“Fragile male ego” is a terribly sexist term

What the term “the male ego” actually refers to in the feminist belittling of men, is in fact, human dignity. In disqualifying the male ego, cheerfully and as if the disqualification is nothing more than “some trimming of a superfluous and ridiculous peacock tail”, feminists were driving society to revoke men’s human dignity. Women under similar social erasure of their human dignity by treating it as a tumor that society can and should cut off through dubbing it “the female ego”, would become broken individuals, as one becomes when their human dignity is denied by an entire society. Whenever a man hears the words “the male ego” he must correct the speaker – “the man’s human dignity, you mean”. The human dignity of all human beings must be respected and this includes men, and men must insist on this respect for human dignity.

The purpose of the feminist use of the label “fragile male ego” is to make a human being accept battering and abuse in silence, either as a recipient, or as an observer, without resisting. This becomes all too clear when we ask whether the female “ego” is less fragile when placed under the same dictations that feminists require of men to accept with the “fragile male ego” label. That is, if a woman was labeled by a powerful movement of millions of men and some women, as having “a fragile female ego” when she expressed dissent in response to infidelity, or in response to a spouse messaging sexual availability to other women, or to a spouse enjoying strippers at a bachelors party, or to not being promoted despite being the better candidate because a member of the other sex has a sex-privilege that grants them the promotion based on their sex (these are the scenarios for which the “fragile ego” is invoked by feminists to cause men to show silent acceptance) – would she not have full legitimacy to being furious? Is dissent – be it by a woman or a man – in response to such treatment, evidence of “fragility”? And, if a person is forced socially by labels to accept the above in tranquility, what was it then, that was deprived of them? Yes – the feminist labeling purposefully adheres to the word “ego” to insinuate that any dissent by a man in those scenarios would be nothing more than some “pride” and as such unjustified – but a woman or a man forced into muzzled acceptance by such social force under such circumstances are in a human condition deprived of what? The simple answer is, their human dignity.

The dissemination among women of a norm of applying a “fragile male ego” label to male responses to a type of belittling that no woman would have accepted (especially if she was told that muted concession is the only socially-accepted response, and any protest would mean she has “a fragile female ego”; rather than remaining silent she would object immediately by saying, “absolutely – I am a human being, my human ego is human and fragile, yes, this is why you cannot treat me this way nor ask society to force me into acceptance with labels”) – that dissemination to women is how feminism abused the “real man” psychology of men – a universal part of human psychology, as explained next.

Men and women alike, have something that may be called “a sexual ego”: All humans have a drive to be, and to be regarded as, a good exemplar of their sex in the eyes of the other sex – the attractive choice, those who are preferred and chosen by the other sex (in homosexual men and women the drive would probably be directed at the other homosexuals of their sex). Women don’t wish to be the less attractive woman – this simple natural drive is what pushed feminism to try and create a “body-positivity” movement which attempts to socially coerce men into attraction to less attractive women – and likewise, men don’t wish to be the less attractive man. And so, in a very universal and normal fashion, men, want to be “a real man”, because they have a normal sexual ego just like women have one. However, feminists have extended decades ago their battering of manhood, into an attempt to mock and belittle the male sexual ego (while ignoring the fact that women have a sexual ego as well, that is, that the human sexual ego is not something shameful but natural and inevitable). And in their efforts to de-legitimize men’s sexual ego, feminists have discovered a “psychological loophole” in it.

This sexual ego, in both sexes, is shaped by the sexual expectations that the other sex has. Women’s sexual expectations are of stoic, stable, resilient manhood (which then grants the woman emotional freedom, by providing an anchor). Thus being able to accept hardship and injury presented by life without spiraling down into an emotional crisis, is one of several parts of the male sexual ego. Feminists have spotted a vulnerability in human sexuality: they can encourage women to exploit the male sexual ego in the following way: throwing at men injury, discrimination, and dehumanization, and then invoking the female sexual expectation – “a real man can take it”, by the words “fragile male ego”.

