Heat and Motion vis-à-vis Light and Force. Females, corresponding to the element of fire, are more heat than light and males, corresponding to the element of air, more light than heat, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible terms.  But that is only on the noumenal planes of, to speak generally, space and time.  It does not apply to the phenomenal planes of volume and mass where, by contrast, females, corresponding to the element of water, are more motion than force and males, corresponding to the element of vegetation (earth), more force than motion, whether in outer or inner, sensual or sensible terms.  Hence a class distinction - never absolute however - between those more given, in space and time, to heat and light and, down below, those more given, in volume and mass, to motion and force, as though in a further distinction between will and soul on the noumenal planes and spirit and ego on the phenomenal ones.  But if, in overall terms, females are more heat and motion, will and spirit, fire and water, than males and males, by contrast, more light and force, soul and ego, air and vegetation (earth) than females, then the genders are forever at loggerheads in a confrontation between heat and light on the one hand and motion and force on the other hand, neither of which are complementary.  For, in sensuality, heat will get the better of light as metachemistry of antimetaphysics while, down below on the phenomenal planes, motion will get the better of force as chemistry of antiphysics.  Conversely, in sensibility, force will get the better of motion as physics of antichemistry, while, up above on the noumenal planes, light will get the better of heat as metaphysics of antimetachemistry.  But while this is unequivocally so on the noumenal planes it tends, with axial interrelativity, to be only equivocally so on the phenomenal ones, where the hegemony of chemistry over antiphysics can be subverted to psychic emphasis at the behest of a degree of metaphysics over antimetachemistry on the one hand and, across the axial divide, the hegemony of physics over antichemistry can be subverted to somatic emphasis at the behest of a degree of metachemistry over antimetaphysics on the other hand, as explained in previous entries and, indeed, in the pre-blog philosophy, as it were, of Opera D'Oeuvre.  However that may be, the broad distinction between heat and motion as representatively female and light and force as representatively male continues to hold true, and whether females get the better of males or males of females will determine the nature of society and the kinds of ideals or virtues which tend to prevail.  Outer heat over outer light will make for a situation in which beauty (to stress the somatic virtue alone), with metachemistry, is unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of truth proper with antimetaphysics, appearance triumphant over what could be called anti-essence.  Inner light over inner heat, on the other hand, will make for a situation in which truth (to stress the psychic virtue alone), with metaphysics, is unequivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of beauty proper with antimetachemistry, essence triumphant over what could be called anti-appearance.  Down below, on the phenomenal planes, outer motion over outer force will make for a situation in which strength (to stress the somatic virtue alone), with chemistry, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of knowledge proper with antiphysics, quantity triumphant over what could be called anti-quality.  Inner force over inner motion, on the other hand, will make for a situation in which knowledge (to stress the psychic virtue alone), with physics, is equivocally hegemonic by dint of the want of strength proper with antichemistry, quality triumphant over what could be called anti-quantity.  But, in overall class terms, heat and motion are no less incommensurate on the female side of the gender divide than force and light on its male side.  Metachemistry excludes chemistry and vice versa, while, in sensibility, physics excludes metaphysics and vice versa.  While it could be said that there is something of everything in everyone, it cannot be maintained that everyone has the same degree of everything in them, and therefore class and ethnic distinctions persist which harden into both axial polarities and, across the axial divide, antipathies and antagonisms which foster axial exclusivity and mutual incompatibility.