Jung stated that the anima appears as one woman to men, she always looks the same. He then said that the animus, however, was not one man, but all men when it appeared to women. I’ve thought about it for a year and I have a theory. 1/

The anima is one woman because men are most likely to, at least once monogamy became dominant, learn all of their feminine traits from one woman—the one they’re married to/cohabitate with for most of their lives. 2/

(One could make the claim that it’s because men are less comfortable being emotionally vulnerable on the whole than women.) So that clears up the anima. But wait, why would the animus not have a 1:1 male counterpart for women? 3/

Jung said that to his female patients, the animus was evocative of all men. When asked why this was, he said he didn’t know. (I seriously love that he would admit that). I’ve thought about it, and here’s my explanation: because women are sexual selectors. Let me explain. 4/

Men are selected by women, so they’re going to incorporate their anima by being selected and “trained up” by their woman. Hence, the anima is femininity expressed most closely to them, most intimately. Women, on the other hand, have to do the selecting. 5/

So the animus appears to women as not one man, but the POTENTIAL of men. She isn’t just selecting the man that most closely resembles her animus, it’s too broad to do that. She has to select for the man whose masculine traits she would benefit most to have. 6/

A woman who is disagreeable doesn’t need that in a man, she needs patience and go-with-the-flow. A woman that is overly compassionate needs a man who is more strict than she. And when you’re shopping for traits, the animus is a guide to the rough idea of masculinity 6/

rather than one that is tailor-made to her. One could also say that, as we age and incorporate the opposite sex traits to become more well-rounded, that we are really just integrating the traits of our partner more than rough ideas, so women have the onus put on them to select 8/

well not just for themselves, but also for their partner. A good match has to be beneficial for both sides by design.

I can’t wait for the Jungian scholars of Twitter to poke holes in this.