I will try to summarize. Masculine and feminine are not the same as male vs female, but the correlation is clear.
Masculine logic and feminine logic both fail to capture the entire meaning of our existence. They are not harmonious opposite "poles" which together make up "a whole". Rather, they are two mutually exclusive understandings of existence, transplanted onto the same world. "The Real" is the gap between the two, that which neither can capture, where the Symbolic Order and our Imagination fail us. As those who have read Zizek and Lacan will know,"The Real" is not synonymous with "reality", as our "reality" is precisely constructed by the Symbolic Order.
Onto masculine logic vs feminine logic.
Masculine logic is universal, but always with one exception. Feminine logic is non-universal, but with no exceptions.
To give a very weak, simple, but clear, example. Masculine logic: "All swans are white. Those which are black are anomalies". Feminine logic: "Not all swans are white. There are no swans which are not white".
From the field of ideology: Masculine: "Capitalism is universal human nature. Those societies which were not capitalist were aberrations of human nature". Feminine logic: "Not all humans are submitted to capitalism. There are no humans that are not submitted to capitalism."
Or: Masculine: Marxism, "Productive advances and class struggle drive all societies from primitive communism, to slave-holding, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Asiatic modes of production were a deformation of class struggle, an aberation, this si why they didn't follow that model". Feminine logic: "Not all societies are driven by productive advances and class struggle. There are no societies which were not driven by productive advances and class struggle."
In other words: in order to be universal (masculine logic), I must be exclusive, because there will always be some aspect of existence which any symbolic order cannot capture, "The Real", these varied contradictions must be grouped under one spectral "aberation".
And in order to to be non-universal (feminine logic), one must sacrifice any possibility of an alternate universal order which is not this one. A good example of feminine logic would be the empiricism of Hume. Because nobody can know the full truth, the sensations we see, can never be the "all". However, precisely because I cannot assume anything beyond this, then in practice, those sensations to me are "all there is". They are non-universal, but beyond those limits, there is nothing.
Masculine logic seeks universal domination of existence, but cannot fully realize this. Feminine logic seeks not to be submitted to a universality, but cannot escape it either. This difference leads to a deadlock. More on that later maybe.
Await thoughts. If anyone is interested, later will do a follow up post on how for Zizek/Lacan this leads to sexualization.