The ongoing attacks on masculinity and attempts to identify a degenerate form of it, which civilised men have always been the first to deplore, with the thing itself lead me to ask, what about femininity? What has happened to that in recent decades? But first let me point out that one of the aims of the demonic powers that are behind the corruption of the modern world (and if you don't believe this then you really aren't paying attention) is to gain greater control of a largely supine population who will then behave in ways these powers desire. By and large, women are more conformist than men who are the greater natural rebels against authority. Hence the attempt to undermine masculinity and to tar it with the brush of unbalanced behaviour. This is all about control and subservience.
I would like to respond to the silly accusation that if you are against feminism, you don't respect women. For me, the opposite is the case. It is that you do respect women as women but not as the pseudo-men that feminism seeks to turn women into. Maybe it is the feminist who doesn't respect women (or womanhood) and the anti-feminist (as opposed to misogynist) who does? But, anyway, we have to ask ourselves what really lies behind feminism because the current situation in the world is deteriorating rapidly and will lead to eventual civilizational collapse, melodramatic as that may sound. But that's the way it's always been when the proper order of things is disturbed as it is now when everywhere natural ways are being overturned. History clearly indicates that when women gain greater influence in a culture, that culture declines. There are various reasons for this, some of which I will go into below.
The answer to the question of what lies behind feminism is, of course, as it usually is in these sorts of cases, ego. Feminism is not really about equality as is claimed and popularly supposed. That is just a front even if it may have been partly true 100 years ago. But now that has changed into the attempt by the female to appropriate the male role for herself for reasons of personal power. This is why feminism has arisen at the time human beings have become more conscious of their will. That the role feminists attempt to usurp is male is obvious to anyone whose mind is clear and unprejudiced, but to have a clear mind you must not be blinded by desire, ambition or resentment. To know truth, you must love truth above self. If that is not the case, you will disguise your motives, even to yourself, in fact, especially to yourself, and present vice as virtue.
It seems to be the case that feminism appears in some form or another just after a culture has passed its peak, and it increases in influence and appeal as that culture goes downhill. It is probably both a symptom and a cause of this. This is just the opposite to what is normally believed, that feminism is a product of a progressive, enlightened society. But it is, in fact, a product of a society in decline that has lost creative energy, turned its back on the culture creating heroic masculine and lives off its past achievements. That is the only way it can afford the luxury of feminism. A high technological standard is also important as that gives a society the capability to indulge in ideological fantasies that in more deprived times it simply would not be able to do.
But things are never as simple as we might like them to be. Feminism is also a response to the increased need for all human beings to develop and express themselves. That is its positive side and the justification for it. But its negative side overweighs this now although it tends to be obscured by excessive focus on its benefits.
It can be seen that men, in general, seek excellence or truth whereas women, in general, seek consensus. This goes with the common observation that a mother's love is unconditional while a father's is more conditional. But when the feminine/maternal approach is adopted towards work, philosophy and all the problems of existence, you have a tendency towards decline because hard facts and reality are neglected in favour of what makes people feel better. This ties in with the fact that it is the expanding/male principle that drives evolution while the contracting/female principle provides a stable environment in which that can take place. But you need the former to be the directing principle to prevent stasis and allow for growth and progress.
Modern feminism seeks to eradicate or deny the differences between men and women and make of the two sexes just people. But why are there men and women and not just people? It is because the two sexes are meant to complement each other. And not just biologically or reproductively. From a spiritual perspective, the differences are not simply the result of evolution but go back to something in the nature of deity itself. What that something is is best understood by contemplating the difference between spirit and matter, and when we do this we see that the two are complementary but not symmetrical which means that to introduce the idea of equality, as we do nowadays, is misleading. There is no equality between men and women. Are not women more beautiful than men? Are not men physically stronger than women? Are not women more empathetic than men, and are there not many more men represented at the higher levels of intelligence and creativity? Equality in this context is a complete red herring.
The question in the title of this essay is meant seriously. To be a lady in the true sense is an important spiritual quality, just as to be a gentleman is. This is not a matter of a position in society but a state of consciousness that is tuned to something greater and more important than biological or intellectual realities. A real lady is a woman who is aware of the deeper implications of the feminine archetype as it exists on a spiritual level. This, by the way, has nothing to do with the modern interest in the Goddess who is an outmoded pagan figure of no more relevance than the pagan gods, none of whom are truly spiritual in that they are projections of natural archetypes onto the spiritual plane rather than genuinely spiritual archetypes. Consequently, they may benefit those seeking to integrate a semi-spiritual existence with natural life but they will not take you beyond the natural world to the truly spiritual. That was never their function.
Rather than focus on an archaic Goddess concept, women concerned with spiritual development might be better off contemplating the archetype of the lady and trying to coordinate their being with that. This will have an ennobling and purifying effect and, to use what's become a rather old-fashioned phrase, raise their vibrations.
Can a feminist be a lady? Not if she remains a feminist which is a purely political identification. But if she really wants to discover the reality of her womanhood in a deeper sense then she must become a lady. By doing so she will gain power over men (which, of course, is the feminist's dream) but it will be the power of truth, goodness and nobility not crude domination. It will be the power of love and sacrifice than which there is none greater.