From: Kathryn Aegis (aegis@igc.apc.org)
Date: Fri Nov 27 1998 - 11:47:50 MST
Sasha, et al:
(Hope everyone is having a restful holiday)
My perspective on this: the very concepts of 'feminine' and 'masculine' are
in themselves cultural constructs based almost entirely on religious
superstitions. A central set of human characteristics was arbitrarily
divided into one of the two categories, and it is taught as part of most
religious dogma. But, other than a desire to maintain a certain societal
structure, there exists absolutely no rational basis for continuing this
division of 'masculine/feminine', or for connecting the characteristsics so
strongly with dominant and subservient roles. To do so only perpetuates
irrational and entropic memes, rather than breaking new ground.
I would also ask you to explain why it is so 'necessary' for some people to
lead and other people to take on subservient roles, when in most advancing
associations and corporations most persons are considered individual
contractors, equal members of a team. All indications are that standing
concepts of heirarchy will not survive the marketplace (Read: _The Fifth
Discipline_). A strong level of testosterone in any person might make them
ceo of a corporation, but it might as easily render them 'persona non grata'
in the changing world of learning corporations and horizontal heirarchies.
The 'meek' may indeed inherit, simply by being able to work effectively with
others, or by their desire to work independently outside of heirarchy.
Neither path requires real agressiveness, only skill, determination and
perserverance--three qualities that are not particularly informed by
hormonal levels. The market landscape ahead: individual autonomous
contractors and team-oriented corporations.
Kathryn Aegis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:51 MST