You are being too extreme in interpreting me. In my view, physical femininity carries with it attributes which are the opposite of the attributes of physical masculinity. Chief among these are aggression and passivity which I would characterize as equal and opposite approaches to life. That is to say that in dealing with one's co inhabitants of the neighborhood, we can choose one or the other or some mixture in between. To the extent a culture identifies with one or the other, they can be characterized as a feminine or masculine culture. As examples of this perspective, I point to China and Europe. One could just as well point to a tribe occupying the highlands of Venezuela who plant among the weeds and view us as despoilers of the planet as a particularly feminine tribe and the Nazis as a particularly masculine tribe. But, it is also true that humans can be drawn into conflict whether feminine or masculine, usually because of incursions into territory they consider to be under their control.
I have chosen to use the phrases physical femininity and physical masculinity because the term gender seemed to be causing some confusion from Thadd’s posts. What I am discussing is cultural but barely. It is not a conscious decision as in Thadd’s cultural gender but an aspect of culture chosen at some point in the distant past and transmitted from generation to generation via family relationships, I suppose. As such, it would be responsible for idealizing non action over action as in Taoism.



Meden Agan
[homepage.mac.com]