Kunga asks: why does he regard the feminine as lower than masculine in the first place?
Out of the mouth of babes. And striking right at the heart of the incoherence contained herein.
QRS doctrine, no matter how it's spun, is
dualistic - and
dualism (in this sense) is any philosophic/religious view that insists on the existence of two independent, separable, irreducible, unique realms (in this case, the masculine and the feminine). Yet in dualism, the universe can only be explained by means of both realms.
So far, so good, as regards the M.O. here. Now this (QRS)dualism becomes Manichaeistic by: 1. hybridizing elements from various philosophies/religions (as Mani did [incidental, but worth mentioning]), and 2. teaching the release of the spirit from matter through asceticism (no sex, get your mind off women, keep your distance from 'worldly
matters,' etc.). Again, necessary dualism: body/matter is irreducibly independent of so-called spirit. In this case, one
stands in the way of realizing the other, which is, of course, incoherent to the original thought that they cannot
be realized without one another.
Now in this
particular dualism - as is the Manichaeistic tendency - one half of the duo needs to be eliminated (e.g. the forces of good overcoming the forces of evil; the masculine overcoming the feminine, etc). The "dual" actually becomes a
duel - as in, they must do battle, and one must win. In this (incoherent) process, the fundamentally dualistic explanation of the universe has to eat itself -- render its own "irreducible" view of the nature of the universe as
reducible.
This is how QRS-whatever has hybridized (in my view, completely misunderstood) the wisdom of the Tao whilst still laying claim to it. This is how this doctrine has hybridized/misunderstood Nietzsche, whose view of human life was anything but a dualism of body (so called 'matter') and mind (so called 'spirit'). This is how this doctrine has also hybridized/misunderstood Kierkegaard, who places faith
past reason/logic and states the irreducible truth as
subjectivity. Subjectivity is his only
absolute.
What the aforementioned three philosophers have in common in this context is
any discussion of masculine/feminine, men and women. And the latter two were great critics of women - the actual women and not Woman. As long as
unconsciousness is conflated with the feminine, these great soldiers of logic and consciousness will be all about the dismantling of the very dualism that gives rise to their own philosophy. A self-eating philosophy. There are not enough O's in "incoherent" to address the lack of logic right at the heart of matters here.
Good luck, Kunga. I'd watch very carefully. You may have understood what they mean by "Woman," and by the masculine sickness of Woman-belief, but this will slide perceptibly toward women-people over and over again. This way, they can vent their philosophy of disgust toward female bodies, odors, conditions, behaviors, worth, humanhood, etc. - jump right from the so-called ideological heights (Woman) into the concrete circumstances from which they recoil (women). They can entertain their dualisms whilst denying them. They can dream, as they have often done, of a way to reproduce humans without the physical human-woman at all.
Such an old story, overcompensating-man; resentful-man, who has used all else in his arsenal to insert himself into something he believes himself left out. The history of the world is the history of this man dis-empowering women in any way he can enforce. He feels used; he feels manipulated; he feels he's not in control and ought to be. Poor, resentful man. He has not reconciled himself to
reality at all.