There is much truth to everything you said. However, analysis and thoughtfulness are inextricable parts of oneself, and each person much find a balance with themselves; this balance itself may be part of what is thought of as intuitive. Reflection and analysis are parts of our nature, and it may be a matter of opinion whether or not they are part of a natural order. We also cannot say that they do not extend to non-human creatures. I disagree that creative man has necessarly stepped outside the bounds of Nature, but perhaps we have different definitions of creativity. Creations are as varied as each mind, and their degree of accordance with natural law or principle is not uniform, in my opinion. I am very sympathetic to everything you argue, but even in our ability to communicate these ideas themselves I am conscious of nature and natural law as its provenance, and it is of course not unrelated to animal life or to the life of primitive men. The ability to think of things in the abstract is also a gift of nature and bears its signature, though it of course may not be abused without consequence, and is in this sense similar to consciousness itself. I also agree with you about the solutions.
There is a limit at which all past civilizations in their history became sophisticated, generated sufficient plenty for vast labor specialization, and became increasingly hero-less, sterile, and infested by sociopathy. I think it takes more effort to explain why these are coincidences then how society mutated into something broken, unfixable, and depressive to its unfortunate members.
I don't condemn humanity for its reasoning, I condemn it for the excess of reason which drives away the individual passions that make life meaningful (in the name of 'cringe', 'silly', 'beneath your station', or indeed 'emotional') and makes for a civilization wide spiritual depression that critiques all motivations into dust and renders every society that has undergone this sickness into neurotic oversocialized abstract-ridden sterility. Passion without reason is mania, but reason without passion is our modern depression epidemic. This is the gender breakdown, internally to the man or woman and externally to the societial sickness which must be cured.
On the other hand, perhaps it is not that anti-emotional intellectualism combats the spiritual man — the least we can say is that the two, the sudden popularity of intellectualism's critique of using feeling to make decisions & the final loss of the passion to live meaningfully in one's virility or fertility, appear simultaneously in the memoirs of every past civilization. Thus we see that while the cultivation of man's intellect seems to be a magnificent ideal, it is only on condition that it does not weaken man's dedication to duty, faith, and his fellow man. Yet this, judging by historical precedent, seems to be exactly what it does do.
I don't think have a difference in our definitions of creativity, you see it as an individual exercise which it definitively is. However I spoke only to the man who wields it, and the results of its usage societially. Think of it as you say discussing man's industry, and I speaking to industry's pollution. Both can and are true, either can be discussed but are very different conversations.
Like Pavlov's Dogs we attach meaning to the creative man's work, but in the next generation the original meaning is lost and the society is without one more natural intuition or principle. Only the theory and the history lead back to the nature lost, and society loses its attention span for retaining those during civilizational decline for it is the same culture which they reject and are disgusted by. However, irony of ironies, in the rejection of learning their culture's theories and histories for the forgotten natural world they reacquire the thing lost anyway.
Creative man's flaw is that he reduces nature to abstraction in art, references the abstraction in classifying his art as a broader movement, reduces the reference by re-explaining the movement only as a specific common philosophy or goal, references the abstraction by naming the goal of the movement after a group of artists during a specific period of time, and finally removes the nature entirely by connecting the group of artist's only sociologically to the heyday of the movement and defined only by their years and the culture they originated from. My argument is that man, not his creativity, slowly withers on the vine by sophistication and abstraction. Like the bell of Pavlov's Dogs, being replaced by a signal the bell's sound is coming, and then the dog's are one by one replaced as they grow old and die. We lose the thing referenced by the end, Man sterilizes everything including himself. All the great Cultures are defeats.
So gender relations wither until there is a return to nature, if that happens then there is a true reevaluation that leads to better relations.
