Welcome to the GHMB board.
I must say, even if I grant that I would come out agreeing with much of your ideas in general. I find the corralling of human traits into male and female categories to be off-putting and outdated.
Whenever I hear of humanity reconnecting with the "feminine" in order to save itself, I think of emasculated men trying to be polite and let such sexist language go unchallenged, and of sweeping generalizations that don't hold up very well under scrutiny.
Having not read your article, my expectation is this: you will cite a list of laudable traits, shared by many 'good' men and women, and define them as feminine and/or female in nature.
You have just heard my reply to that.
Don't get me wrong. I am NOT suggesting that women don't contribute to spirituality. They do. And we do need to be kindler and gentler. But those are not "feminine" traits, and it is sexist to think otherwise. And since it is sexist, there must be something non-spiritual or wrong in framing matters that way.
In light of my expectation, and my concerns as a male who is spiritual, and sees spirituality expressing itself, positively, in a numbers of ways that can be described as 'feminine' and 'masculine', can you tell me why I might want to read further. Or, shall I assume that you regard me, and men like me, as lost causes and victims of patriarchy?