This is indeed a loophole in the relations between the sexes, because a man is then thrown by feminism into a paradoxical dilemma, which was the purpose. If he accepts the belittling, he loses (his human dignity), if he rejects it, he loses (his sexual ego). And, to that we may add, if he complaints, he is ridiculed by feminism for not being manly enough – if he remains silent, he is taunted by feminists that he can’t express emotions and pain as a result of what is described then as: his repressive manhood (rather than his fear of seeing his sexual ego denied by those who grant it – the other sex – with the “fragile ego” label).

But the very possibility of one of the sexes exploiting in this manner the sexual ego of the other sex, is a breach in sexuality itself – “a bug in the evolutionary system” if you will. And thus it affects women as well and just as brutally. If they succeed in making the man passively accept dehumanization, then by surrendering his human dignity he also forgoes his sexual ego (as demanded by feminism), and they lose attraction to him, and when this practice is adopted by an entire society women are left with few men whom they can fulfill their sexuality with. Or, if the women involved can’t make the man accept dehumanization, then if they are consumed enough by the feminist directive of “these are elementary expectations” (for example that the husband or boyfriend would accept her dressing in a manner signaling to other men her sexual availability – while she would not accept him signaling to women his sexual availability), they are left with no other choice but to regard the man as inadequate and again, are left to themselves. Thus, women are putting themselves as well in a lose-lose dilemma when tempted by feminism to abuse this loophole in human sexuality. Nonetheless, feminists encourage the use of the label by women for the purpose of control and, one must acknowledge this, to achieve a society in which men are routinely required to meekly accept what no woman would be willing to accept, which has no other name but supremacy.

The only way men have left to avoid the paradox, is rewriting the premise of the dilemma, that premise being the axiom of their male sexual ego – “I care about women and about their appreciation of my maleness”, that is, to abandon all relations with women and the society that endorsed this manipulation of their male psychology.

Refrain from invoking the “male ego” label. Everyone are human, everyone are fragile given the right pressure, including you. Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want others to do to you. If you are asking yourself, “how should I express my expectation of someone, such as my date or boyfriend” (for example, an expectation such as “you should accept that I am dressing in a manner meant to signal sexual availability”, “you should accept that I am man-shopping as if guys are shoes and dating four other guys to try them on while dating you – I’m trying on you too”, “you should accept that I have a close male friend with whom I have a separate kind of intimacy”), ask yourself, “how would I, want the same to be said to me?” (“you should accept as a woman that I have a close female friend with whom I have a separate kind of intimacy”, “you should accept that I am girl-shopping as if women including yourself are shirts and so I am dating four other girls while I am dating you to try them on”) – if the answer is: I don’t want it ever said to me (!), then don’t do it to others. Everyone are human, just as you are. Feminism can cause women to internalize real, concrete dehumanization of men – a real belief that men are not human – upon which a woman or a girl will not be able to regard men as human beings and as having the same humanity and feelings as her – you will need to ask yourself if you have reached that.

In as much as the labeling “fragile male ego” is applicable to the actual psychological construct called the Ego (over and above the feminist use of the word ego to insinuate “merely pride”), we must remember that all humans have an ego and require an ego, which is the sense of having a self. Crushing a human ego in the actual psychological sense of the term is the destruction of the self, destruction of a person, and is anything but benevolent, nor is it someone’s “right”.

Tens of millions of women and girls have been systematically taught to annihilate the dignity, person, and humanity of the millions of men and boys living with them. The consequences are bore by both sexes. Women and girls who became at least partly aware of their anti-human feminist indoctrination, will need to either return to their humanity, or, accept with understanding the exodus of men from such a society to other countries or into isolated realms, and the resulting deterministic loneliness and solitude of women in what’s left of the West. They need to remember that they were told in advance by their feminist preachers that this was precisely the goal – “I don’t need a man”, “men are the cause of every suffering in the world”, “all men”, “if all men disappeared the world would be a perfect place”. A world of solitary macho-women who need no one, this was what feminists always promised to women. It would be absurd of women who eagerly followed this promise and made that promise a reality in their own hands, often with every breath they take, to become flabbergasted that what they strove to achieve at all cost was achieved.