I was having tea with a friend yesterday, when we started talking about the dangers of an ego. Yes, egos are labelled as a masuculine characteristic. Culturally, possibly through the onslaught of feminism, it has become associated with patriachy and in its diabolically extreme form, chauvinism. As I chewed on the honey-coated waffles with vanilla ice-cream, this pertinent question came to mind: Do females (categorically, girls, women, MILFS and grandmothers) have an ego?
I'm no guru, so such a question is hard to quantify. That is, you simply can't measure the magnitude of the female ego just by looking at hen-pecked boyfriends or husbands. A few of my girl friends actually admitted that there is such a thing, but is their definition, albeit a social construct, identical to the archetypal male ego that both genders have come to acknowledge? If women admit to having an ego, what are the reasons for it? Is it possible (at all) to derive any concrete conclusion or patterns from the proposed observations? I guess at the end of it, I might not even produce any valid results within this discourse. In the contrary, it might even confound both the reader and myself. So let's take it easy, shall we? We'll take a microscopic look at the term of question, the ego, before working backwards ( there might be certain aesthetic & esoteric terms that might be hard to comprehend, given my background in psychology & media studies. If it really irks you, just post a comment below)
First, if you flip the pages of the dictionary, it produces 2 meanings to 'ego'
1) The Freudian perspective: The conscious mind of the individual. It functions as a medium of translation for the Id and the super-ego. For example, you are sexually attracted to members of the same sex, but it isn't culturally acceptable. What does your ego tell you? Watch Brokeback Mountain for the answers
2) Self-esteem. Ah, now this is the root of our problem. When you talk about self-esteem, or in simpler terms, self-confidence, it applies to both sexes like a nice-fitting t-shirt. From learning to walk, to jumping off a plane even when you're afraid of heights, its common information that these activites allow us human beings to be more sure of ourselves. People with poor self-esteem have either no egos (they're so timid they assume they can't do it even before they try) OR inflated egos (in most extrovert temperaments, its used as a cover-up to hide their inadequacies). So yes, if you observe the reality of the examples, you will find it doesn't add up, does it?
Now, this might add even greater confusion, but for starters the purpose is to de-lineate the generic male ego from the self-perceived female counterpart. After all, just like photographs, you can only compare them when you have one in your right and the other in your left hand. Superimposing both together only makes it worse. The trick lies in this simple question, which both guys and gals can answer.
A woman can allow a guy to lead in a relationship as long as the guy makes wise decisions and is constantly senstivie to the girl's feelings. But when the roles are reversed, will a guy allow the gal to do the same, EVEN when the decisions are exceptionally wise and she's extra-sensitive to his feelings?
Keep that question in mind, because it connects with the next argument, the idealist and materialist view of a relationship. Really, just taking on this subject drives me nuts, but hey I'm a firm believer that knowledge is power, so let's just spread the love around lah.
In a nutshell idealism refers to the concept of immediate knowledge as the product of mental pictures or imagined ideas. If you look at it, that's pretty irrational. In fact, if you ask me it's not practical, but sure does assert the divine right of the 'informing spirit'. On the other hand, materialism is concerned with practical outcomes of these ideas. Its a more pragmatic approach, and it does not assert absolute truth which transcends the context where it can be applied. So to a materialist there's always a cause and effect relationship. Something must be done to make something happen or prevent it from even happening.
Logically this differentiation in philosophical trends leads to this application:
When deciding on something...here are the varying resposnes
A gal says: I want the relationship to work, therefore I must do this
A guy says: I am a guy, so I must do this
See how the dynamics play out? To me, its kinda crystal clear.
The problem here, is not because guys are shallow. Even the smartest blokes fall victim to the above paradigm. The essential thing to note here is that the female ego, if ever it is called such, is strikingly different from the generic one. Because guys are not doing their job well, the girl shoulders more responsibilities, resulting in she making more decisions and taking the lead, but the motives are pretty practical, she just wants things to work out. If a guy leads, its primarily because he feels its his primal duty, that he's the enlightened one. So even if he's deluded...sorry gals. You stick with him, you follow his madness.
Taoism rocks because of the Yin & Yang. Its the foundation of balance which makes life, including love and romance something beautiful. Chauvinists or SNAG? Tyranny or tamed ego? I guess as a guy, the words in the movie 'Hitch' once again become a timely reminder: It's all about the basic principles. Extremes are always bad for girlfriends, its the balance that keeps the mind razor sharp. A pity....we guys just never seem to get it.






































