The essence of the differing views of masculinists and feminists is that the
masculinists conceive of the individual as being more important than the
relationships he is involved in while the feminist views the relationships as
more important. (See my explanation for the graph Sexual Spectrum in
Millennium.)
For a scientist this is the same as viewing the vectors as superior in
significance to the nodes in a map.
To understand this distinction aright, one has to consider the implications.
If one considers a world in which human relationships don't exist, it is
immediately apparent that either it couldn't exist or would be an undesirable
state. The reverse is not true, since relationships cannot exist without
people. Thus, relationships can reasonably be considered to be more important
than people, since people are dependent on them.
The significance of individuals lies mainly in their creativity, in that
creation occurs in the mind of the individual. Groups are generally uncreative
since creation leads to conflict, damaging the relationships holding the group
together. This is because creation manifests something new and therefore not
yet adapted to. The adaptation will make the individuals different,
invalidating the relationship to some extent, and requiring work to repair.
Therefore, groups have a vested interest in avoiding anything new. To say it
another way, relationships exist because of mutual knowing. When creation
occurs, the creator is changed by adding knowledge to himself and the
relationship is no longer accurate. To repair the damage, the other member
will have to achieve some knowledge about the creation and then the
relationship has to be reevaluated to see if it is still fulfilling the needs
of the partners. If the creation is spiritual in nature and of dramatic
proportions, the need of the creator for his partner may disappear altogether.
In a feminist relationship, it should be expected that when conflict arises,
the partners will make the decision that maintains the relationship rather than
the one that reinforces a moral ideal. So that, when the relationship rises to
the level of sexuality, the partners will accede to that requirement rather
than break the relationship, even though it involves adultery and places other
relationships in danger. If the relationship requires some financial chicanery
to continue, then the partners will choose that option rather than to end the
relationship.
In a marriage of feminists, the interests of the partners will be sacrificed to
maintain the strength of the relationship and therefore marriages would be
stronger. Masculinists will sacrifice the marriage to the needs of the
individual, thereby making marriage a weaker institution.
From this, it can be seen that Americans are still exhibiting masculinist
values, since divorce is so common. In fact it has gotten worse since feminism
began its current rise in significance in the '60s. This is because of the
damage done to the church by feminism and the fact that the attitude towards
adultery in the church created a profound force strengthening the marriage
bond. Thus the answer to the current disarray in the marriage institution is
the strengthening of feminism.
In a feminist culture, one would expect a tendency to lifetime employment,
advantageous to the relationship between the company and the individual, and
damaging to the company's ability to adjust to changes in the business world.
In a masculinist culture, one would expect temporary employment, lasting only
so long as the individual contributes to the health of the business.
In politics, one would expect a feminist culture to rely on committees and to
have many obstacles to change. In a masculinist culture, one would expect
authoritarianism, a king or president or prime minister with significant power
to define the debate and to institute change.