Re: Gender and Cognitive Style

Kathryn Aegis (
Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:47:50 -0800 (PST)

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