12/19/2025
“THE WOMAN’S ROLE”
I tend to test a pot of water with my toe even if I can see the water’s boiling. So, I address the topic of “The Woman’s Role,” knowing I may find myself in hot water. Yet, in keeping with the “No Opinions” theme that human behavior has evolved from the workings of our own egos, the anticipated heat may come from men. Yet, basically, the hypothetical here is that given the inevitable influence of our egos, there are no right or wrong people; there are just people.
Most likely, men and women once had very distinct roles. Males excelled in physical strength, vital to survival, which garnered them a role as providers, defenders, and laborers. Meanwhile, given the complexity that is a woman, there are some obvious physical traits unique to them, as well as traits unique to their psyche, that provide for creating and nurturing new humans.
These two versions of people cohabitated effectively and provided for each other, most likely in paired relationships. The male ego, empowered by physical superiority, most likely dominated leadership, and women were reduced to a subordinate, subservient role. What's more, it’s likely that the left-brain alpha males came to dominate other men, and the division between male leadership and the subjective-minded women became even greater.
Now, perhaps we can further this hypothetical with a question: what served to preserve mankind better, ego-driven male bullydom, or passive human traits, possibly born of dutiful women who learned to accept and adapt? Is it possible that subservience and subordination taught women compatibility skills like patience, acceptance, diligence, conformity, and diplomacy? Thus, has the mothers’ dutiful role inspired more vital survival lessons in their children than the alpha male role models?
Many will take issue with suggesting that women are a gift of selflessness or, on the other hand, that they were made better by being dutiful and submissive. I’m sure they were just as tough and crude survivalists as their male counterparts. Yet, at some point, a simple core of civility seeded in humans. A better human may NOT have emerged from this, but is it possible a better ideal might have? Perhaps marginalized women, seeking an option to the brute pecking orders of men, inspired compassion in their children for those weaker than them. It was a role model most effectively provided through the love and affection of a family, and it may have provided one of the few examples of humans transcending their inevitable egos.
Younger men may have adopted postures of refinement and chivalry at various times, but this resulted in merely placing females on a pedestal to be praised and possessed like a trophy. They still saw the fairer s*x as the weaker s*x, suited for their subservient role. Meanwhile, the male ego continued to secure and elevate men’s stature by keeping a thumb on women and limiting their role by way of law, education, religion, economics, and social status in general.
Are men innately evil? Probably not. They’re human, thus egocentric. They’re in a perpetual struggle to promote their self-importance and secure their own fragile self-esteem by pushing down on the shoulders of others. It seems that’s what humans do. From prejudice to bullydom, in fact, when considering any form of human conflict, you may conclude that the struggles of our egos are the root source.
So, we may assume this role as described has been, more or less, women’s predicament, up until the 19th century. However, by then, many gradual changes had come to fruition. Physical strength was no longer essential to survival as technology intervened. Women became more educated. Currency became as much a measure of wealth as property. Governments became more about seeing to the needs of their citizens through their vote. Human interaction became more global. These changes and others seemed to empower women to think more independently.
Unfortunately, by that time, women had grown to resent the passive role that seemed imposed upon them, limited them, and denied them respect and self-determination. Men had been so adamant and postering in their sense of superiority that women came to accept it as true—the male did have the more important role. Certainly, it was the more desirable role, given that you are admired for your power and achievements, not scrutinized for your appearance and behavior, and praised for your modesty.
At this point, women’s ego became the driving force. With aggressive determination, women took on the challenge of proving they could do anything men do. They basically succeeded, and in terms of filling the boots that men once solely occupied, it wasn’t as impossible as men maintained.
But something appears to have been lost, and one must wonder if it’s a far greater loss than we realize. We seem to have devalued those selfless caregivers devoted to the needs and harmony of the family, the maternal figure. Basically, this role is about denying your own ego to secure the self-esteem of others. It wasn’t inspired by duty or a larger paycheck. Women assumed this selfless, subordinate role because of their love for their family. They couldn’t imagine trusting anyone else to fulfill such a vital role.
In today’s family, that role is usually divided between two working people, each absorbed with self-importance and the demands and aspirations associated with their occupations, and probably more united in their goals to own a bigger house than to nurture a healthy family. Now, both parents are infused with ego and exemplify aggressiveness and ambition to their children. Selflessness and meekness are seldom found on any lists we aspire to in our families today.
Sadly, even women more inspired by love than ambition still felt a necessity to depart the home for a paycheck, because the trend toward dual incomes raised the bar on being middle-class. Plus, this movement coincided with an increase in the divorce rates of up to 50%. Most single women had no choice but to work.
We should be aware that ego provides the antithesis to love.
The problem is not that the former woman’s role got absorbed. Rather, it’s that the commitment to selfless sacrifice for family was stripped of its status as an ideal. The Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60’s and 70’s was aggressive and intolerant of other viewpoints. There were still women at that time who felt fulfilled in the role of wife and mother, and by and large rejected the movement, but their attitude was not tolerated. Women who preferred to support the family at home were made to feel inferior. Once again, social reformation initiated by extremists overcorrected the issues. Many young women learned to resent the once-celebrated role. They not only rejected its burdensome commitment, but they also rejected any notion that the role’s nature of sacrifice was admirable.
This may be the ultimate shortcoming of an otherwise positive social movement—the loss of admiration for those who put their family’s interest ahead of their own. Once again, society thwarted any potential for the wisdom that selflessness and virtue might provide. Instead, we all gave in to the temptation of achieving wealth and an enviable lifestyle.
Yet, given that we are literally slaves to our own egos, isn’t selflessness the ultimate achievement?
Men failed us by indulging in dominance and self-importance at the expense of women. Women failed us by disowning their vital selfless role for the material pursuits that men claimed for themselves. When we come to realize that wealth is frail in its rewards and as short-lived as we are, then we may begin to see more reward in the selflessness we nurture.
Men and women should pursue whatever role inspires them at home or in the workplace. The less gender has to do with it, the better. What’s more, we gain little by provoking judgment of those who seek wealth and status. Most likely, if we take issue with the pursuits of their egos, it’s because our egos are resentful and envious. Why would we condemn others when we’re just as much dominated by our egos as they are, just in different ways? We have much to gain from realizing that just as men sought to dominate women, our egos seek to dominate us. We are our own victims.
Egos absorb us all, then fail us all.
