The traditional way of handling our complexity has been to simplify it by trying to eliminate the paradox. This is done by taking the paradoxical sets of opposite dimensions and traits of the self and defining one side of each paradoxical set superior to the other and then taking the position that the superior side should dominate and control the other. Consequently, the self is assumed to be at war with itself and the ability to control its inferior side is considered a sign of strength and an expression of self-control. A strong self in control of itself is, therefore, seen as the desired goal. Aggression is seen as superior to yielding since aggressors win over yielders who are considered losers.
Strength is assumed to be superior to vulnerability which is considered weakness.
This approach sets the self up to engage in ongoing power struggles with itself and of course, this approach gets played out with others as well. Interactions become contests that are won or lost, and the defeat of losing is an embarrassment and a failure. Traditional values shaped by cultural norms dictate the unequal ordering that decides superiority and inferiority, and conformity to this predetermined ordering is expected. In general, cultures both differ and overlap in their approach to simplifying paradox, but let us use the position taken by American culture to illustrate our point. In our culture, all of the self's dimensions and traits considered superior are defined as male.