In order to see the human relationship with nature, we must first define the boundaries of nature. Many have proposed a nature/culture divide, and there are many perspectives on this issue. Ortner previously wrote a piece that proposed that not only is there a nature/culture divide, which was assumed as an axiom, but that it is also analogous to the male/female divide in humans and explains male dominance. As expected, such a proposition has led to much criticism and in this piece, Ortner addresses and responds to some of the criticism. The main criticism was to contest the universality of these claims, as it is assumed that male dominance and nature/culture are universal truths. She addresses the former by proposing that upon examining three relatively egalitarian cultures that do not have (or have very few) strict male and female social limitations, those who rise to positions of power are still predominantly men. This, she suggests, proves that the natural human social structure is not egalitarian but that one of male dominance. She addresses the latter issue first by conceding that her previous definitions of nature and culture were perhaps too vague, as many of her critics have pointed out that there exist cultures with no concept of a nature/culture opposition. She redefines her terms by suggesting that “nature” is everything that is outside of human control and that it is not an idea that is culturally defined, rather it is an overarching structure outside of human conceptual constructs. By redefining her terms, she subverts the previous criticism of her peers and reasserts the gender analogy. I find this article interesting in that the issue seems personal to Ortner and it may have affected her perception of the issues at hand. In the next writings, we will examine some alternate perspectives on the nature/culture divide.