Feminine psychology, within the depth-psychological corpus, names a contested and generative field of inquiry concerned with the distinctively feminine dimensions of psychic life — its archetypal foundations, its developmental trajectories, and its relationship to the masculine-inflected structures of consciousness that have historically dominated both theory and culture. The term carries no single, stable definition: at one pole stands the classical Jungian position, represented most fully in Esther Harding’s The Way of All Women, which maps the feminine psyche through the lens of anima-projection, Eros, and the unconscious backgrounds that consciousness alone cannot illuminate. At another pole stand the post-Jungian revisionary voices — Woodman, Perera, Ulanov — who redirect attention from woman-as-relational-being toward woman in her own right, insisting that patriarchal psychology has systematically neglected or idealized the innately feminine. Samuels names this tension precisely, questioning whether the corrective emphasis on primal feminine energy risks a new form of idealization. Hillman, from the archetypal vantage, complicates the picture further by insisting that feminine qualities — the anima, mood, fantasy — are psychic properties that operate regardless of biological sex. Von Franz, meanwhile, flags the insufficiency of Christian symbolism as a cultural-psychological problem rooted in the exclusion of the dark feminine. Across these positions, feminine psychology is not a unified doctrine but a productive site of theoretical contention about the nature of the psyche, the claims of the body, and the adequacy of existing symbolic orders.