It is worth noting that neither side - masculine or feminine - is morally superior to the other; rather they balance each other out, and the differences of one compliment and perpetuate differences in the other.
What is masculine? What is feminine? I believe how they are defined originates from basic nature:
- female - the mother, whom bears the child; cares for the child
- male - the father, who spreads his seed; the protector of the child
Neither one can be morally superior to the other, for if all women were by their nature inherently evil, perhaps some kind of shadowy seductresses, then where do the mothers come from? Who feeds and nurtures the child?
And if all men were by their nature inherently evil, perhaps one-directional power mongers, then where do the courageous heroes come from, the rescuers, the protectors?
It is not to be said that each types’ characteristics are solely exclusive to that specific gender; there are certainly nurturing men and courageous women.
When does morality between the polar archetypes become quantifiable?
Returning to the nature of it – in species deviating from us homo-sapiens and our close mammalian relatives, where the born gender-roles vary drastically from specie to specie, so do the definitions of masculine and feminine for that species: the male sea-horse births its young; most female spiders are belligerent towards their mate, often killing them after copulation; the male spider is often smaller than its female counterpart.
At the pinnacle of gender mutuality, we have the mammals, who nurse their young - it would seem this sort of balance does not exist much elsewhere in the animal kingdom, as any species where the mother is no longer responsible for feeding its young varies too drastically.
By nurturing the innocent and helpless (i.e., the young) without a direct correlation between helping them and self-benefit, we accept faith in a common goodness, and no causal connection between helping and self-benefit ever has to be observed in order for this faith in common goodness to yield benefit over time, whether or not individual instances had any apparent connection between altruism and self-benefit.
So when does morality become quantifiable? (not just for the polar archetypes, but for morality in general), the answer is that it never does, as, at least for us mammalians, morality is rooted in compassion which supersedes causality, since those who helped the innocent and helpless in their time of need with no benefit to the helper can receive help in their own time of need from others who follow this acausal moral principle of compassion.
This was an evolutionary mechanic. The mother who cared for its offspring and nurtured it ended up prolonging the lives of those it nurtured, giving the mother’s genes better odds of carrying on – but there was no limit to this compassion and it soon stretched beyond the border of species; adoption between species is one of the greatest pieces of evidence for compassion’s limitless nature.
Returning to the polar archetypes: the source of their polarity is sexual (hope that doesn’t sound too redundant) as well as physical in origin:
One egg, many sperm; a female who must bear the burden of pregnancy, and thus exercises caution in choosing a mate - the Animus; the male with his gritty hardened exterior identifies aspects of feminine compassion within himself which he then bases his approach to finding a mate off of - the Anima -where the male’s inability to find a mate who gives off a sense of completeness, and the resulting inversion which takes a partial counter-stance on masculinity - a normal occurrence in the Anima’s development - this inverted self is seeking a mate who values compassion and motherly aspects in the male, desiring a unity or common-ground between the perspectives of both genders, rather than each using the other as a means to an end.
When this Anima is rejected, the individual then seeks to invalidate personal doubts of weakness by becoming self-destructive; through demonstrating self-destructive habits (though often it can manifest as what could be considered ‘constructive’, the male is actually expressing his inner recklessness, releasing the chained animal kept inside the subconscious mind which sees the destinations at the end of a destructive path), the individual shows to himself and others that him valuing compassion is not due to any sort of weakness on his part. Rather, he is defending the fact that compassion is a strength which transcends the limitations of will that is driven by self-interest. Another phase in Anima development.
The Anima, which is itself an inversion of the psyche, can itself become inverted. When the Anima is brought too close to consciousness, it overtakes the identity others have given him and changes his persona to be more feminine. It is possible that when this reaches its extreme, it leads to the phenomenon of homosexuality - although the process in particular itself is not homosexual, and is arguably seen to some extent in all human males, as it is an unavoidable part of development, especially early development (although this same development will continue throughout life, it occurs most in childhood when concepts of fairness and equality are first being integrated.
There is no civilized man with a psyche constructed purely out of self interest, and all males in the civilized world do possess an Anima. The psyche of the male is not wholly different than the psyche of the female, and a unified common ground exists between both which all polar masculine or feminine phenomenon must first diverge from.
