Firstoff, refering to the two-leg-folk as “womankind” is, from a linguistic point of view, confusing, to say the least. As ai’ve said before, “woman” is a compound of the Old English “wif” (having the same meaning as modern “woman”), modern decendant “wife” (which is quite sexist - women are only wives) and “man”, meaning human, but being a masculine noun. Thus “woman” is akin in meaning to the Ozarkian “womenfolk”, refering to women as a whole. Saying “womankind” is like saying “woman-folk-folk”. “Mankind” means human, it is simply unfortunate that it has connotations of maleness. Thus, my alternative in the first sentence of this post.
Also, ai dont see a separatness with my parents at all. Am ai not of their flesh and blood? Remember how people, even in this country, with as civilized a mindset as they must have had, used to view family. The view is that all the family is the same flesh and especially the same blood. Ai personally see no innate “separatness” with Earth, when ai call her my mother. Nor separateness with the Sky when ai call him my father. There is room for all genders in the great Riverflow of the universe (my personal imagery).
Relating to the Noble Savage: as ai understand it, the noble savage archetype was people seeing that the indigenous peoples did not destroy their landbase, and so must not be subject to the inherent sin of humanity (meaning civilized humanity), making them more akin to angels (perfection). What they didnt see was that they were human, just like the europeans and had all the “flaws” that they had. The difference between the two groups being only that (most) Americans knew how to deal with problems, while europeans largely were ignorant, because of what Daniel Quinn calls the “great forgetting”. The Noble Savage is a contrived myth.