Do Women Have Ego?

My question is, do women actually possess a true ego, or have women been taught to imitate possessing ego in order to succeed over men in business and in relationships?

We can define ego as a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance, but are the female of the species born with this as men are? Modern society has worked very hard to shame males into denying or hiding ego to promote the kind of sameness equality that has lead to the feminization of men. But we have also done a great disservice to women by teaching them that they too, possess an inherent ego and should act accordingly but I think this leads to the following problems;

1. Overcompensating female bosses. They are seen as monsters and over-bearing control freaks. Women who go so far over the line that it becomes a problem to not only the business but all the employees within that business. Without a true ego, they cannot gauge and understand their place within their organization, their community and even in their own families.

2. Mean Girls. They are taught that their ego is to be vaulted above all others. They kick and scream their way to the top, expecting to be rewarded with feelings of importance and esteem but they are met with disappointment and loneliness because of all those people they hurt because they ignored their instinct in favour of stroking a false sense of ego that is over-inflated by the media and modern social theory.

3. Feminized men. While their ego's are taught to be a thing of shame, and females being taught to imitate an ego for the sake of "equality" they lose their sense of what it is to be man. This stripping of the male's entitlement to their ego and all that means for his growth and development brings about a submissive and more "feminine" attitude.

4. Less intelligent women breeding. The adoption of the false ego means that she wants to control when she breeds, and often waits for a time that she is either less fertile or has a higher chance of bringing forth weak offspring. The more vested she appears to be in her ego, the more she moves forward in the eyes of her competition, male and female and the less likely she is to make room for baby because she does not want to appear weak or distracted by instinct.

5. Weaker males taking the place of intelligent breeders, and breeding with inferior women who they can dominate because they cannot dominate the female who has created a false ego for herself. This leads to lesser humans populating faster than more intelligent and superior humans.

And a host of other things.

Do women possess a true ego, or is it a social construct pushed out there by sameness equality and modernity?

This isn't an attempt to finalize an answer to your inquiry, but rather an addendum which confronted as exploratory.
As I noted elsewhere there is a comprehensive inversion of both types when one type is overbearing or the other type is underbearing.
A case in point comes from a trend, explained in the below article*, whereby men have taken on the sociobehavioral dialects and dialectics of women. I see it resultant of two conditionals: 1) permissiveness, and 2) suggestiveness, of which is a passive dominant trait of women and which was an active dominant trait of men in a past when ego was tribalized as opposed to individualized.

*http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25232387?SThisFB

Yes obviously....in fact, the average female has a greater/superior Ego than an average male. Why? Because females are born with inherent value and worth, while males are not. Male value is created over time, and socially dependent upon actions of servility, how well a male "serves" society, state, or church. In fact these are the foundations and institutions of "Ego building". Slaves are only allowed the illusion of independence and individuality at the behest of states, as long as the individuality of any given slave does not surpass or compromise the overall State power, of which "God" is the biggest, largest, most powerful, pervasive, and authoritative "Ego".

Again, females on average are far more selfish than average males. This is observed by how, during natural disasters and emergencies, "women and children" are saved first. This is biology, instinct, and genetics at play. Another common example of selfishness of women, is imagining the judæo-christian "Christ" figure as a woman. Would Christian mythology make sense, if Christ were a female instead of a male, sacrificing herself for the betterment of others or all of mankind? No, it wouldn't make sense. It defies common sense.

In fact, if "Jesus Christ" were posited as a female, and not a male, then all of Christianity would falter. It would be too unbelievable for anybody to believe in.

That's how preposterous the idea of "selfless women" is, in reality. The idea of mythical, magical, invisible gods is more realistic than the possibility of "selfless women".

Further examples are war, and intra-male violence, competition over sex and sexual rights, etc.


I could go further into detail, but what's the point. It should be obvious. This is common sense.

What is uncommonly known, however, is how females learn early in life to hide their Ego, selfishness, and pretend as though females are not individuals (equal to men). Females also do this instinctively, to form "Society". This ultimately leads to "unfair" distributions of moral responsibility in society. Females and males are never "truly equal", meanwhile, males are held to far, far higher standards of social and moral conduct than women.

Proof? You want proof?

"Never hit a woman, no matter the reason." There it is, too easy and obvious to see.

Æon wrote:

Yes obviously....in fact, the average female has a greater/superior Ego than an average male.  Why?  Because females are born with inherent value and worth, while males are not.  Male value is created over time, and socially dependent upon actions of servility, how well a male "serves" society, state, or church.  In fact these are the foundations and institutions of "Ego building".  Slaves are only allowed the illusion of independence and individuality at the behest of states, as long as the individuality of any given slave does not surpass or compromise the overall State power, of which "God" is the biggest, largest, most powerful, pervasive, and authoritative "Ego".

Again, females on average are far more selfish than average males.  This is observed by how, during natural disasters and emergencies, "women and children" are saved first.  This is biology, instinct, and genetics at play.  Another common example of selfishness of women, is imagining the judæo-christian "Christ" figure as a woman.  Would Christian mythology make sense, if Christ were a female instead of a male, sacrificing herself for the betterment of others or all of mankind?  No, it wouldn't make sense.  It defies common sense.

In fact, if "Jesus Christ" were posited as a female, and not a male, then all of Christianity would falter.  It would be too unbelievable for anybody to believe in.

That's how preposterous the idea of "selfless women" is, in reality.  The idea of mythical, magical, invisible gods is more realistic than the possibility of "selfless women".

Further examples are war, and intra-male violence, competition over sex and sexual rights, etc.


I could go further into detail, but what's the point.  It should be obvious.  This is common sense.

What is uncommonly known, however, is how females learn early in life to hide their Ego, selfishness, and pretend as though females are not individuals (equal to men).  Females also do this instinctively, to form "Society".  This ultimately leads to "unfair" distributions of moral responsibility in society.  Females and males are never "truly equal", meanwhile, males are held to far, far higher standards of social and moral conduct than women.

