Generally speaking, men and women or, to do justice to the noumenal/phenomenal distinctions of class and/or plane, males and females are equally positive and equally negative in their different and effectively opposite ways, as between energy/motion and gravity/force, whether noumenal or phenomenal.
But, having said that, I must not overlook the fact that the same is true, in their opposite ways, of pseudo-males and pseudo-females, whose distinctions between pseudo-gravity/pseudo-force on the one hand and pseudo-energy/pseudo-motion on the other indubitably exist as the subordinate complementarities of the respective kinds of hegemonies of females and males proper.
* * * *
If you cannot be wise, at least (as a male) be a fool to yourself rather than to somebody else.
* * * *
The male in one context can become a pseudo-male in another, a pseudo-female in one context the female in another. Everyone and everybody exists in a state of constant flux due, in large part, to the complexities of societal, familial, and other relationships, with appropriate changes of status that mirror the fluctuations of life, not least in axial terms.
* * * *
In football, the attacking, or offensive, players are akin to energy in motion and the defensive players, by contrast, to force in gravity, so that there is a kind of left/right, radical/conservative distinction between forwards and defenders, with some players, habituated to playing in midfield positions, more liberally and, hence, centrally if not neutrally, coming in between the defenders and the attackers.
There is also a sense, it seems to me, in which a hegemonic/subordinate relationship, or parallel, is established between the winning and losing sides, although a drawn game would suggest the inability of either team to hegemonically prevail, with neutral (if not gender-neuter) implications.
* * * *
Much of what passes for culture with people is simply a reflection, on sublimated and artificial terms, of the basic dichotomy in life between energy in motion and the force of gravity, with largely female/male implications that normally run along objective/subjective lines in relation to the particle/wavicle distinctions between vacuum and plenum, competition and cooperation, individualism and collectivism.
* * * *
One could argue that St. George and the Dragon, the former in the process of slaying the latter, perfectly symbolizes the curbing if not neutralizing of energy/motion by gravity/force, and that there is consequently a gender paradigm in which conservatism triumphs over liberalism or radicalism, like males over females.
Indeed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that males, when true to themselves (subjectively biased towards psyche) are inherently reactionary, reacting against the actions, in free will and spirit, of females, whose natural disposition, rooted in a vacuum, is to objectively 'come on' to males according to need and requirement.
Even at the chromosomal level, a XX differs somewhat from an XY, and it is, I believe, the Y aspect, as it were, of the male which makes him suspicious of if not inherently opposed to the advances of the female's XX, fearing that his X will be the thin end of the wedge that allows the female to seduce him from and even corrupt his Y, thereby leaving him at cross-purposes with his soul, his true self, in a divided loyalty that smacks of psychic ambivalence.