Masculine / Feminine

Modern buildings cannot support themselves without structural members tied to a foundation.  It's the starting point of construction.  Prior to the industrial revolution, structural members within a building consisted primarily of the walls themselves.  Hence they were dubbed load bearing walls.  These walls were very thick (particularly at the base) and at times had buttresses designed in to reinforce their solidarity.  Because the entire wall was supporting the roof and floors above, the wall could only be described as a system which was tightly enmeshed relative to structure, interior finish, and exterior envelope.  Master tradesmen executed these designs with very few drawings / specs and oversight.

Today, very few commercial buildings utilize a structural system that consists of load bearing walls exclusively.  The reasoning behind this is primarily scale of fenestration (doors / windows) limitations as well as building height.  In lieu of load bearing walls, today's buildings are supported primarily via structural steel and / or poured in place concrete frames.  From an architectural standpoint, the modern structural system is seen as a necessary evil.  Steel columns are typically encapsulated within wall cavities underneath spray-on fireproofing while roof trusses are typically given the cold shoulder in lieu of precisely symmetrical HVAC ductwork and exposed cable trays.  Concrete work isn't eschewed quite as severely, though rarely do you see structural concrete work left exposed to the interior sans extensive finish touch up.  In other words, it's assumed that structure for structure's sake isn't to be celebrated much less respected in the least.  Instead, it's the frou frou that takes center stage.  That being, interior finishes and envelope design.  For pete's sake, even furnishings get more respect!  But, no one can argue that without structural systems, there would be no architecture, much less buildings of any type.

As we used to say in architecture school, the sky crane has yet to be invented!

This 21st century architectural reality is identical to the sexual roles we're faced with today in our western culture.  Imagine structural systems (steel framing / concrete and steel foundations or the aforementioned load bearing walls) being a metaphor for masculinity whilst all the interior finishes and envelope (including wall framing) to be a metaphor for femininity.  One might argue that one of the primary identifiers of a building as shelter is its envelope relative to watertightness and interior comfort, but no one can dispute the plinth of existing that is a building's structural system.  Yet, the structural system can be hidden and still perform admirably, and as I stated earlier, in today's architecture, it very rarely isn't. This is certainly not the case for the building envelope.  It is always in clear view.

In today's culture, men and women are equal and completely independent of each other, yet in the Bible, man was created by God prior to his helpmeet, woman, being formed from the rib of the man. The Bible doesn't address their roles initially in any more detail than what I just wrote, but it's clear that after the Fall, the masculine and feminine become more pronounced due to the paradigm shift that inevitably occurred.  What did that look like?  I don't care to speculate, but I feel that both Adam and Eve became much more defined in their complementarian sex roles.

If you want to damage a female or locate a damaged female, abandon one at a young age or find one who's been abandoned by a patriarchal figure.  Many (if not all) lesbians have patriarchal abandonment issues.  That being said, many lesbians aren't sexually attracted to other women despite the fact that they prefer to partner with them.  For those who aren't, they choose to be with other women in order to find emotional support that's in no way connected or dependent upon men. This is their method of coping with the trauma associated with the patriarchal abandonment, alleviating the risk entirely of experiencing said trauma again.

There is nothing that defines femininity more than their dependence on the masculine - by definition.  When this dependence is exploited by males, females suffer tremendous emotional consequences.

The feminine wouldn't exist without the masculine. They are byproducts of our existence.  To be feminine is to be in need of support.  Sometimes that's physical but mostly it's spiritual, economic, and emotional.  The latter is more of an anchor than anything else, albeit, some men do this better than others.  Women are forbidden to preach and teach to men.  It's cut and dry in God's word.  The feminine is beautiful and protective and nurturing.  It's fashionable and fluid to the point of being in many cases, seductive.  But, that being said, the feminine can be crushed easily, resulting in devastation.

It is a delicately balanced relationship that's harmonious whilst being firmly planted in righteousness.  To God be the glory for creating woman out of man.  She is amazing to behold.