Proof?  You want proof?

"Never hit a woman, no matter the reason."  There it is, too easy and obvious to see.

I can never tell if your posts are just dripping with sarcasm or not. So I'll answer honestly instead.

It seems like a newer, more modern invention to say, "Never hit a woman, no matter the reason." since throughout history, women have indeed been scolded and reminded of their place through physical force when reason was too complex for them to see.

It kills me when I am watching a show and it's completely okay for a woman to hit a man and not expect to be hit back, or even worse... when she thinks it's funny to hurt him. I don't think that's common sense.  I think that it's perfectly possible for women to go their entire lives without the threat or introduction of physical violence if she has shown she can act reasonably, understand the consequences of her actions and see logic clearly. But women who are either too stupid or too selfish, may benefit from a reminder of her order in the world and/or the benefits of wiser and more reasonable males that are tasked with leading them.

However, it is not in our instinct as women to be selfish.  To me, that is considered a male trait and as long as a woman is provided for and treated with respect, her purpose is to care for and sacrifice for others.  The whole purpose of being pregnant for a woman is to bring forth offspring that can either care for others (females) or lead others (males) and it is a sacrifice to her body to do so and should be done willingly because she is instinctually drawn to do so. I think that women have been done a great disservice by unruly women who have been driven to act on their behalf in some sort of crazy power grab borne of a mutant gene that probably should have been stifled by a male who was strong enough or physically challenged and put back in her place.

Males should be held to higher standards socially and morally because they possess a level of logic that is far greater than women and the superiority and the ego to lead.  As for the "women and children first" comment, I don't believe that is a female driven instinct, but male paternalism (and rightfully so) for a male to insure the survival of his offspring/future.

Have women been taught to be selfish?  That it is their right somehow to ignore their order and place and triumph over the male for some perceived slight of the past or because of oppression?  That's slave/victim mentality, and no female worth having would subscribe to that kind of notion. Modernity is teaching them not only to ignore their instincts and embrace mediocrity, but that they have some sort of right to be "greater" than man.

I remain unconvinced that women are born with inherent ego, and that it isn't some grand notion of modernity that teaches this trait that may or may not be the downfall of human kind.

Arditezza wrote:

My question is, do women actually possess a true ego, or have women been taught to imitate possessing ego in order to succeed over men in business and in relationships?

Of course women, like every other living organism has an ego. Ego means self.
Having self and knowing self (know thyself) are two different things, just as knowing and understanding are not the same.
Here, even most men, in today's world know very little of self, as they've rejected a big part of it, and focus on the immediate, the shallow, guided by memes which negate past/nature.
When you've rejected the biggest part of self then what is left is the most immediate, shallow; what offers the quick fix, the immediate gratification; what is directed by the most current, the modern, the meme detached from the gene, when it comes to Nihilistic/Modern idealism.

Do women have less of a potential to know self?
Yes...because women are nurturers, followers, and if they have no strong masculine spirit or influence (father figure) ion their life they adopt whatever is the most convenient, popular.
There are women with more masculine spirit than men, and in a modern world, more than most men.
But females are not immune to the feminization process.
It is most noticeable in males, but women have also been emasculated, in that what masculine spirit they have is stunted, or denied.
This does not mean women should be lesbians or butch, nor this modern idea(l) female who imitates men, wears trousers and acts as if she were male because the system permits it and protects her from being called out.

Arditezza wrote:

We can define ego as a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance, but are the female of the species born with this as men are? Modern society has worked very hard to shame males into denying or hiding ego to promote the kind of sameness equality that has lead to the feminization of men.  But we have also done a great disservice to women by teaching them that they too, possess an inherent ego and should act accordingly but I think this leads to the following problems;

No, ego is not the same as self-esteem. this is a very modern way of thinking of it, in a world that must make ego a negative, and equate it with arrogance, untested unwarranted arrogance.
Ego is self, and how much self you know and how you esteem it, value it, is based on your ideals, and your clarity - where emotion does not corrupt the judgment either to make it overestimate or underestimate.

If your idea(l) is to be a good Christian, pious, then being submissive, dim witted, will bring you closer to your idea(l) and your self-esteem will be high.

Arditezza wrote:

1. Overcompensating female bosses. They are seen as monsters and over-bearing control freaks.  Women who go so far over the line that it becomes a problem to not only the business but all the employees within that business.  Without a true ego, they cannot gauge and understand their place within their organization, their community and even in their own families.

when the behaviour is not natural, coming from inside of you as the manifestation of your past/nature, then it is forced, faked, and like with acting, you sometimes overact, unable to gauge what is proper, or what is convincing.
This is why actors, fakers, must embody the character, must believe they are it....and then it becomes more convincing.
But the act cannot go on indefinitely.
The actor fatigues he must break character, and if he is pretending then the pretense shows to one who is watching. It is why I like those states of paroxysm, like during sex, or during moments of passion, like anger....or when the other is inebriated, or thinks he is not being watched.

Arditezza wrote:

2. Mean Girls.  They are taught that their ego is to be vaulted above all others.  They kick and scream their way to the top, expecting to be rewarded with feelings of importance and esteem but they are met with disappointment and loneliness because of all those people they hurt because they ignored their instinct in favour of stroking a false sense of ego that is over-inflated by the media and modern social theory.

This is a product of entitlement, and sheltering - the modern system protecting individuals from the cruelty of reality.
These individuals, men and women both, become demanding, arrogant for no reason, knowing they wil not have to face the price for being wrong.
Obviously, women are much more sheltered than men, so this becomes a problem with females, whio think men are nitimidated by them, ro think they deserve something exceptional when they are mediocre and oftentimes below average.

Arditezza wrote:

3. Feminized men.  While their ego's are taught to be a thing of shame, and females being taught to imitate an ego for the sake of "equality" they lose their sense of what it is to be man. This stripping of the male's entitlement to their ego and all that means for his growth and development brings about a submissive and more "feminine" attitude.

