we do not see defeated human beings. On the contrary, what emerges is a quiet and unquestionable moral authority. Though they may never have set foot in a gym, never had access to coaching, and never sought professional recognition beyond the boundaries of their local community, these women display an extraordinarily high degree of self-esteem and self-awareness.
The key to understanding this strength lies in the psychological and sociological concept of self-efficacy. Whereas modern self-esteem is often built around the search for external validation—whether through digital approval, an aesthetic ideal attainable only through continuous consumption, or a corporate title—the self-efficacy of Southern women arises from the pragmatic certainty that they are indispensable.
These women have always understood that they were the invisible yet unshakable pillars upon which the survival of the family and the social fabric of the community depended. Without their organisational skills, their care work, their ability to manage family relationships, and their resilience in the face of suffering, the entire community ecosystem would have collapsed. This awareness requires no elaborate theory: it translates into an inner sense of pride and confidence in one’s own abilities that does not depend on passing trends or other people’s opinions.
This self-efficacy becomes especially evident at moments of upheaval, when circumstances force them to stand on their own. Challenging the idea that a lack of formal education or exposure to modern life makes people incapable of dealing with complexity, these women demonstrate a remarkable capacity for adaptation. It is not uncommon to encounter women who have been widowed later in life and who, despite never having driven a car before, decide to obtain a driving licence for the first time in their later years. With a calm but unwavering determination, they learn to navigate motorway traffic, deal with municipal bureaucracy, manage household finances independently, and remain constantly present for relatives receiving treatment in hospital.
This is real autonomy, not autonomy put on display—an independence acquired not to promote an ideology, but to fulfil a duty of love and responsibility towards their loved ones and themselves. It demonstrates that independence is not the preserve of a particular social class or lifestyle, but a quality of the spirit that develops wherever there is a strong sense of duty and belonging.
This form of quiet autonomy also has a significant parallel among women in rural Northern European communities. Where distances are vast, winters are long, and communities are more sparsely populated, practical self-reliance becomes an everyday necessity. The ability to organise the household, carry out one’s work, manage resources, and make decisions in conditions of isolation represents a form of self-efficacy that needs no announcement.
This is where an interesting cultural distinction emerges. The Mediterranean woman tends to express, through her actions: “I have to be there for my family.” The rural Northern European woman may more readily embody another principle: “I have to be able to manage on my own.” Two different expressions of strength, yet both grounded in concrete responsibility and confidence in one’s own abilities.
The conclusion of this reflection is neither nostalgia for its own sake nor a desire to propose an impossible return to the past. No one is arguing that the economic hardships or material suffering endured by previous generations should be romanticised as a model to be fully replicated. Medical progress, technology, improved living conditions, and the expansion of opportunities available to women are positive developments that should be preserved.
The underlying message concerns the plurality of values. For conservative philosophy, tradition is not ashes to be guarded out of resignation, but a living fire from which lessons can be drawn for the present. At a time when many women—particularly those whose lives revolve around the home, full-time motherhood, or the difficult search for a path of their own—feel burdened by a sense of inadequacy in relation to prevailing models, the example of women from Southern Europe, and beyond, offers a vital point of reference.