People who learn why they treat nerds in a certain manner can, if they want to, correct their behavior. If they don't understand why, then there is no discipline. People involved in internacine war who understand this form of warfare can discipline themselves if they want to. Those out of control in internacine war without any knowledge at all don't have the adequate means of controlling this form of warfare and disciplining themselves. This is true of almost all types of behavior. Sometimes people who understand these matters are forced to participate anyway, because they are dealing with naive others. When everybody understands, then it's possible to have some discipline and some alternative behaviors.
For example, if a man connected to a leading role female is having problems dealing with that, and is "innocent" in those problems, then certainly an expert in role-playing can help these couples to be honorable in their roles, and perhaps if it is possible for that man to also assume a leading role along with his leading role female, so that they can be an honorable "power couple," then that is the role of a role-playing expert or therapist who witnesses these problems publically and privately all the time. That is, if such couples want to continue as "power couples," without the notion that the man and/or the woman has to be "lesser" to be supportive.
Often when people are aware of the motives and motivations of their behavior then they are able to discipline themselves, when they become self-conscious of those motives. Of course, some people prefer to be naive and innnocent role-players. If it is in their interest, then it's acceptable. But if it's detrimental to them/and or others, then certainly they must learn how to be expert role-players, and especially when their roles and role-playing involves not only their own well-being but the well-being of many others.
Politicians, business poeple, spiritual leaders, and public figures often are included in this analysis.
Private role-players like parents and teachers are also included in this analysis.
We can all study these leading role females for ourselves and how they all behave.
This does not mean that all leading role females are correct. Some females who go into leading roles, like men, are not necessarily qualified for those roles and should not assume them, any more than men should assume these roles. And certainly we all, including men, have a right to critique them. They, like men leaders, must be able to respond to these critiques. They can do so in their own feminine leadership styles but they like masculine leaders cannot shirk their responsibilities as leaders. They can make it clear that their styles are different. If they truly do not feel they are qualified for leadership, then female leaders, like masculine leaders must be available to withdraw from the leading role in favor of more qualified either masculine and/or feminine leadership. We don't necessarily have to be any "nicer" to them because they are female leaders than we are to masculine leaders who assume certain roles. There is much that female leaders have to learn just like masculine leaders. They can of course perfect their feminine style of leadership and make it clear that they have different responsibilities and obligation, differing opinions and viewpoints, and a different style.
Leaders can transform their leadership roles from a warrior style to a peaceful style, but that does not necessarily mean that their constituents are going to approve of their style of leadership. They might continue with them as leaders but in a different type of career and different role. They might also be transferred from a leading role to a supporting role. For instance, if you're in a company and you're assigned to sales and marketing, but you're not very good at that. If the company wants to keep you in the company, they can transfer you to production distribution, for example.
Very few times do we witness leading role men and leading role women--power couples--behaving themselves, and being equals. This is true of almost all ethnic groups who belong to patriarchal societies. Often controlling whites for example chastile non-whites for being controlling and they are often the most controlling people on the planet, however, they feel an entitlement by being members of the "master race." Because of their sense of entitlement, and this is any conqueror, they feel this control is not control. It is control.
Neither females nor males in leading roles can accept this just as "entitlement." Leaders must be qualified and deserving. They can either be recognized as such or not.
That is, how society perceives leaders and potential leaders has a role in their leading roles. Society either accepts or rejects them in these roles. Men can accept or reject females as leaders in the same manner that we witness women either accept or reject males as leaders.
Most men, for example, who perceive themselves as "leaders" often reject women who don't accept them in this role. For example, few of us could consider Clint Eastwood as the type of male that would accept female leadership or a female who does not defer to him as an alpha male.
Most women, likewise, who are alpha women and perceive themselves as "leaders" often find it difficult to defer to any male, including an alpha male. Alpha men and alpha women together, when we witness them, we know that we have a power couple, however they must learn how to work together as equals.
We're talking about the material society. The intellectual world and the metaphysical worlds have their own leading roles that may or may not agree with our determinations as material witnesses to these leading roles players.