Nature abhors a vacuum.
When masculine energy is emasculated, shamed, told to hide, it recedes, leaving a gap where it was present, and within what it evolved.
But human environments change at a faster rate than human body's, genes, adapt....and so there's a discrepancy.
The vacuum is filled by women who pretend to be men, and by males who overcompensate with hyper-masculinity.
I've written all this in my MANifesto.
What we get is exaggerated, overacting, overcompensation.
See cRAP "music" and the behaviours of many of these men-children on ILP....
*poke

Arditezza wrote:

4. Less intelligent women breeding. The adoption of the false ego means that she wants to control when she breeds, and often waits for a time that she is either less fertile or has a higher chance of bringing forth weak offspring. The more vested she appears to be in her ego, the more she moves forward in the eyes of her competition, male and female and the less likely she is to make room for baby because she does not want to appear weak or distracted by instinct.

If inferior female breeds due to the r/K selection dynamic.
With a manmade environment that shelters and offers abundance, the weak, the herbivores begin to reproduce like bunnies.
Hedonism reigns, because nothing has a cost too severe to be paid, and most behaviours have no cost whatsoever.
With few costs to a an act no severity, respect diminishes...particularly self-respect. All becomes about the fix, the pleasure reward, live fast dies young.
This is a herbivore/bovine breeding practice - compensates for low quality with high quantities.
Fuck, eat, drink, shit, sleep...repeat lifestyle of animal gratification.
This is easy, when you have no sense of self, no pride in your past, and nothing to look forward to.
you then have this play until you die, 'it's better to burn out than to fade away" attitude, trying to convince the world it is the "best" to live like an infant on crack, or you have the morons who refuse to discriminate and rely on numbers for one of their offspring to make it....the white-trash.
here the reason could be mixed racial background, or an inheritance one is ashamed of.
The "do not know thyself", because I and i and only I matter, and I depend and expect nothing from nobody.
The modern imbecile attitude.
Mixed racial background where the father is absent and the mother is weak, or stupid, means the child cannot find anything in past to ground himself upon. so he settles for living the life he has with no concern, no investment - the cynic is born.

Arditezza wrote:

5. Weaker males taking the place of intelligent breeders, and breeding with inferior women who they can dominate because they cannot dominate the female who has created a false ego for herself. This leads to lesser humans populating faster than more intelligent and superior humans.

In a herbivore, r-selected group, the omega male is king. He is the carpet, the one who embraces his emasculation and goes one step further, wanting to be a woman, or at least a surrogate female.
Modern females love this type, in the short-term....he becomes their slave, their anything, and he does it happily, but females are not gratified by this in the long-term because,a gain, genes evolve slower than memes.
The temporal gap, is what I call being out of phase.
An example I sue is obesity. Here the dis-ease is caused by man's evolution within austere environment, suddenly finding itself in manmade environment of artificial abundance.
Also responsible for r/selection, and feminization.
It's all part of the same dis-ease....displaying different symptoms.

You know, there's something within the man that makes him automatically excuse the woman, not just in the "she's weaker than me" sense, but an inability to hold the woman responsible, even if it is at his own destruction. He naturally attributes a purity to her, an innocence where she can do no wrong. He may hold her in suspicion for a brief moment but quickly forgets it, then continues to explain them in a way that comforts himself, until it's made blatantly clear to him that they are capable of every ill that man engages in, if not more so.

In modern culture, technology and media, it's harder to hide the "dark side" of the woman or more specifically, an insight into the greater depth of the human condition,  it becomes quite clear how ruthless, selfish, violent, greedy, vindictive and vile they are, and increasingly so, especially amongst each other.

The modern paradigm often contradicts with innate characteristics of women, usually resulting in them being pulled in conflicting directions, further resulting in multiples illnesses and diseases, also exposing what they are fully capable of doing....

As the system observes from a distance..

Most dream of escaping..especially when the going gets tough, the hair is let down, the beautiful dresses come out, the shoes are slipped on, and then slipped on....and the tights get tighter..floral designs, a breeze in the garden..fused with that baby voice..ahhh such wonderful innocence awaits a great flattering, with all this breast reduction surgery from cancer..you wouldn't think they can get any flatter ..

I kid..

Then, mrs self-worth start knocking on the door! Hair back, war paint, claws and all...take an early visit to the morgue-age before her final settling..a debt those pay who are placed on the cross as an ideal standard..

Forget the hills
Forget the running

Perhaps, abseiling down the side of a skyscraper will hide the misery..

a few steps above being pissy drunk in a bunny onesie, or softly falling asleep in the bath..

A personal Narnia with a personal White Witch where Turkish delight makes for a precarious peace..

But for the frozen new girls, well, they are taught to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@YrAfanc

We've touched upon the innocence and other characteristic and typified qualities of the female form in multiformality and the how others interprete and interact with or to its varied developments and gradations. I'm glad that you've also been able to relate it and with it yourself.
It are these fundamental and derived qualities of a women which give men the role of protector of the former, as women in turn also have a protective role which could be as a mother over children which in turn comprises a family of which as a unit is protector over the father and, or could be as a mate over man's ideals coupled with her own which would equally influence his. Deviations or exceptions in this interdependencey have results which we continue to assess.

It is evinced to be a reductionist extremity that when a phenomenon cannot be rationalized to a static configuration in response to an incongruity in a given comparison or presupposition it is dichtomously inferred a provisional possibility which explanation then becomes a permanence.
Following, the question then is not singularly one of absence or presence, that is in case, "do women have ego"? but also "how are womens' egos expressed?"
If it is argued that only men have egos, then the basis for determining an ego and therefore an ego in women would be according to a classification which is necessarily disparate in some part if not absent in other part.
Now, should a dissimilarity occur then the furthest it can be immediately concluded is that there is a difference in which turn would have to be observed and compared.
Although there is reasonable justification to a dissatisfaction of the quality of contemporary women, there is also an element of misogyny or resentment when it is demanded that women possess or acquire ideals which are incompatible with both their and men's ontogenic capabilities or potential.

