I was thinking yesterday as I was watching a package enroute from Schezwan, China or some similar name, that the Chinese seem perfectly happy to function as our manufacturer. They seem to be emulating the experience of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Then I thought how dissimilar this behavior is from the countries of the Middle East. There must be some reason for the difference unless one imagines that humans act in random ways as a response to identical stimuli. I think, as some probably guess, that the answer lies in the reliance that people place on aggression. Some will imagine that they might seem to their associates, in a subordinate role with respect to America (The United States) if they are too ready to cooperate, and that perception of subordination could lead to an attack by someone desirous of having what they have. To them, it might seem a better fit with their self image if they were the inventor and America did the manufacturing. Of course if they had no aptitude for invention that would be a problem, but if it were sufficiently important they might just opt out of the relationship altogether. Of course that might not sit too well with those that needed jobs, but if authority were sufficiently centralized that might not matter.

Some might respond that creativity wouldn’t be expected to vary much from culture to culture but if children are encouraged from very early to react creatively when confronted by a problem they will be more creative in adulthood than the same children that are punished for reacting that way. So the question is: are children reared on a culture wide basis in this way? If parents are rewarded or punished by a governing authority for creativity, then this would be the expectation. Or if large numbers of the culture feel threatened when confronted by children acting in non conformist ways, that would do it too.

That brings us to ideology. What if one’s religion rewarded conformity? The answer is obvious. So, looking at religions in general, they all seem to have creeds and punish non conformists as heretics, especially if the religion is official. But, China seems to lack an official religion. They appear to have pockets of admiration for this religion or that but no officially recognized one. Things are more or less the same in Korea and Japan. North Korea is an exception and correctly identified as an experiment. For the purposes of this essay, we consider religion and ideology the same.

Then why, one might ask, is America so creative? It has a religion that is fairly widespread. True, but not an official one. In addition, America has recently recognized that economically we are reliant on creativity, thus the admiration in some quarters for entrepreneurs. In addition, the original settlers in America were escaping repressive religion in England.

The larger question here is in what way ideology coincides with or opposes aggression. I have dealt with that elsewhere, but a summary can be found here:

As will be seen there, aggression leads to creativity because at the most basic level any alteration to the environment when humans are responsible can be labeled creativity and when quality is wanted, order is imposed to distinguish between the good and bad. Aggression requires that one act and action necessarily alters the environment in some way.

Some will complain that it is impossible to associate attributes with the sexes due to complexity and exceptions. I would respond that the technique to apply is trial and error. One guesses and then watches for exceptions. When an attribute is found that has few exceptions and those can be explained, it can be tentatively accepted. In reality, intuition is relied upon. As time goes bye the list will be refined and items can be prioritized. In the end the means by which a lesser attribute grows out of a more important one can be identified.

Of course, Western academic ideology opposes this kind of analysis, supposing as they do that it could lead to racial or sexual discrimination. But, I’m a masculinist and therefor place a high value on understanding. Academia has begun to value relationships more highly. As can be seen from the above chart, the feminine is passive and non creative and if one reflects on the traditional occupation of females it should be clear that one important requirement of this occupation is the nurturance of relationships. The first requirement is to successfully prepare children for the world. This will include the provision of sustenance and safety. Safety can be enhanced by the development and maintenance of relationships. Contemplation of a typical family in which the male hunts and the female guards the children and the efficiency of this method of insuring survival should make it clear why these choices have been made and the reinforcement over endless generations, just as in the cultivation of flowers will make this a genetic requirement. The reasons for the change in academia should also be clear. Feminism began a world wide resurgence in the second half of the twentieth century probably resulting from World War II. So, why is aggression good for hunting and passivity good for maintenance of the family? Because Nature says so, for one thing. A nursing mother can’t afford to take a month off for hunting. A father can’t afford to take a month off to groom the feathers of his neighbors. Aggressive men are critical observers. This is not good for relationships. It is, however, very good for deciding what and where to hunt.

It remains then to justify the contention that the Chinese are more feminine by this definition than Western cultures. The first step is to satisfy oneself that the idea is true. A simple example will suffice. Where and why was the computer invented? In Western Europe and America because they invented a practical means of exploiting electrical energy. It wasn’t random chance but a stepwise progression based on the scientific principle. Why would such an event be related to geography? Because humans migrate from time to time due to environmental factors. The most common environmental factor is population pressure. The original tribes that settled in China had a feminine orientation (again by the above definition). Why did they have a feminine orientation? They admired the Earth and viewed it as their creator. They were inclined to accept what nature provided rather than exploit nature in hopes of finding something better. This doesn’t imply they are anti technology, just that they are unlikely to invent it. If the technologists come up with something useful, they will copy it. The West not only invented the computer, they also invented the gun, the steam engine, mass production, successful aircraft, calculus, the telescope, and they exploited their inventions economically. And America wins this race decisively. Exploiting a new country and exploding population partly explains it, but invention is also critical.

Thus the Chinese are historically more feminine by the above definition and Europeans are more masculine. Who cares? Only those that, like me, enjoy understanding for its own sake and those that like to predict the future.

So, dear reader, if you object to this line of reasoning, is your objection the definition of how gender manifests itself in the human personality or just the identification of cultures as favoring one or the other? If the former, I would appreciate your objections and the reasons for them. If the latter, will you explain to me why some cultures favor darker skin or a differently structured eyelid. You can claim environmental factors in explaining pigmentation but the structure of the eyelid is harder and females exercising their ability to choose seems likely to be important. If, on the other hand, you are opposed for the same reasons as academia, you needn’t point that out as I am fully aware of that objection. Thus far, objections seem to be based on the historical existence of Genghis Khan and the domination of Vietnam. I grant that during the Khan era and various other dynasties, some Chinese relied on aggression. But this reflects the personality of the ruler, not the people. I began this article by comparing China with Arabia. This seems to me the most fruitful line. China is always cooperative and adopts our economic principles even when they conflict with their ideology. Arabia is ever critical of America.

Bye the way, it matters not how one identifies himself. If one admires a passive entity, he will gradually become passive and the reverse. The Earth never acts or reacts. It has indigestion from time to time. The sun does nothing except shine and impregnate the Earth more or less continuously.