Sometimes we allow leading role women into certain careers, that we find acceptable for women, and are traditional careers in which we accept women as leading role figures. For example, most of the leading role females on the cooking channel, seem to have found men that treat them honorable as leading role females in these traditional feminine roles. This includes Rachel Ray, Paula Dean and others who often introduce us to their men, all of who seem to be very secure in their roles with leading role women in these traditional roles. But, as we have noted, there are men assuming these leading roles, but in masculine style.

Sometimes women are not necessarily qualified for leading roles, because they don’t have the tradition of having leading roles. And again we mean in those careers and roles that are not traditional for women in that society or civilization. In these societies or civilizations, women have the tradition of having supporting roles, and so even when we find women in leading roles, its difficult for many of them to have purely leading roles, because there are always many supporting role demands upon them.

Whitney Houston is an example. This is a leading role female in the area of entertainment and singing. Nevertheless, like many leading role women, she finds that she has many supporting role obligations, to a husband, to a daughter, and to others that come to her as a female to provide a support system for her. How many people are supportive of her as a leading role female, and how many people approach her as a supporting role for their efforts.

Many leading role females find that very few people approach them accepting a supporting or supportive role with them. Most people make supporting role demands upon them, while still expecting them to be the best of the best in their leading roles. This is not just true of leading role females, but can also be true of leading role men. Usually there is a combination of leading role and supporting role demands. When leaders find there are too many supporting role demands then they must seek for those who are able to provide a support system for them.

Think of a female in a leading role, public or private. How many approach them for a supporting role to their efforts, and how many approach them supportive of them in their leading role(s). (Again, you can ask this question of leading role men, public or private.)

Therefore, it is very difficult to sustain a leading role and a leading career, when there are all kinds of supporting role demands made on women. We shall discuss women since we are talking here about leading role females.

Most people do not know how to be supportive of a female in a leading role. Most men in a patriarchal society and/or in a society with a patriarchal history do not know how to behave when a woman is perceived as in the lead.

This does not mean that these females are necessarily the leader, but if they are perceived by the society as that or if they are perceived by men as that, then there are certain patterns of behavior. Does society truly want that? If not, then females find that everybody joins in making sure they don’t sustain their leading role. Certainly this can be true of men in leading roles also, if society does not truly consider them to be a leading role figure and/or a leading role type. This is true certainly of ethnic groups who assume leading roles.

Many men connecting to such women are honorable men. However, a society that looks upon women as less makes it very problematic for a man to connect to a leading role woman. Most men and most societies can be very destructive to those who it does not perceive as leading role material.

Some leading role figures are simply accepted in the lead, or we freely defer to them as leaders, while others must do battle to sustain their leading role or to even achieve leading role status. Again and again we witness this in most of our societies. Those we perceive as leading role types, whether men or women, we often defer to, and that’s generally all of our societies. Sometimes they have to prove themselves. Othertimes they do not.

Usually the person in the leading role is perceived as greater. Few men, with a tradition of being leading figures, appear to psychologically and socially deal with this. Females intuitively understand this. We assume that males intuitively understand it.

Sometimes when men sabotage leading role females it’s deliberate;; sometimes it’s merely naive and intuitive. Females have to decide when it is deliberate and when it is “innocent.” (Of course experts in role-playing cannot participate in this behavior at all, because they cannot pretend they don’t understand it. They do understand it. The only role they can have in a role of consultant or advisor to those who must deal with this problem. Experts, professionals, and scholars role in this is to provide information.)

Leading role women who have leading role men who are perceived as greater than them usually find not the same problem. Most of the type of men who do not know how to relate to leading role women seem not to have a problem when they have a greater role, and when society acknoqledges this greater role. They are leading role women, but their men are perceived as yet greater and so mostly these leading role women don’t experience the same problems and the men seem to accept their leading role, because these men are perceived as yet greater than them.

Example: Let’s say you’re a leading role actress, but your man is an actor considered as having a yet greater leading role than yourself. Generally such men appear content. Let the actress achieve a greater lead, then with such men we have a problem. We have many many examples of this.

Some leading role women find themselves maintaining their independence, even when they connect to men, as an Oprah for example, who continues, even though with Stedman, who appears to know how to relate to this leading role female, and to maintain a certain discipline and supportiveness. Privately we don’t know what the deal is, but publically she maintains her status. Or appears to do so. And he appears to know how to relate intelligently to a leading role female. We assume that in his areas of expertise, he is also a leading role man, although it is not a role that puts him necessarily in competition with Oprah. They do not appear to be in competitive mode. If he were also a talk show host, in competitive mode, then we would have to notice if he “behaves himself.” Or if she “behaves herself.”

Ivana Trump, for example, got into competitive mode with the Donald. Or vice versa. It would be good if we could have “power couples” in the same area who do not get into competition with each other and who could work as equals and not into this competitive role-playing, where the female or the male has to be “less.” It would be good if leading role men and leading role females could connect as power couples, exchanging leading and supporting roles where required, but maintaining their power as a couple.

Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, is a leading role female, it appears, but because she’s his daughter she is not necessarily in competitive mode with her father. It’s “no competition.” Most leading role female daughters, and we have many examples of these, don’t appear to have to same problem.

Even though many don’t necessarily like Bill and Hillary Clinton and/or their politics, however, they appear to be professionals at doing this. Experts on masculine and feminine role-playing as it involves leading roles and supporting roles might find them, despite the politics, good examples.

This doesn’t mean the men are wrong necessarily or the women are wrong necessarily. Both are responding to their civilizations and their histories, whether it’s a patriarch or a matriarch history. Even in our quest for freedom and equality, we still must negotiate with a civilization. Even when most people achieve what might be called “freedom,” many are still slaves to their civilizations, the values, principles, mores, folkways, rules, guidelines that help to sustain their civilizations. Many people try to be honorable within those guidelines. But most of our civilizations are the “masters.” Only outsiders can critique civilizations. That’s why the West can critique the East and the East the West. Men critique women and women men. We might not all accept these critiques, but we should listen to them. To sustain our civilizations, East or West, masculine or feminine we often reject these critiques, nevertheless we need to hear them and to listen.

We have discussed presidents and leading roles.

Should America have a first female president, we have proposed how many men are qualified to accept her in the leading role, how many men are going to approach this woman and make it clear that she must defer to them and they must have leadership over this female. We must also ask whether females, used to playing supporting roles, are going to accept a female as leading role figure. Many women like men sabotage leading role females. This is not just something that men do. Their motives can be similar or different. Some want the role for themselves; some simply do not feel that these women are qualified for the leading roles.

If president is supposedly the greatest secular American role, then what man would be greater than this president? If the female is the president, what man or women would be greater than the president? We mean speaking as a role, not intellectually, spiritually, or metaphysically.

Many people who understand role-playing, defer to the role of president, not necessarily the person playing the role. Sometimes we defer to the person playing the role. Sometimes we decide that the person playing the role is not qualified. Then we don’t re-elect them, we impeach them, and/or they resign. Sometimes they themselves do not run for re-election, for whatever reason. Either they have proven to themselves that they are not qualified, and/or they don’t think that the populace is going to re-elect them. A president does not really understand the role, or learn the role until the president is actually playing the role himself and/or herself.

Again, if presidents want to problem-solve as presidents sometimes they must discuss problems with those who have played the role and/or who are playing the role, and/or with experts at presidential politics and presidential role-playing. They need to of course listen to the critiques of outsiders, but they have to also ask for the critiques of those who know the role and have played the role themselves. They need their critiques also.

We have proposed that we have noted that many women know how to accompany men when they play the roles of president? And let’s continue with the president as role. How many men know how to accompany women when they play the roles of president?

Many women have been the queens of nations. Sometimes the men with them have become king, sometimes they are not allowed this role, to make it clear that the queen is the queen. If the king is rightly the king, then he is the king.

Queens and kings have handled their various roles in ways that we know historically. Some queens have had to “think like men” to play their roles as queens. Some have been quite queenly. Some kings have been quite kingly. They have also had to have experts and advisors who have played the roles themselves, and/are who understand these roles and/or the problems of these roles on the expert level.

Females playing leading roles have to determine along with the men who play the roles along with them are they both qualified for these roles and how do they behave?

Sometimes females playing leading roles in their area of talent, knowledge or wisdom, connect to men who have leading roles in their areas of talent, knowledge, or wisdom to solve this problem.

So that instead of connecting to a man who is in the same profession, say writers, politicals, scientists, where the woman is perceived as greater, and we must admit throughout history this is a problem.

To solve this, let’s say you have a female artist who is a leading artist connects to a man scientist who is a leading scientists. Some solve this problem simply by not being competitors. We have mentioned a problem for leading role men and leading role females is getting into competitive mode. This is the problem of any type of leadership.

Ethnic leaders in non-competitive mode with each other can be more helpful to each other than when they get into competitive mode. Also, it’s very easy for adversaries to “set up” ethnic leaders to get them into competitive mode. If ethnic leaders understand what is going on, it doesn’t work. Or sometimes they understand what is going on and just play along and make their own good use of the competition. This is for them to know. However, if they understand what is going on, it does not necessarily have to disrupt or corrupt their leadership. Who’s the greatest leader? Postmodern ethnic leadership should understand by now all of these methods. If not, there are experts and scholars who study ethnic leaders and ethnic leadership and who write histories and can certainly advise them. In fact, they can read and learn from these histories themselves. There is so much documentation on this that these efforts shouldn’t work anymore. Perhaps with newer generations who don’t know and haven’t learned this history. But certainly these efforts shouldn’t work on elder ethnic leaders who know the history.

But even though historians continue to admonish us to learn history and not to repeat historical mistakes, we continue to do so anyway. That’s also historical. Even with all our historical knowledge, we seem to continue to want to tell the same histories, the same stories again and again, until we start gaining control of those histories and those stories.

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.

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.