Most patriarchal societies are used to men as leaders, and certainly you need--even with feminism--to continue to have masculine leaders. Feminists have a right to challenge masculine leadership, individually or collectively. Nevertheless, if you have feminine leadership, you must also have masculine leadership.
Similarly if you have Western leadership and Western-style leaders, you must likewise have Eastern leadership and Eastern-style leaders. This provides balance in any material, political, intellectual, spiritual/metaphysical society.
Masculine style leadership is often very different from feminine style leadership.
Men and women need to maintain their different leadership styles. We mean as a generalization.
Battlestar Galactica is very excellent at showing the different leadership styles of men and women, even during wartime.
There is a feminine leadership style during wartime and there is a masculine leadership style during wartime. Sometimes they have the same style and sometimes they have a different style.
It is problematic as we have noted when women go into roles, especially warrior roles that are traditionally masculine. Mostly when men identify women in these warrior roles men feel that they must play these roles like men. Female warriors can have a feminine style of warfare, while learning the basic techniques. Women can if they choose to, or they can tell men that when they are in the roles, these roles are feminine roles and they connect to the feminine. Women can do the work of men, if necessary, but they can determine their style and how they do that work.
We note for example there is Western and Eastern martial arts. They can learn from each other, and they can maintain their independent styles.
For example, let's say you have masculine generala and feminine generala. Suppose the men generals tell the feminine generals that they hav to do the same things that men do at war and in the same manner. Of course, female generals can learn all the masculine principles and strategies of warfare and women can follow these guidelines, or women might decide as female generals, individually or collectively, to go to war in their style(s) or not to go to war at all. Certainly, masculine generals can make similar determinations, if their societies allow generals to make this determination.
This is the same with ethnic groups in this role. It's very easy to convince an ethnic person that if they don't do the role the way that whites have traditionally played this role that they are wrong.
When they are in the role, if possible, they can determine their own honorable manner of playing that role. We can imagine wars that ethnic warriors might find dishonorable according to their ethnic identities.
However, when men go into leadership roles, then the leadership style is generally a masculine style. Men have the right to define that role. Perhaps women agree, perhaps they disagree. If they want the leadership played the way that women play leaders, then women have to become leaders and they have to be qualified and they have to deserve to be leaders. There must be masculine and feminine guidelines for leadership. They can be similar or different, according to masculine and/or feminine style.
Women have to determine the values, principles, and goals of leadership. So do men. Or they must agree to similar values, principles, and goals of leadership. Those who study traditional masculine and feminine leadership styles, however, recognize a difference.
Men and women can work together in wartime or peacetime as leaders and/or supporting role people.
Leadership people in wartime or peacetime assume leadership roles. Supporting role people in wartime or peacetime must assume supporting roles. There must be a means of determining who is who.
Peaceable people can be forced into war, and/or they can become consciencious objectors.
Whoever assumes the role of leader must define that role, or they must agree to follow the rules and guidelines of their election or appointment to leadership. Certainly they can decline the roles based upon these rules and guidelines.
Almost every American president has a presidential style in wartime and/or in peacetime.
President Clinton has been refered to as a peacetime president. He just happened to be president during a time a peace. That doesn't necessarily mean that he's truly a peaceful type or that he truly has anything to do with being a peacetime president. He just happened to be president during peaceful times, and/or he's very good at avoiding war and negotiating with people. Or he's very good at conflict resolution.
Economic times also can influenced the presidency and leadership. Sometimes presidents are presidents in good economic times that have nothing to do with them personally. Or sometimes they are very good at dealing with economic problems and have the right experts to be involved.
