Jung's terminology can be used to describe an idea that had great currency through the twentieth century; which was that men had a female "side" (anima), and women had a male "side" (animus), and that it was healthier/ more-balanced/ better-integrated/ more spiritually-advanced when the sexes became aware of their opposite archetypal qualities - and achieved some kind of "blend" of the two sides.
Looking back, 21st century Christians can readily see that this idea has been socially-deployed in many evil ways; to confuse and even invert the sexual self-understanding of the population.
And indeed that, in practice, the idea was applied one-sidedly as asserting the need-for/ benefits-from men to become more feminine, and traditionally male social structures to become feminized.
This has been a disaster.
So it seems necessary to conclude that making men/ institutions/ society "more feminine" is a very bad idea, with consequences that are turning-out to be spiritually, psychologically, and physically lethal.
But, the widespread nature of the basic idea or feeling behind the anima/ animus suggests to me that there was "something" in it; and that the false and demonically-hijacked implementation was nonetheless rooted in a genuine insight (albeit misunderstood and distorted) concerning the nature of individuals and society.
This true insight was (I think) largely negative and critical; and it was that men and women's psychology and social roles, Christianity itself, and Western institutions generally; were all one-sided and incomplete in their basic nature - in ways that made them partial, incoherent, and spiritually-stultifying at an individual level.
In other words; there was indeed by the twentieth century "something wrong" (at least most of the time, for many people and situations) with the pre-modern separation/ segregation/ division of the sexes in the context of the distinctive twentieth century consciousness.
So, we may be able to agree that there were serious, indeed fatal flaws with the understanding and actuality of "sexuality" a century-plus ago; and that explains why counter-revolutionary/ reactionary attempts to reverse the changes of the past century, and restore the previously-existing system and psychology have been almost completely ineffectual.
(Much talk, but near zero effect! Much posturing, but mostly (unintentionally) revelatory of its fakeness.)
By my analysis, the twentieth century demonstrated that Christianity lacks the theological and metaphysical resources to deal with the challenge of the anima/ animus insights. Such mainstream ideas as the androgynous/ sexless angels, the loss of meaningful sexual identity after death, the dissolving of all marriages by death, the uncreative and non-procreative activities of resurrected men and women...
When combined with modern consciousness; all of these assertions of traditional Christianity seem like positive inducements to the sexual confusions and distortions of the 21st century!
With such a confused and feeble basis in theology; "Christians" divided into those Liberals who passively followed the secular trend of individual and social feminization; and Traditionalists who tried to maintain and restore pre-modern forms...
The liberals ceased to be Christian; while the traditionalists failed - and continue to fail - to address the underlying inadequacies and deficiencies of pre-modern Christianity.
(Which is why people don't really want traditionalism, and why it never goes anywhere.)
I believe that some of the most valuable clues to valuable answers can be found in Mormon theology (and I mean Mormon theology - not the actual current practice of the CJCLDS - which is mostly very different, and increasingly liberalized).
When God is recognized to be a man and a woman, and when the highest spiritual form of heavenly activity is recognized to be an eternal marriage of resurrected man and woman; then there is a (simple and clear) theoretical basis for a way of considering masculine and feminine that is both new, and also seems to fit with what we know of pre-civilizational tribal Men.
As always, we need to by guided by what Mormons call Personal Revelation; and which I have characterized as the explicit and conscious recognition of the primacy of an intuition that is rooted in Primary Thinking leading to Direct Knowing.
The answer to what each-of-us individually should do; cannot, therefore, be discovered from general rules about sexuality and sex. There are so many exceptions to general rules of this kind, that the exceptions typically outnumber the valid applications!
While eternal marriage of a resurrected man and woman in Heaven is the spiritually-highest state; not all of us currently (or foreseeably) desire, or are suited to, such an outcome. And although all human lives ought to be rooted in love; mortal marriage is not, and never has been, the right thing for everybody.
(For instance, for many people - past and present - family love, that is love within ones birth family - is and should be primary.)
It is learning the divinely-destined life-lessons of our experiences in this actual current mortal life which ought to be our primary concern: here-and-now.
It is what we are here for.
But - in this evil-dominated world of official lies and officially-sanctioned sins - those lessons can best be learned when we have a coherent and spiritually-valid understanding of the ultimate basis of masculine and feminine.
