Sex roles: Industrial model vs. Modern model? Neither

Posted on January 23, 2013 by


Full-time working outside home Husband/SAHM industrial model vs. Full-time working outside home modern married couple with daycare/strange nannies? How about neither. The blogger Elusive Wapiti has an interesting post once again about high-status professional women and the male apex fallacy:

Here, at the end, is the key point. All those high-powered jobs that
apex-fallacy-subscribing women covet generally have the SAHM family model built
into the job description. Which then begs the question: Why again does one
pursue a job, in which those who have been successful in the past hail from the
Industrial-age working father/SAHM family model, as one half of a
two-earner-with-kids couple, and expect the same outcome as those fellows you
spy at the top of the pyramid?

I have another question too. Why the fixation on this? As a society (except for one or two SES classes) we could get away from both of these models. Both models assume a world where the labour and the household are divided and where at least one of the parents doesn’t have much contact with their own children. We need to return to the model where household and labour are united. And to moderation. Not equality, just moderation. Things like small/moderate/local family businesses, homeschooling/local schooling, homebirths, nuclear and extended family together and other stuff. Not dependence. Not independence. But interdependence.

Some can be MNCs (multinational corporations), and we should encourage them, but with the advancement of technology how hard will it be to return to a cultural model before the industrial revolution? Or even post-industrial revolution? With technology can’t we become a little bit self-sufficient enough for local produce and companies? A father and a mother are both important for children. Both can work part-time near their homes and have contact with their kids. Aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, friends, neighbors, acquaintances and strangers existed too.

Wasn’t that the societal model beforehand? Wasn’t the home given great importance? It wasn’t called the head of the household for nothing folks. The man was in the house too. Both men and women were part of the home. And part of communities. And part of a society. Work and family meshed together. Sometimes foreigners came in. Now it’s all strangers or just your hermit family. There are many women and their male counterparts (of whatever SES, background, culture, religion) who are stuck in the professional career couples (“power couples”) vs. SAHM model (with liberal egalitarian behavior thrown in where the man just has to do the dishes so the wife doesn’t feel oppressed).

But once again this assumes that most are part of the top 5%, top 1% or even the 0.01%. And don’t even get me started on playing career women (feminist merit badge anyone?). Please remember though, that these people are not insignificant. They are an essential part of society as well. They are leaders. Don’t think of eradicating them. We can’t all be followers or leaders or whichever. It’s just the lack of realism. The rest of society should just wise up and stop playing these useless games. Trade-offs exist and are the cause for much of the “wage gap” myth. Just accept reality.

Don’t be cynical or an idealist. Be in-between. Be realistic. If you enroll at a profession where people demand to work full-time to earn promotions or bonuses, then do it. Don’t create lawsuits and discrimination policies to distort the natural results of one’s market. A couple of people will be rich, some will be middle-class and others will be poor. Why not accept the hierarchy as a whole? Why not accept inequality? Why not see authority as inevitable? What is wrong with the modern world? Or is this the post-modern world?