The answer: yes. We all participate in a variety of domain-based hierarchies. Ontological equality is not thereby called into question. Jeremy Pierce explores the concepts in this recent post. He pursues christological analogies in that context; a very difficult thing to do in a helpful way.
According to Philip Payne, an egalitarian with whose ideas Pierce interacts (Payne’s recently published monograph is reviewed at length by Craig Blomberg here), ontological equality and functional subordination are compatible “as long as that subordination is voluntary and temporary, as was Christ’s voluntary and temporary subordination to the Father in the incarnation (e.g. Phil 2:6-11)” (from Payne’s comment to Blomberg’s review).
The christological analogy is not clarifying to me, but the basic point is reasonable. That is, it stands to reason (and on this point Jeremy agrees): the myriad domain-based hierarchies in which we participate on a daily basis will be no more in the resurrection. They are temporary. On the other hand, it is probable or at least possible that they will be replaced by new domain-based hierarchies just as useful and life-enhancing as the ones we now participate in, with the added blessing that they will be untainted by sin.
Some argue that functional subordination is too dangerous a thing to countenance. Wherever sin and sickness rule, it is dangerous. Somewhere, every day, a father manhandles his son. Somewhere, every day, a mother verbally abuses her daughter. Still, it is absurd to suggest that the parenting relationship, hierarchical on any definition, should therefore be abolished. Somewhere, every day, a teacher, minister, or employer takes advantage, sexually or otherwise, of a pupil, community member, or employee. Still, that is no reason to eliminate the power differential and element of functional subordination intrinsic to those relationships.
The solution is not to replace functional subordinations with functional equalities. The solution is mutual respect, mutual consent, and deference for the other in the context of subordinations and equalities alike of which we are a part. These are matters on which traditionals, complementarians, and egalitarians can agree.