Ethical dualism, bravado and dire mistakes about gender

I have learned to anticipate in all action an element akin to Taoist principles -- the force that becomes offensive also becomes penetrated by an equal and opposite force.

***
To me, any worthwhile fight is not about being physically strong as much as it is about being mentally strong enough to be honest. There are difficulties in making one's philosophy accessible on the Internet, because it is the kind of medium where people pass through and make assumptions (i.e. they indulge in projection). I understand that the common assumption in Western culture is a kind of ethical dualism, whereby one is EITHER strong or weak, either honest or dishonest, either worthy or unworthy. There is also an assumption that is one is any of these one should be able to prove it by means of one's polished rhetoric.

In reality, we are all, either simultaneously or off-and-on, both strong and weak, honest and dishonest, worthy and unworthy. Also, I don't think that any of this can be PROVEN by any kind of oratory, whatsoever. It has to be learned by experience (and, often, by a process of unlearning Western metaphysical binaries).

The ethical dualistic system is actually responsible, in itself, for real mental health problems. That is because if we disagree and I believe that I am clearly strong and honest and worthy, then the cause of any disagreement must be because "you" are weak, dishonest and unworthy. The logic goes like this: "If I have truth on my side because I conduct myself in an ethical way, then you must have lies and craziness on your side -- otherwise, how could you disagree with me?"

But this mode of relating invokes all sorts of projective mechanisms: I HAVE TO project negative qualities onto you, to maintain the image of myself as good, in the face of disagreement. Western metaphysics thus proves itself to be embroiled in creating pathological psychodynamics.

A Taoist perspective of intertwining opposites avoids this.