Femininity and Masculinity and Marriage

Recently I've had plenty of context-moments to note a common confusion... femininity/masculinity as identity as opposed to a quality of identity.  Last night I had a conversation with a young woman who was saying that people expect her to be soft spoken as a woman.  She had expressed interest in my philosophical pursuits, so I spoke up and commented that this was not an appropriate thing to attribute to commentary on femininity.  Femininity, as an archetypal concept, is the receptive nature, the embracive energy.  It's a pull that invites the universe into erotic union .  Masculinity, as an archetypal concept, is the suggestive nature, the inseminating energy.  It's the push that acts upon the universe with an expectation of response.  She became offended and claimed that I was pigeonholing her.  She thought I was talking about her identity as a female and my role as a male.  This is a confusion of a quality versus a substance.  Seems to me that femininity as identity versus a quality of identity is far more restrictive... These modes have little to do with actual gender identity and are present in all beings.  Many groups have the identity of substance and the identity of quality totally mixed up.  I saw a fundamentalist Christian bumper sticker today... ... This is absolutely confused.  Instead of using the accepted circular symbols of masculinity and femininity to represent marriage, they are instead using sex specific iconography.  This is what they intend and is the message of the sticker.  But this has huge implications.  In using sex iconography to describe individuals they are stating that marriage is a union between a vagina and a penis instead of a masculine entity and a feminine entity.  They really don't want to say this.  I'll explain why. Femininity and masculinity show up in different amounts in individuals.  Some individuals are very masculine males, some are more feminine males (and in that I'm not talking about gay, necessarily, but instead commenting on the mentality of their primary nature in interacting with reality), some are feminine females, some are masculine females.  This is a cross religious understanding and has deep cultural and historical evidence as being true.  From mythical characters to philosophical concepts such as yin and yang, Shakti and Shiva, it obviously plays an archetypal role in the way individuals relate to reality that transcends the normal ideas of a man and a woman.  A masculine woman and a feminine man have a high chance of having a positive relationship, for instance, and this doesn't violate the fundamentalist philosophy at all.  Healthy interactions involve effective exchanges of feminine and masculine essence and relationships are no different.  Marriage is about femininity and masculinity.  If one were to express marriage in the terms of the physical arrangement of anatomy, one faces the sort of philosophical problems that the materialists face.  Fundamentalist Christianity holds a belief in eternal souls as the source of identity and that the body will die but personal identity continues.  If femininity and masculinity are grounded in the body, then we would all become androgynous when we die.  The marriage would then be void. If cognition takes place in a soul and not in a body, then how can gender be grounded in the body?  I doubt they'd like that very much...  there are many, many problems with attributing masculinity and femininity as physical qualities and it fucks up their philosophy of a human person quite a bit I see this confusion all over the place and certainly not just pertaining to femininity and masculinity. I see equal problems with the response sticker... Love is not the right equation either.  What, you say!?  That's right.  You cannot define marriage as love and love.  I can love my brother.  I'm not going to marry my brother.  This might be called nitpicking but, guys, let's get this right if you're going to be so impassioned about it and you're gonna slap shit on your car for the world to see... love is a primary energy of the universe and is a necessary condition for marriage, in this sense, but it is not a sufficient condition of marriage in this sense. The correct equation would be Marriage = Feminine Symbol + Masculine Symbol under the accepted standards of masculinity and femininity as sex independent qualities of a composite individual identity. This is the only way to represent it correctly so that both camps can say what they want to say without messing their message up once you go a bit deeper. I'm somewhat soft spoken congenially but my philosophical expression is very masculine. I push my philosophy onto the world to define my interaction with it. Sheryl's is, in my opinion, extremely feminine. She invites the world into interaction and allows that union to generate her philosophy. Hence our philosophical union is the same act and is instantaneously useful instead of being two discrete events that have to be related in some (fatiguing and difficult) way.