As a woman, you are a manifestation of the divine feminine: love, beauty and joy; as a man, I am a manifestation of the divine masculine: power, passion and purpose.

Anything less, from either of us, is unacceptable. Together, we are unstoppable.

In truth, we all have within us a mixture of the masculine and the feminine, but we only fully realise ourselves in each other. This is the same for gay as well as straight couples.

Where it goes sour in relationships is when people feel that they are lacking certain qualities: be it, love, beauty, joy, power, passion, purpose, or anything else. And they try desperately to get their partner to fill that lack. Ain’t gonna happen.

The purpose of a relationship is not the mutual exchange of lack and need. It is the exchange and interplay of the divine feminine and the divine masculine, in conjunction with one another, as much as possible.


Ultimately, the legacy of feminism will be determined on a case by case basis. Feminism is a force that can inspire and elevate. Or, like any other ism, it can diminish and destroy.

In getting women to believe in themselves and to flower their talents to the best of their abilities, it has served its purpose. And the problem with a certain kind of feminism and feminist is this: it is certainly not their demand for justice and equality – no, it is the aggression they display as they attempt to assert themselves; it is their militancy and cold-heartedness; it is their resentment and bitterness. All of which are masculine qualities. And the worst kind.

If you are going to be a feminist be, at the very least, feminine. Don’t try and outdo man at his own game.


If we look at the history of female emancipation, if women, as a collective, had downed their tools and refused to do any work in the home or, indeed, anything that could be conceived of as subjugation … If they had enacted this with love and forgiveness rather than with resentment and bitterness … They might have achieved full emancipation by now.

Easier said than done – given how strong the need in many women is to have a man. As strong as the need of many men to have a woman.

This goes to very core of our humanity, male and female, so it would have been anything but easy.

But the call for justice and revolution is scarcely easy. It involves great, and, often, harrowing sacrifice. Very simply, had women downed their tools and refused to do any work in the home, or anything that could be conceived of as subjugation, this would have involved women, as a collective, absolving themselves of the need to have a man. It would have involved them denying and depriving themselves of their most basic instinct.

That would have been the real challenge of freeing themselves of male control. And it would have separated the women from the girls, that’s for sure …

Would it have worked? Would women have won their freedom this way?

Well, as a parallel, Gandhi’s movement to free India from British rule through non-violence was a revolution by feminine means, par excellence. It was

essentially saying, “I love you. And that is why I cannot co-operate with you as you are. That would be a disservice to both of us.”

And, yes, after a very long struggle, it worked.

© Phillip A. Klein March 2008

Published in: on March 16, 2008 at 3:32 pm  Leave a Comment