Femininity > Masculinity?

Hindu (ॐ) Depiction of
Virāḍrūpa (विश्वरूप)

Femininity > Masculinity?
Sunday – March 22, 2026

Having made some observations about the concepts of femininity and masculinity, I do need to qualify some of my earlier statements; I am also directing you to my "mini series" on feminism, you may read part one of that series here. I should also clarify that the purpose of this post is not to engage in an overall "strategic discourse"; that is to say I am not going to redact some of my earlier statements in this post. Again, the purpose of this post is to qualify and to further refine my views on the undeniable intercommunication between the qualities of femininity and masculinity, and this clarification also provides an ample opportunity to begin this post by clarifying the obvious, yet somehow evasive truth: that the substantive quantity that is sex is quite distinct from the essential qualities of femininity and masculinity, and really the idea that men are strictly masculine and women are strictly feminine is nothing but a modern and highly Western feature, and indeed I do dismiss this crude and very low conceptualization of something quite supra-rational. I think anyone that truly attempts to engage with this subject should attempt to actually remove themselves from these westernized and quantitative conceptions; femininity and masculinity are essential energies and they may not be measured or quantified, and any such attempt can only result in a very cheap and bastardized version of something wholly illusive to the crude and corporeal sensitivities of profane measurement that in the end only serves the purposes of the material domain, and in the case of masculinity the industrial might of the modern world.

    Action, strength, might, and assertiveness, these are surely some of the supposed "qualities" associated with masculinity, but these are actually no "qualities" at all; all of the above listed "qualities" are actually signs and features in modern men and in particular in Western men, and truly from a historical and metaphysical perspective these features are at best very amplified and bastardized conceptualizations of something quite misunderstood. Of course, the ancient Greeks, from whom so much has been claimed at least to be derived in the Western world, would be nothing but appalled at the state of the world, and in particular at the modern insistence that everything essential, understood in the crudest and most corporeal manner, has to exist somehow in opposition or over a certain span, but this is just a very simple and false attempt to describe the nature of the cosmological order, and at least whatever still remains of the great traditions in the East, there is in those cannons a understanding not of opposition and contradiction, but of something complementary, and further there is a certain understanding of how different energies interact and intercommunicate at different levels across the multitudes of domains within the whole of the manifestation, and this understanding, this knowledge, has furnished a certain qualified and skillful application in the material world of the words feminine and masculine. Of course, in the West no such qualified and skillful application occurs, at least not in contemporary times: indeed, can any such thing as essential femininity even be spoken of in the Western world? At least I can grant a certain ugly and crude masculinity in the West, in particular when it comes to the western fixation on action, but as far I know, there is not even such a thing as a Westernized femininity to speak of; there is in the West only the ever clairvoyant cult of egalitarianism, and of course the assumption is and has always been that the substantive and quantitative modalities are the only truth (negativism), and really in the end this very rude and brutish conception of masculinity is the only modality acceptable in the Western world, regardless of any such supposed thing as "gender", and the people who are most insisting and aggressive in this regard are seldom women themselves, but men who insist upon this, political men of course. So, it seems clear, to me at any rate, that there is a confusion and imposed confluence of two different and distinct features here: first we are dealing with something almost completely substantive, namely sex; and secondly we are dealing with something almost completely essential, namely what the moderns attempt to capture in the concept of gender. Of course, it should be made clear that this confluence is something deliberate, and I should remind you that the end goal of these people is the supposed "final liberation", read "Transhumanism".

    Is femininity superior to masculinity? I would put it this way: femininity is a quality that describes aptitudes belonging to a domain further removed from the immediate and corporeal, and this is why the western conception of femininity is "weakness", passivity, and contemplation, but this is, again, a deliberate misunderstanding of the essential quality that is femininity, and from this point of view, the Western, it would indeed be true to say that femininity is superior to masculinity, but from a qualified point of view, it would actually be correct to say that femininity proceeds masculinity as a principle manifested in the world, and this is why masculinity and femininity must be understood as qualities that are essentially complementary in the order of the cosmological equilibrium. Masculinity is a quality that is nearer to the Earth and to the substantive pole of the manifestation, thus it is natural and expected that masculinity is associated with modernity, industry, and "progress". I should also point out that masculinity is very much associated with temporal power, whereas femininity is typically associated with spiritual authority, and this is especially expressed within the original tradition of Judaism. One should seek to understand masculinity as being situated closer to the substantive pole and therefore further away from the primordial body, and this sense even holds true in profane science, as it indeed is the case that males develop away from the essentially female embryo, but again here you need to make a delineation between the essential and the substantive.

    All of these points made is why the "hypermodernists", the proponents of such monstrous things as "queer theory", are partly correct in their assessment that there is something fundamentally disturbed with the modern conceptions of both the essential (gender) and the substantive (sex), but their conclusions could not possibly be further from sanity than complete insanity and a kind of final rupture, a complete dissolution of the self in the material and substantive. Whether or not the essential aligns with the substantial is really of little importance; what matters in this connection is solely the essential, and if all else is allowed to proceed from there such a thing as "shemale" would indeed make sense, and this would be a true and qualified unity, but even such a thing as men without assertion and compulsion would make sense, especially for the elect, the truly qualified. Really, it must be stated, that for the most part, all of these low masculine features are actually behaviors and inclinations found among the least qualified and the most offensive elements; it would make sense then that this kind of low masculinity is so present in democratic systems. Lastly, to the Western audience and indeed to all ignorant persons I will proclaim the superiority of the essential, in this context the feminine, but I will make no attempt to clarify this, as these people simply are unqualified.

Reginald Drax – March 22, 2026.