Grim sees a category error in the debate about husbands and wives and household chores. It is not a fun national discussion, because it assumes that Anna and Bob's arrangement is up for criticism by Carol and/or Daniel.
When we became Christians in the 1970s (according to our accounting then - my theology is different now) it was a shocking idea for this Congregationalist who went to an Ivy-wannabee college that I was supposed to have spiritual headship over my wife and and automatically be in charge of the household. Even more surprising were the frequent directions of what that entailed and how I should do it.
But somewhere in the first year it occurred to me: if I am the head of my household, why do these other guys keep telling me what to do? It was a liberating thought. Fifty years later, we have the tasks divided in a fairly traditional arrangement. But not entirely, and it suits us. You wanna make something of it, Mac?
I can see the 'category error' but it felt more to me like another of the themes at Grim's. Analogies always stop working at some point, and it seemed that category error was arrived at by pushing the analogy too far. There are certain features of nearly all successful human organizations such as matching income with expenses, defining goals and charting progress towards them, and establishing fair and defined policies, procedures, and responsibilities. These things will and should have a different look in organizations with different purposes and structures but I don't think that invalidates saying "x should be run like y" unless the speaker simply leaves the implication hanging without filling out the rest of the example.
ReplyDeleteI did notice in the story about the job description exercise the women apparently had no trouble, and no objection, to drawing up a description of husband. (It wasn't noted if the men had objected to what they came up with, though it certainly could have occured.)