Is egalitarianism feminine?
In one sense I can perceive it is, and in another sense I can perceive it isn’t.
I would say elitism is both masculine and feminine, and egalitarianism is neither.
Elitism is both, because the elite are playing the dominant, masculine role, and the, whatever you want to call them, the plebs, the proletariat, the serfs, the (wage) slaves… are playing the submissive, feminine role.
Where as in egalitarian society where everyone is more-less free and/or equal, no one is dominating anyone, or submitting to anyone.
Is it better to be dominant or submissive?
It depends on ones preference, but even looking at it from a more objective viewpoint, I’d still say it depends.
Parents dominate their children.
Who’s worse off?
If the parents are good, then I’d say the parents are worse off, at least from a purely selfish viewpoint, but they’d be happy their kids are doing as good or better than them, and if the parents are bad, then it’s the children who’re worse off.
What about when it comes to a patriarchal marriage, or serfdom/slavery?
Again I’d say it depends on how much a husband loves his wife, if he does love her, she might be just as well off or better off than him, and if he doesn’t, than he’ll probably be better off, if she can’t leave him, or she has little-no support from her family, friends and neighbors.
Masters rarely love their servants/slaves, and in general, the servant/slave is worse off, but not always.
Overall, if one is powerful and independent, it’s better to be dominant than submissive, with the exception of kids, and maybe wives, but if one is not powerful and independent, it might be necessary to accept a subservient, subordinate position, at least temporarily.
There are trade offs thou, like the more rights and freedoms you have, the more responsibilities and duties you tend to have, at least when it comes to virtuous relationships that’re not abusive.
In virtuous relationships, when the dominant party fucks up, it receives the brunt of the blame.
Except for in parent/child relationships, in virtuous relationships, the dominant party is sometimes expected to reap more benefits of the relationships than the submissive one, but they’re also responsible for protecting the submissive one whenever there’s a problem, like husbands were expected to go to war in patriarchal societies, not wives, defend their wife’s honor in combat, make sure she’s safe/secure, and under feudalism, knights and nobles went to war and were charged with keeping the peace ordinarily, not peasants.
So there’s trade offs.
But then when it comes to master/slave or abusive relationships, it’s definitely better to be a master, almost always.
In vicious relationships, one party has all the rights, freedoms and/or control, but none of the responsibilities and duties.
In capitalist/worker relationships, who’s better off?
While in general I’d say the capitalist is a little-a lot better off, this isn’t always so.
If the worker doesn’t work too hard, makes a decent salary, and knows how to spend wisely, they may be better off, and while the capitalist may have more money, they may have more responsibilities, duties and stress, proportionately, or more stress than their money is worth.
They may never really be rid of their work, where as when the worker goes home at night, he doesn’t take his work home with him, he rests peacefully and soundly in his bed.
With money comes responsibility, where to invest, how to manage and protect it.
Does having a lot of money, or owing your own business or home make you more free?
The worker/renter is free to come and go as they please, where as a business or home ties one down.
Does owning your own business give you power over your employees?
Not necessarily, if the employees job is important, or he’s good at what he does, or there’s a lot of jobs available in his field, or in general, he may have little-no trouble finding another job, affording him bargaining power.
Sometimes a business, especially large one, can easily afford to lose an employee, but sometimes they can’t, it really depends.
If it’s a big business, the usually easily can, giving them more negotiating power in the relationship.
But workers can sometimes organize themselves in unions, compensating for their lack of individual power.
I agree.
Yang is kind of like hunting big game, like a woolly mammoth, high risk, but high reward, in the form of caloric payoff, and resources (the wool for clothes, tusks for tools, weapons and so on).
Yin is like going after small game, like a bunny rabbit, or gathering fruits and vegetables.
Yang animals would be like the big carnivores, bears, wolves, tigers and lions, where as yin animals would be like small carnivores or herbivores.
Humans are chameleons to some degree, and omnivores, we can alter our behavior to some extent, and eat almost anything, we can adopt yang or yin strategies for survival.
Sometimes yang makes more sense, and sometimes yin, it really depends on the person, people and circumstances.
The more powerful someone is, and the more desperate they are, the more yang makes sense, and the weaker someone is, or the less needy they are, the more yin makes sense.
While population groups like nations and races might lean more towards yin or yang relatively, no group is or ought to be one or the other all the time, that’s foolhardy.
We see yang cultures transform into yin cultures like once they’ve either been humiliated, or satiated.