To me the Ego defines the potency, tendencies, capacities of developing Self disconnected to a certain degree from the immediate, the dominant idea(l)s, the current of manifested interpretations. To be able to see for yourself, to read substance and connect it by yourself to other dots and can explain it, understand it with other relations, or to think without the need of an absolute interpretation to get ''validation'', to write and behave with the instinct against the normative-standards of artificial Morality.
The Little-Me (id) is the most base, Manimalistic; and in these times propagated to an certain degree in so far it is non-threatening to the State's dominance and economy and the Super-Ego is the greater dominance of the ideal, the current interpretation of the State manifested in the I-machines we call Moderns who parrot the Super-Ego as if it is self-evident, Self-substance, non-thaught values though they were implanted and nurtured as they are manifested today and propagated by ''free-will'' they call 'their / our way of life'.

I say men have more potency to develop an Ego to an greater extent than women, but in general, in these times - it is all about the few among the many. The most masculine women I can think of are the ones who embrace their feminity despite of the ideals telling her otherwise, ideals telling them to embrace an abstract form of ''masculinity'' degraded to an burp, a fart, a cigarette and a sip of a beer. Sacred potency lowered to vile behaviour even a sick sheep can manifest or a drunk alcoholic hedonist lost in meaninglesness (boredom, ego-lessness) and an average cursing negroe can represent.

Maybe ego isn't the right word, but competitiveness would be more apt.  The drive to rise above all others, to be dominant.

I had a very strong father figure growing up, which is why I have masculine traits like using logic and reason to work through problems, having little ability to cry or display emotions, and taking responsibility for... well, everything.  I am the sole breadwinner, and have been for some time. When I chose to have children, a discussion was had about who had the greater earning potential and why one parent being home for the child was important.  I simply didn't want my children raised by cretins and idiots, and to have the safety of home in the youngest years.

But I do what I have to do to support my family in any way, but am not looking to be at the top of my career, or above others. I have no drive to compare myself with other females either.  I know that I am superior to others because my mate considers me so, and my children use me as an example to other children about reasonable parenting. I do not have a need to talk in social groups and perform posturing.  All that matters is that I serve my patients well, and I serve my family well. Nothing else matters.  

I also have a passion for pottery, in that I love throwing clay on a wheel and creating beautiful things, but do not have much time for that right now. I miss having the creative outlet, but what's going on in my family (my husband is at school or studying most nights) leaves me to handle the rest of the household chores and responsibilities. I am not angry about it, nor do I feel bitter that I don't have my "me" time that other women are constantly complaining about. I will get back to it when there is time, but we make sacrifices for who we love.  What else is there that is more important than that?

When I was taking classes at night to get my LSW and RN requirements done, I was working days as a database administrator to pay the bills. The days were long, but they were worth it because I found a career more suited to someone who enjoys taking care of others. I was miserable as a database administrator despite being good at it, it had been a logical decision earlier in my career so I could make a fair wage, but I am glad I transitioned into something I can be proud of at the end of the day. But even through my job, I never felt the need to compete. When I was taking tests in school, I never felt the need to succeed over anyone else, I just wanted to learn and master what I was learning.  

I watch my two boys, and they are very competitive, but the neighbor girl who grew up next door was not so until she began being exposed to the ideas that the schools teach.  Now she's one of the mean girls, always with too much makeup and putting others down. I think it's learned behavior and not inherent.

No, you're correct. Ego is the exact idea and concept you're looking for.

The case for the female-Ego is much different than male-Ego. Females instinctively hide Ego and use it covertly through life. Even the more selfish types of women are not as obscene and exhibitionist as average males are, concerning ego and identity. Females have more invested in Ego than males do, given the inherent differences of sexual, biological, and individual power between gender and specie. Because:

It is more difficult to attack, diminish, or destroy something you do not know exists than something you know does.

Female-ego is much more guarded and covert than male-ego. I hypothesize that, over time and the course of millenniums of civilization, females use "Group-Think" to hide their individual Egos. This is done through the linguistic marker of "We". Instead of "You" screwed up and are responsible for the deaths of these 100 random people, females compulsively switch to "We" screwed up and are responsible for the deaths of these 100 random people. The "We" sets females apart from the male-Ego which is more exposed, as "I". Males tend to explicitly differentiate "You" and "I" while females are group-thinkers, separating "We" and "They".

Us versus Them, the standard of politicking and warfare. War is group-competition.


What you are doing in this thread, inadvertently and without knowing in advance, is exposing your female-Ego which is extremely, extremely taboo, improper, and you would be immediately derided for doing so elsewhere out in the real world or on other internet forums. Because nobody instinctively wants or likes to see female-Ego exposed, or truly think of men and women as "Equals".


Another point of contention is female individual responsibility, which humans instinctively divert, and you've admitted to. If a woman and man are responsible for the deaths of 100 random people then society prosecutes male to the fullest punishment, but rarely women equally. The genders are "not equal" when it comes to legal prosecution rates, or even religiously moral attitude.

Simply put, females are dictated by society, state, and church ("God") that you have little or no self-responsibility. You cannot be responsible for much in life, even if you wanted to be, and even if you were. The compulsion of society is to take away female responsibility, especially when it's negative, divert it to males, and then re-divert "positive" contributions from men to women.

It's like the "evil white male" myth. That a white male can only do evil, no matter what he does, and that women and negroes can only do good, and whenever this is false, then it was because of "improper upbringing and education". Inferior nurturing is blamed for the ills of women and negroes. But nature is blamed for the ills of white men. However this is the "Liberal Fallacy" which dominates popular, modern culture today.

