Thread by @TellYourSonThis, Ego is a woman's worst enemy, for whilst it may pose a [...]

Ego is a woman's worst enemy, for whilst it may pose a threat to man, an element of it is required to exercise the authority necessary to lead one's family.

In a reasonable dose, it is thus additive to leadership.

Inversely, it serves no such beneficial purpose when following.

If it is one's duty to follow the orders of their superior, and their temperament is as such that they possess personality traits which make this more difficult, than they are, by definition, not suited to the position they find themselves in. They are an inferior follower.

It bears stating that, just because one is not a very good follower, this does not mean they are by definition a good leader. Not possessing the temperament to follow does not mean one possesses the qualities to lead, in fact, it is quite likely such a person is good at neither.

And a person who is neither competent in matters of leadership nor executing the will of those who lead is what we would call a useless person.

If a man who cannot lead is considered defective, then it is not unfair to say a woman who cannot follow is defective either.

This is of course assumes the competence of the man's leadership.

When a woman fails to follow, we are often of the assumption he failed, and that if he hadn't, she would have behaved correctly - however it bears stating that some women are inferior followers to others.

Some men are simply braver, cleverer, wiser and more patient than others - these men make for the best leaders.

In the same vein, some women are more willful, impatient, aggressive and less empathetic than others.

They possess qualities which make them ill-suited to following.

Yet regardless of a woman's character and temperament, we will of course always attribute defects in her character to her man's competence, for we do not truly see women as equals to men, because we do not even assign them responsibility for the shaping of their own character.

And so we can find ourselves in a particularly funny scenario, in which a man of questionable competence finds himself with a woman of great character, and people assume he is better than he is, for her kind nature and warmth of femininity glorifies him as the envy of many.

And then too we can find a man of great strength and competence in the company of a most trying and defective woman, who makes him look weak and inept to others simply because she cannot and will not behave herself regardless of how stern, fair or compassionate he is.

We judge men by the quality of the women they keep, and this does not mean their beauty, although we certainly judge on this, but more so on their virtue and depth of character.

We know a great woman is the craftsmanship of a great man, and so we assume the inverse also.

And yet as I say, each woman has an intrinsic temperament, some are simply more naturally pleasant, patient, empathetic and less given to acts of retribution or spontaneous cruelty than others - and all of these things are inherent to them, rather than reflections of their man.

Whilst a man's conduct will certainly influence the frequency in which a woman's worst characteristics manifest, put quite simply, he did not raise her, and she is not of his genetic legacy.

And so there are embedded elements to her which lie beyond him that he has to deal with.

As Robert Greene put it "each woman is her own culture"

Whilst there is such a thing as a universal female nature and general female psychology to which all women are beholden, they too have their varying temperaments.

Some are intrinsically easier to deal with than others.

And given that a man seeks a follower and a helpmate in a woman, then it stands to reason that "easier to deal with" is an asset, not because she has less of an opinion, or because is easier to control, but on the contrary, because she shows an empathetic willingness to cooperate

Women of great ego lack the empathy and cooperation required to be good followers, they are, in this sense, an inferior choice for a man regardless of his competence level, for they will be generally less pleasant whilst requiring great energy. Leading will feel like fighting.

Perhaps put in another simpler and more crude way:

A man is a craftsman, and a woman is his material. A good craftsman can make something out of anything, but the best pieces require the best materials.

You can't make sugar out of shit, but you can make shit stink less.

If you're a master craftsman, shit will seek you out because it wishes to stink less, but the true craftsman has greater ambitions than improving the odour of shit.

He wants the rarest, prettiest, most robust, yet shapeable chunk of rock he can find to create a true masterpiece.

I will end this thread here, at risk of repeating myself, as I am given to do so.

Hope you enjoyed the thread (typos and everything) and if you did, please make sure you subscribe to both http://tellyoursonthis.com and my booklist at http://preorder.tellyoursonthis.com

Latest Threads Unrolled: