Often when women go into traditionally masculine roles most men perceive them as doing wrong unless they play the role according to masculine traditions and by the rules and guidelines, values and principles of the masculine world.

Often when men go into traditionally feminine roles most women perceive them as doing wrong unless they play the role according to masculine tradtions and bya the rules and guidelines, values and principles of the feminine world.

The same gender witnessing these roles also has perceptions and notions of right and wrong playing of these roles. For example, if a female witnesses a female in a leadership role, a female may or may not perceive and respond in the same manner as a man witnessing that role-playing. Similarly a man witnessing a man in a traditional feminine role may also have a different perception of that role and role-playing than a female witnessing that role. There are also differences in perceptions of right and wrong and whether or not the roleplayer should have the role.

However, if a man connects to a tradition, he can transform it into a masculine role and if a woman connects to a traditon she can transform it into a feminine role. We witness this in ballet. Male and female ballet dancers have different roles and different costumes. Male ballet dancers can be quite manly and female ballet dancers can be quite womanly. And they play their traditonal roles in a traditional dance form.

Often this is difficult to understand when a gender has defined a tradition. Most people who understand this are able to do this.

For example, in certain African societies you have market women, not market men. Women handle the money, not men.

If you ask men to play this role, like in many civilizations, they say no, of course not.

If men do play this role, perhaps they are ridiculed.

In an Oprah commentary on some African society, she witnessed the women doing the work, and the men appearing not to do any work. Her perception, of course, came from the point of view of a Westerner, an African from the West, and so she made a commentary. Perhaps in this village the woman are doing women’s work. What are the men’s work. What type of work do the men do.

Similarly in certain societies you have material workers, intellectual workers, and metaphysical workers. From the point of view of material workers, intellectuals and metaphysical workers appear not to be doing any work. Or the work they do doesn’t make sense, and/or if they connect to the material world of work it’s generally intellectual or metaphysical type of work. Most of the material work is done so that materialists understand that these people are workers also. Much of their work however is done on the intellectual and metaphysical levels. For materialists to understand they are working, often they might write books, create think tanks, or connect to material workers as advisors and consultants or mentors. Metaphysical workers often have material work to do so that materialists understand they are doing work also. However, much of their true work is not on the material level. Many of them, however, have to prove to materialists that they are indeed doing work. Think tank people mainly think and work with ideas, but then they have to connect to some material manifestation of those ideas before their work is perceived on the material level.

Africa continues to have intellectual and metaphysical workers also, and this work continues along with the work in the material world. Sometimes women in societies are relegated to the work in the material world. However, to be perceived as workers, almost everybody has to connect to the material world of work. Philosophers write books, for example.

Most people do not perceive the intellectual world and metaphysical worlds directly and so certainly all workers must somehow connect to the material world of work, including the Einstein, who considered himself not to be a practical person. Most of us understand the practical world of work.

However, if the society decided to have market men, these African societies with their market women in the practical world of marketing, then these market men would have to play the role differently than women. They would have to connect the role to masculine traditions, values and principles. The role would be very different. Perhaps they would be perceived by the women as doing wrong, and the women would try to correct them, nevertheless they would have to make it clear to the women that they are in the role, not females, and therefore they have the right to have a masculine tradition and to do the work in a masculine manner.

In some civilizations men do the fishing and men are traditionally the fishermen. Sometimes women connect to this world of work and are generally thought the exceptions. Many of us know of Linda Greenlaw for example, the only female fishing boat captain, portrayed in the movie by Mary Mastrantonio. Many women in these types of roles find themselves, although female, participating in certain aspects of masculine tradition because men have traditionally played and determined the rules and guidelines of these roles, and/or we just think of them as traditionally masculine roles.

We witness this on the food network, where it’s good that you have men and women the masters and mistresses of these food shows, and you find that the women work in a traditionally feminine manner, and the men, most of them, work in a traditionally masculine manner. They each know how to take this tradition and to play it in their manner.

Many of these men have talked about learning how cook from women, nevertheless, when they go into these roles, they play the roles like men. Similarly with women who might learn from a great masculine chef, when they play the role most of them play the role like women. They understand their traditions.

In some professions there is a certain confusion of this. Many times there is confusion, many times not.

Women who learn how to write from masculine teachers generally write very different than women who learn how to write from many feminine teachers. Because they are women, nevertheless, most write from a feminine perspective and must deal with the many problems of the feminine world, nevertheless they can also write using the techniques and strategies of the traditional masculine texts. They understand both the masculine texts and the feminine texts, and the traditions of both. Unless these women write from specific feminine perspectives and unless you know them by their feminine names mostly you can’t tell which is which. Often you can’t tell which text is which. Of course men and women writers can learn from both masculine and feminine literary traditions. Often women writers have men as the heroes of their texts, as Harry Potter, and often men writers have females as the heroines of their texts, as Portrait of a Lady.

Sometimes when you would have queens of England, and because leadership of this sort is traditionally masculine, many of these queens felt they had to act and behave like kings, to think like men. To tell the truth, when these women assumed the role of leader of a nation, whether royal title or political title, they can make it clear that this is now a feminine role, and they can decide out of feminine tradition what they should do. Many of them, these queens of England, rode into battle like men, because this is their role. However, they could have also decided, out of feminine tradition, to behave differently, or wage a different type of war. Of course, if going to war is necessary, and it’s necessary for the king or queen to go to war, certainly these women can feel this is required. Or they can say no. Or, they can decide a different strategy that what is traditonally with kings.

Queens of African and other nations, especially when going to war, found themselves having to behave “kingly,” and/or the tradition roles of the kings.

Certainly women need to learn about war and warrior methods, but they have to decide as women do they do battle in the same manner as masculine tradition.

For example, you have female boxers, in both Western and Eastern style. Many of them are very feminine in their demeanor, however, they learn the techniques of men. Some of them are as good, some of them are not as good. But many of them, in postmodern feminism, connect these great warrior traditions to feminine style. They nevertheless learn the techniques. Women can also decide, if they want, not to participate in these types of war games, unless it’s necessary.

Many feminists, for example, found themselves retreating from these traditional masculine proofs of equality, and many of them are still in retreat–and we must be honest–returning to many of their traditional feminine roles. Much of this, however, is because they found that when doing the so-called masculine work, they were nevertheless required to do the traditional feminine work as well. Women in work environment need a support system just like men in work environment need a support system. Reversing the roles is not necessarily an answer either.

Of course, in warrior civilizations, and many of our civilizations because of the histories of conquest, are warrior civilizations, and most of us are at war all the time on different levels and for different reasons. Most of us are continuously coming up with excuses to go to war, and many of our roles are warrior roles. People who are not warrior types find it very difficult to go into certain roles and certain careers because they are not warrior types. Therefore, when they go into the types of roles where you have to go to war with people all the time, it’s difficult for those types of people.

We remember a Twilight Zone episode where this man went into the advertising business, a warrior career, a warrior role. He’s not a warrior type. Very difficult career for him.

People who are not warrior types must find roles and careers that do not require warfare. Most of them who go into warrior roles, and most of them, find these roles difficult, and many withdraw from these types of careers, or people just “destroy” them. They are not very good. It’s not that they are not very good, it’s just many of them are not interested in going to war with people to maintain some career. They are not necessarily cowardly people however. Certainly in a warrior civilization, perhaps so. In a nonwarrior civilization not.

On the American Idol, both Simon and Randy, masculine roleplayers identify their roles as more warriors roles than Paula, Simon of course a different style warrior than Randy. Paula, if a warrior, it’s more feminine style.

As for women, if men are first class citizens and women cannot duplicate their roles exactly, then certainly men are going to perceive women as second or third class citizens. This is true of ethnic groups seeking mastery in their conquered civilizations. When the Romans were in power they made sure that their conquered tribes understood that to be equal to the Romans they had to become civilized and behave like the Romans. Many of these conquered tribes spent centuries to prove themselves equal to the Romans by trying to behave and act like Romans until they started to understand that they didn’t have to imitate Romans to be equals. They didn’t even have to speak the Roman languages. And most of these tribes are still uncivilized and just as uncivilized as the civilized Romans.

Nor did many of us allow the Egyptians to civilize us nor the French nor the Russians nor any of these others. We all continue to be uncivilized. Nevertheless we all continue to seek the strategies for civilization, since we all know by now that everybody is uncivilized except for ourselves. (We’re sure that our readers understand satire.)

Many of the roles as men have defined them are warrior roles. Certainly when women or the type of men, like in the Twilight Zone, who are more supportive role types go into these roles mostly they are just not very good. When they are required to go to war with people, and especially friends, of course they are not interested in these roles. These non-warrior types should find careers that are supporting careers, because it’s very difficult to redefine a personality type as a warrior.

If it’s absolutely necessarily for these people to go to war with friends, and or valued people to maintain a career they might do so. Usually they withdraw and say no. These people are better for supporting roles, and/or if they go into tradition warrior roles then they have to redefine that role. Certainly, those used to the warrior traditions perceive these people as doing wrong or not very good.

Those running for USA presidents, and we suppose every president, has to be warrior type unless they are the president of a peaceful and peacemaking type of people. Very few people are this, and certainly very few in the modern world. Presidents have to be warriors, in warrior civilizations. Jimmy Carter had more problems being president trying to reconcile his Christianity, as a “good Christian” with the warrior role of president. Women who become president have to decide what warrior traditions to they participate. Certainly women have warrior traditions, but most of these because of the nature of femininity, and they do not have the same warrior traditions as men, it is often problematic for them to assume these roles, unless they develop these traditions.

Early feminists and the first feminists always feel that to be equal to men they must participate in their traditions, many warrior roles, to prove themselves. Postfeminists generally return to ultrafeminism, while still demanding equality. This certainly is a contradiction. However, many women find that they cannot compete with many men in warrior traditions that men have developed for centuries, and that most women are new to. It doesn’t mean that women cannot be taught these traditions, these values and principles. But they also have to decide do they want to be taught these things.

Certainly if you have warrior civlizations and warrior peoples, you need the antithesis.

In some things men and women need to maintain their antithesis, so that there is a balance. Some things that can participate in together, some things they have to maintain their independent. Some roles they can play together in the same manner, if they want. Other roles they have to transform into masculine and feminine roles.

Many people play roles instinctively or intuitively or as part of a tradition. Others, as we have mentioned before, play roles but also study those roles, think about them, analysis them, and have a different role-playing “role.”

Scholars and philosophers and students of role-playing cannot play roles in the manner of others, because they are very self-conscious about these roles. A presidential scholar, presidential historian, or presidential advisor or consultant, very self-conscious about the role of president, for example, is usually better as an advisor to a president. These people can play the role, but they cannot play it in the same manner and on the same seemingly naive level.

This is the same with any role. When people come to the point where they start understanding the role on a self-conscious level, then usually these people instead of playing the role, can only become consultants and advisors. They cannot play the role naively. This is true not only for first world presidents and leaders, but third world presidents and leaders also.

Postmodern roleplayers because we have such a history of these roles and years and years of playing these roles are becoming far more savvy. These roleplayers of course continue to make mistakes, even with their knowledge of history, and they have great historical knowledge, because they are human beings. Some of course know what they are doing and deliberately do what they are doing. This is also historical.

Governments, for example, some decisions they make they share with the public. Other decisions and why they make them they don’t necessarily tell the public until generations later. They come up with all kinds of rationalization that they think is acceptable to the public. The public doesn’t always know. Sometimes you have people who are strategists themselves who it’s pretty easy for them to make analysis, but they don’t have any proof, except their intellectual analyses and theories. These are the types of analyses and theories and analysts and theorists understand, but for the so-called “common people” it might take generations to get the information to the so-called people. Many times this is deliberate as we know.

Of course, as far as governments are concerned, if everybody shared their information, then certainly there is a lot that governments would be allowed to do, because the people probably would simply not allow them. So of course there is security clearance, etc. etc.

The more intelligent and the more savvy people are becoming, however, the less governments are able to get away with. Nevertheless, they still count on having a group of people that don’t understand, or that just go along to get along. Those that don’t are often shunned or “destroyed.” This is true of almost every society.

But what of masculine and feminine roles. We continue to deal with masculine and feminine roleplaying, we continue to learn through feminist and postfeminist texts and through various masculine and masculinist texts.

The more we study the more we learn that we need both masculine and feminine and even in our search for equality we can’t be all the same.

This is the same with ethnic groups, who when they begin to seek equality are urged to be like their conquerors. Then they begin to understand that they are different, they have different wisdom systems. That they can’t just duplicate their conquerors to be equal. Many try and strive to do so, and those who refuse are often excluded or “destroyed” in favor of those who most resemble the conqueror, materially, intellectually, and/or metaphysically.

These are things we have to continue to study and learn about not on the naive emotive level but on the self-conscious and thoughtful level.

Most of the wisdom is already in society, and we learn and relearn this wisdom even from the ancients, the ancient philosophers, the ancient spiritual masters. Certainly we have modern and postmodern technologies, but the essentials ideals and values we already know. It’s just a matter of relearning and listening. We might also find at some point that many of the so-called new technologies are ancient being rediscovered, or at least, the inspiration for them is ancient, as we are continuing to create new technologies based upon the ancient scientific philopher Albert Einstein and much of Einsteinian thought we are finding having certain resources in ancient Eastern Dao. (As in the Dao of Physics.)

Masculine and feminism roles and masculine and feminism wisdom systems we are learning and relearning and learning and relearning is our quests for equality, and in our understanding of what equality means.

Traditionally masculine roles are perceived as leading roles and feminine roles are supporting roles. This also makes it problematic for women who assume the traditional leading roles. We have talked about this problem before, and this is certainly something that society has to study on the self-conscious level. Roleplayers can decide to be naive and intuitive about their roles and/or they can decide to be self-conscious rolepplayers. There is much literature and almost all of these roles, and their is much history on almost all of these roles, so that all roleplayers can study their roles.

When you are self-conscious about roles and roleplaying then you can transform and recreate roles, modify and innovate. Until then you just go along playing the role, many of which are pure stereotypes or pure archetypes. Sometimes stereotypes and archetypes are necessary to sustain societies, nevertheless you need people in those societies who are self-conscious about these steretypes and arcetypes if it’s necessary to intervene or challenge them.

If you find yourself in a steretypical or archetypical masculine and/or feminine role and you wish to transform that role, then you must discuss the matter with professionals, advisors, therapists, and experts in role-playing. Generally, these people understand. It doesn’t mean that you’ll be successful among the people for whom these roles and roleplaying represent a very powerful reality. However, the more you learn about roleplaying self-consciously the more freedom you have in roleplaying. You can play the role according to tradition and/or you can transform and recreate tradition. That’s why postmodern societies are very different from so-called primitive societies, but every society has aspects of both the postmodern and the primitive.

Most people who transform or challenge roles must first provide a philosophy, a history, an analysis that people understand what they are doing. Of course, if not, most of these people are indeed perceived as eccentric or even crazy.