Arditezza wrote:

It kills me when I am watching a show and it's completely okay for a woman to hit a man and not expect to be hit back, or even worse... when she thinks it's funny to hurt him.

Here is a perfect example of this, the video below is from an Indian TV show where one of the female presenters slaps one of the contenders and he slaps her back, then some of the white knights from the crew/crowd hit him for defending himself:



Clint Eastwood knew how to deal with b*tches like her:

Æon wrote:

What you are doing in this thread, inadvertently and without knowing in advance, is exposing your female-Ego which is extremely, extremely taboo, improper, and you would be immediately derided for doing so elsewhere out in the real world or on other internet forums.  Because nobody instinctively wants or likes to see female-Ego exposed, or truly think of men and women as "Equals".


Another point of contention is female individual responsibility, which humans instinctively divert, and you've admitted to.  If a woman and man are responsible for the deaths of 100 random people then society prosecutes male to the fullest punishment, but rarely women equally.  The genders are "not equal" when it comes to legal prosecution rates, or even religiously moral attitude.

Simply put, females are dictated by society, state, and church ("God") that you have little or no self-responsibility.  You cannot be responsible for much in life, even if you wanted to be, and even if you were.  The compulsion of society is to take away female responsibility, especially when it's negative, divert it to males, and then re-divert "positive" contributions from men to women.

It's like the "evil white male" myth.  That a white male can only do evil, no matter what he does, and that women and negroes can only do good, and whenever this is false, then it was because of "improper upbringing and education".  Inferior nurturing is blamed for the ills of women and negroes.  But nature is blamed for the ills of white men.  However this is the "Liberal Fallacy" which dominates popular, modern culture today.

I don't need anyone to give me permission to take responsibility for my actions and thoughts, or tell me that I have or haven't taken responsibility for my family, my work or myself. I don't much care for popular ideas about who I am or what others think of me outside of my family, and I never have. "She wasn't born with that gene", my father used to say. I've never really given a fuck what popular culture has thrown at me, was never a victim of fashions or trends, and questioned everything everyone taught me, including my father so that I could reason it out myself. I just don't hear what others are saying about me or to me about how I handle myself and my family. I don't know why I am this way, but I am and I have tried to teach my sons to think freely as well and question everything. If I have a female-ego and I am exposing it, then they should be ashamed for trying to stop me because I do so with the most honest intentions. I don't want or need to hide anything, because I do not have anything to be ashamed of and the mistakes I have made are many but you can't waste time changing a past that isn't worth changing if you like the person you are as a result. We all fuck things up, it's the nature of being human and I have made apologies to those who would listen and to those who can't but I can't change their acceptance of it.

I do think that white males are getting screwed over from all angles. Shamed into thinking that because you are white, you must be evil and because you are male you have to have control over others and enslave and oppress. It's shameful that society tries to paint them that way, and it's racist and manipulative. It's hard on my sons, and it was difficult for my husband to get into a good Masters program because he is white and he's constantly berated in class and in discussion because all the philosophers are evil white men. It's all pretty bunk, and I think they are just trying to manipulate us into believing that their own shortcomings are only there because of the white man. I mean, history proves it... right? Academia is rife with sociologist who think their area is a science and not just bullshit that they have based on all the exceptions instead of all the actual facts and rules.

Arditezza wrote:

I don't need anyone to give me permission to take responsibility for my actions and thoughts, or tell me that I have or haven't taken responsibility for my family, my work or myself. I don't much care for popular ideas about who I am or what others think of me outside of my family, and I never have. "She wasn't born with that gene", my father used to say. I've never really given a fuck what popular culture has thrown at me, was never a victim of fashions or trends, and questioned everything everyone taught me, including my father so that I could reason it out myself. I just don't hear what others are saying about me or to me about how I handle myself and my family. I don't know why I am this way, but I am and I have tried to teach my sons to think freely as well and question everything. If I have a female-ego and I am exposing it, then they should be ashamed for trying to stop me because I do so with the most honest intentions. I don't want or need to hide anything, because I do not have anything to be ashamed of and the mistakes I have made are many but you can't waste time changing a past that isn't worth changing if you like the person you are as a result. We all fuck things up, it's the nature of being human and I have made apologies to those who would listen and to those who can't but I can't change their acceptance of it.

I do think that white males are getting screwed over from all angles. Shamed into thinking that because you are white, you must be evil and because you are male you have to have control over others and enslave and oppress. It's shameful that society tries to paint them that way, and it's racist and manipulative. It's hard on my sons, and it was difficult for my husband to get into a good Masters program because he is white and he's constantly berated in class and in discussion because all the philosophers are evil white men. It's all pretty bunk, and I think they are just trying to manipulate us into believing that their own shortcomings are only there because of the white man. I mean, history proves it... right? Academia is rife with sociologist who think their area is a science and not just bullshit that they have based on all the exceptions instead of all the actual facts and rules.

Female-Ego instinctively associates with "We".

Even in your response, your justify your links with....your family, your father, your sons. Your "We". Males don't have this, and if so, then at least not to a comparable degree. Thus, when it comes to exploring reality, males do not need "Permission" or to depend upon the feelings or thoughts of others. A male explores the unknown, typically, as an individual. As already separated from his society and past. Females? Not so much.....

When it comes to the realm of unknowns, males would outnumber a female 10 to 1, at least, if not 1000 to 1.


So what can a woman bring to the exploration of existence? Is she beneficial or detrimental?

Æon wrote:

Female-Ego instinctively associates with "We".

Even in your response, your justify your links with....your family, your father, your sons.  Your "We".  Males don't have this, and if so, then at least not to a comparable degree.  Thus, when it comes to exploring reality, males do not need "Permission" or to depend upon the feelings or thoughts of others.  A male explores the unknown, typically, as an individual.  As already separated from his society and past.  Females?  Not so much.....

