"What makes a life successful? We grow up absorbing templates about who we should become—often without realizing it. In my therapy work, I see this question arise in different forms, through different people, across cultures, ages, and genders. Today’s session was no different. An intelligent, ambitious young woman, struggling with the invisible rules of life that dictate what success looks like."
"She is a law student, highly driven, and from a privileged background where ambition and achievement are central values. Her family follows a traditional structure: her father, a businessman, is the provider; her mother, a homemaker, the caregiver. Even within her own family, even by my own female client, this structure is subconsciously reinforced. Why? There is an unspoken hierarchy here: he is respected, she is not. Why?"
"And my client, watching this, wondering about her own future, asks herself: If I follow my father’s path, can I succeed? I admire that he demands respect. Or at least I feel this way towards him. Can I be like him and not like my mum? Is that even a good thing?"
"She realizes that wanting to take up that role—a role she associates with men—demands courage. There is no template for women. Our society was created by the repetition of templates—reinforced so often that they appear as ‘natural’ rather than constructed. And one of those templates is the gendered division of labour and value."
"Our world was built on certain assumptions, repeated for centuries until they became ‘truths’. Here’s how the gender role template evolved over time:"
Ancient Societies: Women were caretakers, healers, and responsible for community cohesion, while men hunted, fought wars, and controlled leadership roles. Property, inheritance, and decision-making were male domains.
Middle Ages & Feudal Europe: Women worked, but always in supporting roles—either in agriculture, textiles, or as homemakers. Men controlled trade, politics, and economic power.
Victorian Era (19th Century): The "Cult of Domesticity" idealized women as pure, moral guardians of the home, while men pursued financial success. Women’s unpaid labour was expected, but invisible in economic terms.
Post-WWII 1950s America: After working during the war, women were pushed back into domestic roles. The male breadwinner model was celebrated as the gold standard for family success.
1970s Feminist Movement: Women entered the workforce in large numbers, but mostly in lower-paid, service-based jobs. The wage gap remained, and caregiving roles were still predominantly female.
Today: Women have more opportunities but still bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilities, often at the expense of career advancement. Men who choose caregiving professions or prioritize family are often judged or undervalued.
"So, if women have only really been allowed into the workforce since the 1950s, we are babies when it comes to taking the horse and carriage of leadership and financial power. But the feminist movement isn't just about swapping places with men—it’s about changing the system itself. It’s about making sure that caregiving jobs are valued financially as much as other forms of work—and that both men and women have the freedom to do both."
"This isn’t just my client’s story. It’s the story of how we measure worth in society. Economic productivity is still rewarded more than caregiving. The work of nurturing—whether raising children, supporting a family, or even emotional labour—is often invisible, undervalued, or dismissed entirely. It is taken for granted, which begs the question: if it is not valued, why should I do it?"
"And yet, as a society, we depend on caregiving. Or do we? I know I quite like having someone look after me, but doing that work for others will be seen as less than, not as important. It’s not measurable like numbers are. If someone says, ‘I earn a six-figure salary,’ that’s measurable. What is the measure for someone that cares for others? What is the equivalent for a career in caregiving?"
"Right now, this debate is at the forefront of American culture. Figures like Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Mark Zuckerberg have been vocal about the need for ‘male energy’ in leadership and society. But what does that even mean? Are they pointing to ambition, assertiveness, and power? And if so, why are these qualities seen as inherently masculine? Is the real conversation about restoring male dominance—or about recognizing that our current system undervalues anything outside of wealth and power?"
"And if we take this further—is capitalism male, and is socialism female? Capitalism rewards competition, dominance, wealth accumulation. Socialism, in theory, values community, collective support, redistribution. Could it be that the ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ forces in society aren’t just about gender, but about which types of work and value systems we prioritize?"
"The fact that this conversation is happening at all suggests that something is shifting. The idea of what it means to be ‘a provider’ is being challenged. Women like my client are asking whether they have to mimic traditional masculinity to succeed, or whether success itself needs redefining. A massive challenge in its own right. And at the same time, the role of the caregiver—whether in parenting, education, or emotional labour—remains unrecognized in economic terms. And that is a fact of life."
"If financial reward = power, influence, respect, and freedom of choice, then should women be more ‘male’? Or is the real feminist movement a request for possibility? A chance to rewrite the structure, rather than just swapping who gets to sit in the chair?"
"And perhaps, just perhaps, men would be able to have the choice of caring, of being carers, of looking after people without being laughed at, without losing respect, without being diminished because of it. Maybe then, it wouldn’t matter so much whether you are male or female. What would matter is what do you choose to do for a living? What choices do you think are right for you?"
"So, I leave you with this question: If financial success is tied to power and respect, and caregiving is still undervalued, how do we change the rules? Do we redefine what success means, or do we continue playing by the same template? And what do you, personally, believe is worth doing with your life?"
Comments