In The Dance of Anger, Harriet Goldhor Lerner observes that women in our culture are taught to "betray and sacrifice the self in order to preserve harmony with others" (which Lerner calls "de-selfing" — see p.11). It seems to me, women in most cultures are taught this — including the Buddha's; and that Buddhism, like other religions, is contaminated by this misogynistic bias.

Sometimes I hear "you have to have a self to let go of one." This is intended to establish that there is value in having a functioning self, and that it is a developmental stage that precedes connecting to the mystical, essential reality of no-self. I think this is a sexist concept: women have to get an ego first, the way men do, before they can really see the Ultimate.

For me, for example, it worked exactly in the reverse: I was only able to begin to establish enough self-confidence to assert or develop my self, as a result of identifying with the Great Perfection and thus breaking my identification with my emotions. And I know most women get more cultural training in understanding and relating to connection, than to individuality. Just because being able to function as an individual is necessary, doesn't mean it has to come before being able to connect to the larger universe.

So I think perhaps this "functional ordinary self" and the sense of "no-self / emptiness / total connectedness / Ultimate Being" are dependently co-arising: they both need /serve / build each other. And Buddhist theory has focused on only one direction of this mutuality because it has been thought out by men, who grew up assured of their functional selves in a culture that accomplishes that by oppressing women—with the result that men become attached to their "self" in a way few women could.

See also my comments on

• A Skillful Approach to Anger
• Negative Ego.