When it comes to the realm of unknowns, males would outnumber a female 10 to 1, at least, if not 1000 to 1.


So what can a woman bring to the exploration of existence?  Is she beneficial or detrimental?

One must only hold their offspring at birth once, to understand what woman brings.

Woman can be both detrimental and beneficial. Some women lean one way or the other and most are a combination of both.  They are both distracting and detrimental if they smother, are too needy, or act too much like men. They can be beneficial and supportive if they understand their role, are selfless and family oriented.

There are a number of studies that suggest the brain works better when you are walking, so when my husband studied for his Comprehensive Exams in which he needed to write essays on a number of topics, I did a little research on all of the questions myself so that I would be informed enough and suggested that we walk for an hour every morning.  I listened on each walk as he explained what he was going to cover in his responses, using me as a sounding board to hone out his own ideas.  Along the way, where he would get stuck with finding a source for his objection, I would help research it and I would read it.  We did this every day for over a month until he was confident enough to take the exam.  He passed the first time with no problems.

Could he have done this on his own? Yes. But many of the other students in his same class level did not pass with the knowledge that they had learned.

Women can bring the understanding of female instinct that a man cannot intuit otherwise. They also can bring strength, and an understanding of our cyclical existence that in males alone seems very linear and without depth. Women seem to be better at finding source materials, and keeping the male mind fed. Plus, a celibate or sexual deprived male tends to have very different ideas that go against the grain of society and humanity. They don't understand that the chemicals within us, drive the brain in certain ways and to not experience that fully in all ways, cuts off an angle of exploration in the brain that is the very essence of existence.

You seem to be insinuating that Thought itself only belongs to men. So only they can talk about it. Do you think women have no capacity for thought, logic and reason without man?

Arditezza wrote:

One must only hold their offspring at birth once, to understand what woman brings.

As if a father cannot hold his offspring?

Or as if many women don't give away their newborn infants to adoption?

...any other examples??

Arditezza wrote:

You seem to be insinuating that Thought itself only belongs to men. So only they can talk about it. Do you think women have no capacity for thought, logic and reason without man?

I'd say that 70% of all thought is male-only, yes. And any access that females acquire to "male-only" or "male-oriented" ideas are purely memorized and not necessarily understood.

This is the reason why Lyssa so often copy-pastes material and text compulsively, without significant reading nor understanding. Females have a compulsive habit to copy what (dominant) males say, and therefore think. But copying thoughts is a lot harder than copying somebody's speech. Because copying a thought necessitates degrees of understanding. Just because somebody copy-pastes text from somebody else, or in the most popular example can quote a dead philosopher, does not imply at all that the person quoting and copying understands any of it.

"X said this!" is not a rational counter-argument. You must ask yourself first, why is X being said and why did X say it?

I've never seen females access "deeper" levels of rationalization and reasoning, because again, females simply don't need to meanwhile males do it for you.


As I am doing for you now.

Quote :

"Hrodeberto"

We've touched upon the innocence and other characteristic and typified qualities of the female form in multiformality and the how others interprete and interact with or to its varied developments and gradations. I'm glad that you've also been able to relate it and with it yourself.

It are these fundamental and derived qualities of a women which give men the role of protector of the former, as women in turn also have a protective role which could be as a mother over children which in turn comprises a family of which as a unit is protector over the father and, or could be as a mate over man's ideals coupled with her own which would equally influence his. Deviations or exceptions in this interdependencey have results which we continue to assess.

The female is a base creature, a seed scattered across the grounds, which also belongs to the ground. They are more socially perceptive used as an advantage to compensate for the lack of strength or inherent fragile sensitivity, this is also a compensation for the lack of intellectual strength. Knowing how to move socially does not indicate insight, intellectually or mentally. This is where the ego lies for the most part, if you like, at least in modern times...or in other words, it is more frequently exposed or visible due to the nature of the environment, even emphasized and used. All beings are dependent and disposable to varied degrees, women being more dependent and men being more disposable. The female energy naturally invests in any idea that guarantees them stability and security, a position of safety where her energy can play out its role without interference, one that offers the most resources is preferred. Due to the lack of mass control by any single entity, that said position took on a more "primal" form, more specifically in the form of a male, his masculinity and testosterone being a much needed resource, in that particular time and particular space. In modern times, the idea has developed into more of an abstraction, where even male disposability reaches a completion, where they become insignificant relative to the system being the provider. This is where the female ego is manipulated into rivalry with the male, the male often being a projected idea shown in a negative light to penetrate the female mentally to push forward certain elements of the ego, this makes them more vulnerable to the system whilst they remain convinced that they are more secure and stable in doing this.

Quote :

It is evinced to be a reductionist extremity that when a phenomenon cannot be rationalized to a static configuration in response to an incongruity in a given comparison or presupposition it is dichtomously inferred a provisional possibility which explanation then becomes a permanence.
Following, the question then is not singularly one of absence or presence, that is in case, "do women have ego"? but also "how are womens' egos expressed?" If it is argued that only men have egos, then the basis for determining an ego and therefore an ego in women would be according to a classification which is necessarily disparate in some part if not absent in other part.
Now, should a dissimilarity occur then the furthest it can be immediately concluded is that there is a difference in which turn would have to be observed and compared.
Although there is reasonable justification to a dissatisfaction of the quality of contemporary women, there is also an element of misogyny or resentment when it is demanded that women possess or acquire ideals which are incompatible with both their and men's ontogenic capabilities or potential.

