I feel like we're talking at cross-purposes (or possibly reading at cross-purposes), but here goes. It's a story. Everything is a symbol. Stories are about symbols; that's how they have meaning. John's a symbol; so is Max. Being a symbol is not a gendered situation in this narrative universe. Stories are also about actors -- in this case, that primarily means Sam and Dean; all the symbols in this story -- yes, Mary and Jess, but also Max and John and Cassie and that girl from the Wendigo episode and the son in Bugs and the whole Bender family etc. ad nauseam -- serve to reflect and amplify their drama. In this case, those people are male; I think that there maleness matters because it is a token of their incompleteness. (And as an aside, I think that's kind of cool because I have a vague memory of the argument that women are incomplete/imperfect men, possibly in Aristotle's gynecology.)

Female consciousness might as well not exist in the Supernatural universe. How is that (a) okay and (b) a long-term strategy for a series?

(a) It's OK with me as a reader, because I'm interested in the story. Is it OK in a greater moral sense? I don't know. The Iliad is a better text, but it's not big on female consciousness; this is true of The Lord of the Rings as well. A lot of people don't like these texts for precisely these reasons; I am inordinarily fond of both of them. Are stories about women inherently more valuable to me than stories about men? For me, the answer is "no." Mileage on this varies.

(b) In terms of the evolution of the story's universe over the long term, I actually agree with you -- I think that we will need to see women acting within the mytharc. The character I'd like to see in this context, but rather doubt that we will -- is Monica, the mother from Salvation. (This is because of the way I interpret what the Demon is doing -- so what I want to know is, how will her survival, where all the other mothers were killed -- affect the outcome?)