Research shows that males are better at detecting motion while females are better at detecting the division of one body from another. This suggests that a masculine account of the philosophy of nature would start with nature as mobile and proceed to considering it as bodily while a feminine philosophy of nature would go exactly in the reverse. On this account of things, the Aristotelian-Thomistic account of nature is fundamentally male, as is modern physics so far as its fundamental quantities (length, mass, time) all reduce to motion. A feminine account of nature would, in metaphysics at least, stress the difference between the finite and the infinite as being more fundamental than the difference between the temporal/eternal or the changing/ unchanging (perhaps Scotistic metaphysics suggests something in this direction); and in physics it would look more to the formal structure of wholes – as we see, for example, in Bohr’s reasoning about the atom.
Again, the male fascination with machines (which a family friend of mine detected even in chimps) would lead them to see nature fundamentally as a sort of mechanical art; the female fascination with personal bonds would lead to seeing nature as an information-system. Masculine nature pushes, pulls, forces, has hierarchical order, is fundamentally energetic etc. while feminine nature communicates among parts, processes information, works to integrate things into the whole, orders holistically, etc.
Just Thomism 