There is a kind of yin that comes from being weak, I want it, but I can’t have it, and a yin that comes from being strong, I can have it, but I don’t really want it, it’s more trouble than it’s worth.
The more affluent a society is, the more it’s needs are taken care of, the less it should risk, the less it should strive, the more contented it should be.
Human nature and culture is almost perpetually yang thou, and yea we’re consuming ourselves into oblivion, and playing around with the fabric of life, DNA, RNA, smashing atoms at CERN, plucking the strings of HAARP, etcetera, when we should be channeling more of our remaining energies into living more sustainably, allowing nature to make a come back.
If it’s not broke why fix it, and the grass isn’t always greener.
We should be cutting back on our desires, many of them frivolous and vain, and we should be more apprehensive with our new sciences/technologies, not attempting to increase our desires and our ability to satisfy every whim and urge.
That’s why’m an ascetic/minimalist, and I encourage more to be.
Our problems used to be outside, now humanities biggest problem is itself, our desires and thinking are getting in our own way.
I’d say humans as a whole are very yang animals, and most of our culture caters to yang drives.
But cultures that’re more ambitious could be said to be more yang.
Cultures that’re more contented/complaisant, as well as adaptive, improvising, intuitive and yielding could be said to be more yin.
Ambition can manifest in multiple ways, there are material ambitions, political ambitions, but also scientific, philosophical, spiritual and artistic ambitions, social ambitions.
Some cultures are more materially ambitious where as others might be more spiritual or religiously ambitious.
I would say the west tends to be more yang, but in this context by the west I don’t just mean Europeans but also Arabs, where as Chinese and Hindus could be seen as more yin.
The most yin people I’ve ever met were probably Filipinos.
Every culture has multiple sides to them thou, like Confucianism is very yang, where as Buddhism, Daoism and Chan are very yin, and Christianity initially was very yin, but became more yang as time went on.
Your Western Psyche is talking again. 
Of course, you have no alternative.
The tiny fraction of men … 35 million is like a fart in a wind storm … will do what Chinese people do … grin and bear it.
Let me share another example since you mentioned smoking … virtually no Chinese women smoke … at any age.
Why?
Somewhere along the way arose the notion that women who smoke are ‘bad’ women … I’ll leave the word ‘bad’ to your imagination.
This association stuck … unbelievable … it’s simply that it is so important in Chinese society to be seen as a good person … male and female alike. The expression Chinese people abhor “losing face” in public speaks to this.
Young Chinese women … village women in particular … still cover their mouth with their hand if they start to laugh in public … it’s incredible to observe … such purity … naivety … in the 21st century.
Easy for you to say as you’ve stolen one of their women with your Western wiles. 
Yeah! … you’re probably right. 
My wife often reminds me that she has only let God make one decision for her in her entire life … all her other decisions were carefully thought through before being executed.
Of course, the decision I’m referring to is her decision to marry me. 
Gloominary … the genesis of “in Yang” is neither philosophy, religion, culture or any other man-made construct. If you are sincerely interested in it’s origins reading this is a good place to start:
chinesefortunecalendar.com/YinYang.htm
To think … believe … that the universe has no bearing … influence … on human life is naive. The extent … quantity … significance … is arguably up for grabs.
I’m already aware of the symbols connection with astronomy/astrology, as well as its metaphysical significance.
We were applying the symbol to human affairs, I never suggested that it was confined to them.
Of course the universe and its energies affect us in all sorts of overt… and covert, holistic and subtle ways, that aren’t always so easy to document in a straightforward, scientific manner, and we it, it’s give and take.
How to redirect the energies of Western civilization from the Yang to the Yin?
Yang is fire
Yin is water
Fuck that symbology. Find better ones.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UP-FbwZDEo[/youtube]
Okay, go ahead.
Yeah … as JSS revealed recently … “Truth is destructive” … better we find some phony bullshit symbology to support our destructive tendencies. 
Everybody’s a critic. Where are the fixers, the menders, the healers? I’d imagine swamped by all the critics.
The ‘mix’ is likely mathematically correct … the appropriate portion of critics … nay sayers and do gooders … healers.
… with a blob of ‘sheeple’ huge enough to absorb the energies of both. It’s a version of the seesaw phenomenon at work.
… don’t forget to add in the silent and invisible influence … the “100th Monkey Effect” infinitebeing.com/0507/monkeys.htm
I got to the part where op said, “depending on how you define science” and just…well…I’m walking away.
What a disappointment. 