The feminized male's ego is affected by all of this, which, because feminized, responds in a very similar way the female would respond when her ego is "hurt".See MGTOW movements for a increasing example of this. The response lacks a rational dominion, suffering is increased due excessive rumination of the past, relative to a helplessness or incapability, often resulting in suicide or murder of women. The resentment is rooted in a type of neglect, brought about from genetic dispositions, sheltering and other things, see Elliot Rodger.. This will be a common occurrence because of the nature of the feminized ego in the male, causing the male to retract away from the female at the same time heavily desiring them, basically, he is unwilling to pay the price and to endure the way of the woman because he is closer to them(emotions, feelings, senses) whilst identifying as something different to them, he becomes the male version of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" where his desires direct his energy towards that which he needs. The system and the women really underestimate this type of being due to the visible weakness and the nature of his presence. The birth of his hatred of women, is the birth of his hatred for himself, and the world, life..where the inevitable explosion no longer takes on female specific direction, but applies to all, even self...see school shootings.

He wants to dominate and submit at the same time, he wants his essence to be acknowledged and appreciated, at the same time, he wants women to need him more than he needs them. He also needs to be "the man" when social routes such as homosexuality would only compromise his needs to the point where it isn't an option. His demand of her is in opposite of her demand of him, meanwhile, for a moment, they are sisters. This is where modern social reality takes on a dramatic soap opera form and exploited accordingly, this drama includes loads of sympathy sex, constant disappointment, and mental retardation galore.

Æon wrote:

Arditezza wrote:

One must only hold their offspring at birth once, to understand what woman brings.

As if a father cannot hold his offspring?

Or as if many women don't give away their newborn infants to adoption?

...any other examples??

What I meant was that when a man holds his child for the first time, and sees his creation... he is forever changed. He also feels a bond to the woman he created the child with, and often there is a softness for her that he doesn't share with other women he does not have children with. That is, if he isn't dysfunctional and has a healthy mind.

And women who give their newborn infants away, feel a profound loss and have a hole of sadness they carry throughout their lives. It made my birth mother into a hard person, and all the children she had after that were pushed away and she kept them at arms length. This is not always the case, but they always feel a loss. A man who knows he is a father and gets the child torn away from him by choice or by force, will feel a similar loss if he has held the child. There is a noted chemical change that happens when you hold your newborn that makes you feel a bond that is very strong, this is nature of course... doing it's thing by protecting it's young.

Women who have abortions do not have the same sense of loss, because it's not a life and they do not hold its breathing living body.

Arditezza wrote:

What I meant was that when a man holds his child for the first time, and sees his creation... he is forever changed. He also feels a bond to the woman he created the child with, and often there is a softness for her that he doesn't share with other women he does not have children with. That is, if he isn't dysfunctional and has a healthy mind.

And women who give their newborn infants away, feel a profound loss and have a hole of sadness they carry throughout their lives. It made my birth mother into a hard person, and all the children she had after that were pushed away and she kept them at arms length. This is not always the case, but they always feel a loss. A man who knows he is a father and gets the child torn away from him by choice or by force, will feel a similar loss if he has held the child. There is a noted chemical change that happens when you hold your newborn that makes you feel a bond that is very strong, this is nature of course... doing it's thing by protecting it's young.

Women who have abortions do not have the same sense of loss, because it's not a life and they do not hold its breathing living body.

Nature is much crueler than that.

A man will hold onto "his" newborn, infant child...whom actually is not his genetically. The mother had sex with a different man, and the surrogate doesn't even know it's not his.

The thing about females and their infants...is that biology is certain. The mother knows its hers, 100%. The man cannot know, and can be deceived.


It is quite common in nature, and humanity, for 'betas' to take care of 'alpha' children. This is also accomplished through State and Church institutions (obligated Surrogacy and rearing children who are not biologically or genetically related).

Æon wrote:

Nature is much crueler than that.

A man will hold onto "his" newborn, infant child...whom actually is not his genetically.  The mother had sex with a different man, and the surrogate doesn't even know it's not his.

The thing about females and their infants...is that biology is certain.  The mother knows its hers, 100%.  The man cannot know, and can be deceived.


It is quite common in nature, and humanity, for 'betas' to take care of 'alpha' children.  This is also accomplished through State and Church institutions (obligated Surrogacy and rearing children who are not biologically or genetically related).

I think you are right, for the most part on men who are not biologically linked.  But a man knows, but will often accept or deny paternity depending on several factors.  Sometimes, he will accept it if he has a strong enough drive to lead, sometimes if he is getting laid often enough, sometimes if he is simply in denial of what he sees in front of him.  As the child grows, or the physical features of a child changes, or the circumstances with the mother change, a man will begin to pull away or outright reject the child unless his leadership skills are great enough and he is selfless enough to share his wisdom and protection.  Doing so by choice may somehow be more noble, in fact.

For a man; holding a newborn baby and your newborn baby is a different thing. It is the same for a woman, but she always knows for sure.

Here's an example;

My oldest brother and I are adopted. My youngest sister is not.

By my father, all three children were treated exactly equal. Loved the same. Give the same guidance and opportunities.

By my mother, my brother and I never felt loved by her, did not receive a lot of love or affection from her.  My sister was doted on, given lots of hugs and attention.

The only reason my father treated us all the same, was because my little sister was not fathered by him and he knew right away when she was born. It was clear to him that they had tried for 12 years to have children together and ended up adopting, and only when they were having marital problems, did she get pregnant.  He knew before my sister was born.  He didn't even need to see that she looked nothing like his side of the family to confirm the fact for him but he is a strong leader, and has a very strong protection instinct.

My brother, has one adopted child from an open adoption and one biological child even though he was born through a surrogate.  He was there at both births and held them both immediately after birth.  He favours and has a greater affection for the biological one, even though his wife did not carry the child.  It was her egg and his sperm that made the child.

His wife, in contrast, has affection for neither child as a normal biological mother should. Perhaps the woman's connection is in the suffering of childbirth and not the actual biologic makeup?

Arditezza wrote:

His wife, in contrast, has affection for neither child as a normal biological mother should. Perhaps the woman's connection is in the suffering of childbirth and not the actual biologic makeup?

Yes, your instincts are sharp.

