In response to comments on my assertion that cultures have genders too on:

There seems to be some residual interest in this topic.

In mulling over the responses here, I would say they are universally negative in tone. Why is this? I believe I am polite throughout? So, if not me, then it must be the content? I believe I maintain my objectivity throughout? I couldn’t be accused of proselytizing? What then is the offending content? The purported issue is what to name gender at the cultural level, though the real issue seems to be whether there is any such thing. I believe Roxana said no. But others seemed to feel that response was inadequate. One suggested that the implications bothered him, but could not or would not identify the worrisome implications. He also accused me of Eurocentrism and disrespecting Buddha and Gandhi. Maybe he meant that I associated positive qualities with masculinism and negative ones with feminism? How could that be if he didn’t agree with the cultural gender idea? Maybe he was suggesting I was associating negative qualities with women? I took pains to explain that the attributes I associate with the sexes exist in both genders. I realize this is difficult to grasp but Greg referred to it several times. Many disagreed with the concept on an individual example basis. To which I responded that individual cases don’t demonstrate or refute a generalization. I have wondered if this is not the natural conflict to be expected between the philosophical view and history?

In the end, I’m inclined to favor politics as the answer. Americans, in particular, feel that they have been burned by ascribing too much importance to racial and gender differences and the safest course is to throw out the baby with the bath water in this case. As a short term measure, perhaps they are right. However, as long as we continue to believe salvation is to be found in education, it can’t work in the long term. Especially for Egyptologists. Highly educated academics are going over AE art and writing trying to fathom the meaning. Since Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Set are representative of the cosmic family and Set and Osiris are reminiscent of Cain and Abel, ignoring gender in their analysis will inevitably lead to failure.

The questions are legion:

Why is the king of the dead imagined to be male?

What is the argument between Osiris and Set?

Why is Horus represented as a hawk?

What is the significance of the eye symbol?

Why is the sun frequently depicted as a part of images of the gods?

Why is the night sky thought of as feminine?

Why is the earth thought of as masculine?

Gender is very important to western religion and especially to the AE’s. Only by understanding that fact and the reasons for it, is success in the effort to understand them to be expected. The idea that nothing useful can be learned by comparing races and cultures is obviously untrue. It is dangerous knowledge though and the consequences of invalid conclusions are painful. In the endless argument between nature versus nurture some insight can be gained. The conclusion depicted in "My Fair Lady", transforming a person from the lower class to the upper in six months, is certainly too optimistic but it can be managed over a few generations as demonstrated by the US experience. I believe, though, that it is not practically possible if the subject is too old when the exercise is started. I imagine that, in the case of gender the same result can be expected. I think that the experience of the last two hundred years has also demonstrated that the differences between humans is minor and attributable to culture.

I am indebted to paleopeasant for pointing out the similarity between my beliefs and those of Ruth Benedict. Her categorization of this feature of society as Apollonian and Dionysian is right on the mark, though my association with gender I would contend is more useful. Boaz’s idea of cultural relativism is also useful.

Finally, I would appeal to all to avoid associating my views with gender at the personal level. As I have repeatedly said, we all have the potential within to be anything we choose. My favorite masculine woman is Margaret Thatcher. My favorite feminine man is Sir Paul McCartney. Femininity and masculinity are qualities of the universe. Humans just express them in their attitudes towards life.

I thought since I posed these questions, I should offer up my answers:

This god, Osiris is reputed to be the bringer of civilization to Egypt.

"According to the original legend, Osiris was originally king over Egypt and civilised the nation with the assistance of Thoth's inventions of writing, law, the arts, and science."

So, the question becomes, what, specifically is required of the bringer of civilization? I would suggest that this person would bring a concept that had the power to teach the people to think and to desire a supreme leader. The concept capable of bestowing these gifts is that of a supreme masculine god. That god was represented to the people by the sun. A priesthood was then created to consider the nature of this god and to organize holidays and celebrations of the god’s existence and through him the existence of the people. Since Osiris, the bringer of the god concept is male and an identification grows up associating him with the sun god, he becomes the original Pharaoh and representative of god on earth. When he eventually dies, he is deified and assumes the duties of god of the dead.

The myth says that jealousy arose because of Osiris’ success. Set is thought of as a nature god and evil. Osiris is thought of as spiritual and good. So, I think the problem is the same as that between Cain and Abel. Set/Cain becomes upset because of the good relationship with god established by Osiris/Abel and the benefits flowing from that relationship which seem to be beyond the abilities of Set/Cain.

We can imagine what happens in real life. As the Pharonic tradition is established some segments of society aren’t pleased and conspire to assassinate the Pharaoh. But, after his death a new Pharaoh is chosen who is imagined to be the dead Pharaoh’s reincarnation and therefor inheriting all of the rights and privileges of the original.

Horus is the son of Osiris and Isis and performs the same function as Jesus. He is able to explain god to the people in an understandable way. So, he is thought of as a master of the spiritual world in the same way as the hawk is the master of the air. Whether or not Horus actually existed is unclear but doesn’t actually matter in the same way that the Christian Church can be imagined to be the reincarnation of Jesus and continues to fulfill his role.

The Eye of Horus is symbolic of knowledge and understanding. It is the all seeing eye in the same way as the Masonic eye on the American dollar bill is. Originally the eye symbol was associated with Ra since the sun radiates light which is associated with understanding as in "the light began to dawn on him".

It is a symbol of rank. The god/goddess gains some authority in the eyes of the beholder if he/she is associated with the supreme god.

Because of the Milky Way. Milk is associated with the feminine so it is natural to think of a sky dominated by the Milky Way as feminine too.

Mankind is represented by a man and is the recipient of spiritual nurturing by Nut. He starts out as a Set character and through the ministrations of Nut is transformed into Osiris. He is thought of as imbibing the milk when he studies the sky.

Since the sun god is conceived of as masculine, he is considered to be aggressive and that becomes a desirable trait in those that wish to become more godlike. Eventually that trait is adopted by the whole society for the same reason, thus my conclusion that cultures have a gender identity conferred on them by their supreme god. As he becomes more aggressive that aggression is expressed creatively by decorating the land with images of the Pharaoh and gods. In time order requires that the Pharaoh create the biggest and best of these decorations.