Knowledge of history helps to give us a certain discipline. That doesn't mean we're not going to make our own historical mistakes, but nevertheless historians still can have a certain type of discipline and self-discipline. Contemporary wisdom and historical wisdom are both necessary in making decision, including in role-playing, as youthful and elder wisdom often must learn how to work together.
So you find a leading female actor connecting to a man who is a leader in another profession, say business, so that they are not in competition with each other. That is, they are not necessarily in competitive mode, and if both are equally leading role types.
Even with all the philosophies of feminism and the philosphies of postfeminism, there is a certain masculine psychology that men continue and there is a certain feminine psychology that women continue and both continue to return to these modes of behavior no matter how often and how long they are challenged.
Of course, females are going to continue to assert themselves as the leaders they should be.
Of course, males are going to continue to assert themselves as the leaders they should be.
Most leading role men, and we don't need to name them, because we witness their behavior appear to be more at ease with "lesser" women.
Most leading role women, and we don't need to name them, some prefer "lesser" men and others prefer men who are greater than themselves, whether the society perceives this greatness or not.
We remember Whitney Houston receiving an award, and mentioning Bobby Brown, she gave him a great title that nobody bought, because it's Whitney Houston giving him that great title and nobody to confirm this but her. This is a problem for women in leading roles and men in leading roles. Women, if they perceive their men as leading role men, often acknowledge this. But many men also appear to need not only a female accepting them as leading role men but some confirmation that their society perceive them as that also. For example, a leading role female can connect to a man who is intellectual and/or or metaphysically her "leader," and she recognizes that, as many women do, nevertheless most men need confirmation that society recognizes that also. Many need the material leadership role also, and many strive for that worldly confirmation.
If Bobby Brown, for example, had a different career in which he had an acknowledged leadership role. If he were a leading film producer, while Whitney Houston a leading singer, and he were acknowledged by his society as a leader along with Whitney Houston, so that he were not perceived as less. This is not just a problem for Bobby Brown, and we shouldn't necessarily name his name, as there are many who historically find themselves in this role.
Women have not historically had the same problem, as when peasant women marry gentlemen. Very few if any peasant men were allowed to marry gentlewomen. This is historical and continues throughout our patriarchal and postmodern feudal societies. Ethnic men who marry women of the "master" races often find the same problems, unless they are extraordinary types like Sydney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. He has to have all of these extraordinary credentials before he's perceived as "good enough" for a rather ordinary white girl. It's similar when an ethnic "princess" connects to a rather ordinary white guy.
We could name other names--Donald Trump, Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, Richard Geer--these are all leading role men. All of these men, although we don't doubt they have found great women for them, nevertheless these women are perceived as "less." Again, we're speaking on the material worldly level of material worldy accomplish. These women are not in competitive mode.
Donald Trump and Evana Trump made a power couple, as we have mentioned, but Donald Trump is a leading role man, and Evana appeared to be in competitive mode with him as a business woman. Often men can be very destructive to such women, whether it's intentional or not. Such women can also be very destructive to men, whether it's intentional or not. It can be a material, psychology, intellectual, and spiritual problem of role-playing.
There is a lot we could say about the Donald as a leading role man, but we can all study the Donald and study all of these leading role men for ourselves.
This is not necessarily true of the Donald, since we don't know him personally, nor is this necessarily true of any of these other role-players, including the Clintons that we make use of as public examples of role-playing. These are merely public examples of role-players. We don't know these people personally, and don't like journalists who make assumptions about people they don't know, and perhaps we're very wrong in our analysis of them. It's up to them to correct people on who they are and their motives, and since they are public figures they can do so very easily in interviews and with the press, and certainly they have many people who knows them personally as personal friends and business associates. We must trust their motives are honorable. However, naive role-players play roles very differently than expert role-players. If you are aware of motives for certain roles, then you can transform those roles.