But what you consider 'Noble' based on your feminine nature, is not so among males and a masculine nature. While you deem "leadership" noble, for a man to father children biologically and genetically unrelated to him, would be seen as inverted and perverted, among males. To father other men's children, among men, is ignoble. It's shameful and pitiful, an act of concession, and the mark of "beta" men, to care for others' children, as a result of never fathering their own seeds.

Perhaps never given the chance by women, as exiled from women and their wombs. This is how women express (inherent, innate) value, as females, by excluding the genetic material of lesser males, exhibited by female sexual choice.

Females "Choose" to raise, focus, and dote upon the males whom they authentically submitted to.


In this way, female submission to dominant (genetically fathered) males, cannot be denied. Females only ever submit to dominance, in the end.


This leads to the notion of (male only) Authority, also known as Paternalism, and among males as Fraternity.

The noble values of males, among males, runs contrary or even inverse (opposite of) the values of females, among females.

Æon wrote:

Yes, your instincts are sharp.

But what you consider 'Noble' based on your feminine nature, is not so among males and a masculine nature.  While you deem "leadership" noble, for a man to father children biologically and genetically unrelated to him, would be seen as inverted and perverted, among males.  To father other men's children, among men, is ignoble.  It's shameful and pitiful, an act of concession, and the mark of "beta" men, to care for others' children, as a result of never fathering their own seeds.

Perhaps never given the chance by women, as exiled from women and their wombs.  This is how women express (inherent, innate) value, as females, by excluding the genetic material of lesser males, exhibited by female sexual choice.

Females "Choose" to raise, focus, and dote upon the males whom they authentically submitted to.


In this way, female submission to dominant (genetically fathered) males, cannot be denied.  Females only ever submit to dominance, in the end.


This leads to the notion of (male only) Authority, also known as Paternalism, and among males as Fraternity.

I am not sure that is entirely true. Many men looked up to and respected my father for his ability to look past blood and be a wonderful guide to all of his children. He was also the Vice President of Personal Banking of one of the wealthiest banks in the US for over 35 years, he is a highly decorated Army vet, and has been given many awards for service in his community as first a Treasurer and then Mayor of our town, and a Boy Scout leader who has mentored over 40 Eagle Scouts over the years. He is highly respected and considered both noble and admirable for his selfless service with his time and energy in his 80 years. He also lead a group of fathers who had adopted children from the same orphanage that I was adopted from because he was seen as exceptional. He is listed in the 'Who's Who of America' book, and has been for many years, as was his father before him and one of his brothers.

I have never met anyone who had any ill will for my father that wasn't based on jealousy and envy.

To this day, I would still defer to my fathers wisdom and guidance if my husband wasn't available to consult with.

Arditezza wrote:

I am not sure that is entirely true. Many men looked up to and respected my father for his ability to look past blood and be a wonderful guide to all of his children. He was also the Vice President of Personal Banking of one of the wealthiest banks in the US for over 35 years, he is a highly decorated Army vet, and has been given many awards for service in his community as first a Treasurer and then Mayor of our town, and a Boy Scout leader who has mentored over 40 Eagle Scouts over the years. He is highly respected and considered both noble and admirable for his selfless service with his time and energy in his 80 years. He also lead a group of fathers who had adopted children from the same orphanage that I was adopted from because he was seen as exceptional. He is listed in the 'Who's Who of America' book, and has been for many years, as was his father before him and one of his brothers.

I have never met anyone who had any ill will for my father that wasn't based on jealousy and envy.

To this day, I would still defer to my fathers wisdom and guidance if my husband wasn't available to consult with.

You list off excuse after excuse, to forgive yourself. You hoist up a 'beta' admission as your 'alpha' guidance.

In the end, a male who cannot, or does not, father his own children is wiped away by history. He will leave no genetic legacy behind him, no evidence for his existence after only a few short generations of human history.

Those (men) who live on, only do so through their own, genetic, biological offspring.


Your nature to defend (beta) males who sacrifice themselves, for progeny not of their own kind, exposes your inner motives and values.

The purely feminine nature.

?

I don't even understand where you are coming from with this, as I barely touch on what I feel, but what has been awarded to him as accolades and things written, votes cast, positions given by other men.

Whether or not I respect him is not even part of the equation. Nor am I making excuses for him because I don't have to. I was just explaining why you are wrong in your assertion, the fact that you see it as some kind of a threat to your idea by a female shows your own beta qualities.

Arditezza wrote:

?

I don't even understand where you are coming from with this, as I barely touch on what I feel, but what has been awarded to him as accolades and things written, votes cast, positions given by other men.

Whether or not I respect him is not even part of the equation. Nor am I making excuses for him because I don't have to. I was just explaining why you are wrong in your assertion, the fact that you see it as some kind of a threat to your idea by a female shows your own beta qualities.

Are you implying that it's "beta" for a father to raise his own, biological, genetic children rather than other males doing it for him??

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that it is noble for a man to step in where others have failed and be a man for children who are fatherless. It is noble to men and women. He didn't do it because he was weak or that it was proved he couldn't have children, he did it because no one else was man enough to do it.

What is an "alpha" male to you? Exactly what features do they display?

Whoever asks the question "do women have ego?" is already presupposing an irrational possibility.

All living organism have a self....but if we define ego as pride, or understanding or consciousness of this, then self-conscious organisms all have an ego.

Satyr wrote:

Whoever asks the question "do women have ego?" is already presupposing an irrational possibility.

The feminine tends to be more irrational, emotional. Tied to ideas that attempt to understand the psyche.

I would not expect for a man to ask this question, because clearly he already knows. It was more a question of whether or not women have a great potential to be selfless and make sacrifices for her family, regardless of the cost to herself. Whether or not that is instinctual, or have we been overriding this notion with the more masculine idea of pride and ego. I'm not making excuses for my misrepresentation of the original question, I was just trying to explain that my words and my intent at exploration of the subject were different.

I do believe it's ignoble for a human, or any other organism really, to rear and raise progeny not of its own creation.