That’s what the women would say anyway, and it seems that they have taken control of public opinion, because men are too scared of annoying them too much, to do anything about it.

Masculinism is seen as a stupid idea, because men had so much power in the past, and they are still twice the size of women, and can control them if they really want to, but is this even true?

The law has changed quite a bit, and society has changed quite a bit, at least where I live, so that men have barely any power over women at all.

Having money is not so much of a control issue, because women work, and even if they can’t, the government provides them with welfare, and women don’t need sex, so the only real way a man can control a women is by psychology.

Men have had an awful lot of trouble learning about the psychology of women, and so only the truly skilled mind manipulators, the super-rich, the super-handsome, and drug dealers have a chance of controlling the minds of women.

Some would say it isn’t about control, it’s about love, but while that is true to some degree, it is misunderstanding the instincts of dominance that a man has built into him.

If he isn’t the leader of the pack, then he is submissive, there is no such thing as equality. Given that a man has a natural instinct to dominate, and be the “man” of the house, wear the pants etc, this whole equality bit just isn’t doing it for most men.

That is why there will most definitely be a masculinist movement of one sort or another, and it may end up making things worse than they ever were before, as men try to get exactly what they want from women. I suggest that it is in fact up to women not to take their new found power to heart, and understand that a man needs to feel like the leader, even if he isn’t.

This is the only way that the masculinist movement will be stopped, if men are treated with the respect they deserve, for everything they have done through history, to earn their rightful place at the top of the pecking order.

Image by dbking via Flickr

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.

Masculine leaders must be qualified leaders, and they must know how to connect to the appropriate experts when necessary.

Leaders, whether men or women, don’t know everything. They are not qualified for everything. They have to understand where their limitations are and where their qualifications are. When to take the responsibility themselves, and when to defer to others. Leaders must also know when to delegate responsibility.

Leaders must study leadership, public or private. Must understand the role. Supporting people must understand their roles also.

If you have several people who are all leaders, of course, it’s very difficult for these people to work together, because they are all leaders. That’s why it’s very easy to “set up” leaders, because they are all leaders. It’s very easy for leaders, masculine or feminine, to get into competitive mode.

Many leaders, because of the psychology of leadership, all perceive themselves as equally or better qualified than other leaders. Supporting role psychology is able to perceive others as better or greater. This psychological different can be right or wrong, as well all know.

If you try to get genuinely supporting role people to go against leadership, it’s more difficult because they perceive these people as leaders and often as greater than themselves. You must convince them that the leader is not qualified for leadership, then they seek a new leader. Most of them do not try to become leader themselves, unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Leaders assume leadership. Supporting role people seek a new leader, and/or they just stay independent.

Most of the time if you try to get supporting role people to go into a leading role, most of them object, unless absolutely necessary, and then they find out if anybody is supportive of them as leader. Usually people are not supportive of them as leader, or very few people, and/or they must prove themselves worthy.

Conquerors often work at discrediting the masculine and/or feminine leadership of the conquered, and playing them against each other. This is historical.

As for masculine leaders, there are different ways of determining masculine leadership, public or private.

You can elect masculine leaders. However, there is an election process in which they prove themselves worthy by whatever standards you set as a people or civilization. Perhaps they have a debate. Who wins the debate? They have to give speeches and appeal to the people. They have to raise money. They have to learn to deal with the media, the press. There are many requirements that you put to elected masculine leaders (or any leaders.) Then you evaluate them. Likability and charm are qualities that some people look for. Others don’t concern themselves with how likable their leaders are; they want competent and honorable leaders. What is the agenda of these masculine leaders? What are their opinions? Many things you decide upon as a people. Are they good at problem-solving? Are they good managers? Do they know how to work with a “team”–since presidents must be able to work with others. Do they assume responsibility themselves or delegate responsibility to others? Many things we look for and study in masculine leadership models.

For others, do they just look like masculine leaders? Are these masculine leaders manly?

Some people choose masculine leadership really just based upon appearance: Gregory Peck, Edward James Olmos, Denzel Washington, Clint Eastwood?

You have many people that select masculine leadership based upon a manly appearance. Then, along with that, they must prove themselves. But for many, it’s just that.

A man like Audey Murphy for example, a more diminuative type of man, a manly but small man, had to prove himself heroic in a war. Nevertheless, in the movies, he’s not generally the type that we associate with heroism in terms of appearance. If he hadn’t proven himself as a hero in war, certainly he wouldn’t have gotten to play the hero, including himself, in the movies. This appearance problem is a problem for many men who are qualified for leadership roles intellectually and/or metaphysically, but their small stature or their race or their religion tell people no we don’t accept this great man as leader.

This is certainly also true of female leaders. What are the qualifications that societies look for in female leadership and in what type of role. What are the appearance qualifications for females? We continue to debate the appearance question in assigning leading roles to both males and females.

Most of us do not have the ability to perceive intelligence and spirit directly, and so we are all seeking worldly proofs, and most people are spending their time gathering worldly proofs for people.

For those who can perceive directly these proofs are not necessary.

The Great Teacher is our best example. Many have played the role of Great Teacher in various civilizations, some recognized, some unrecognized.

When the Great Teacher made an appearance in ancient Persia, Rumi, the great mystic poet, recognized the Great Teacher immediately. He didn’t need any proof. He was able to perceive intelligence and spirit directly. The Great Teacher didn’t have to prove anything.

There are tales of others on this level. Certainly, there are those who had the ability to recognize Moses immediately without any proof. However, because Moses came into the material world, Moses had to prove himself to a world of material people. Those perceiving the intellect and spirit of Moses directly already knew Moses. The prophets already knew Moses and of Moses. For others there had to be material, political, intellectual, and spiritual proof.

With the help and insistence of the Divine Spirit, Moses was able to provide this proof, or these proves.

There are some spiritual historians who believe that Moses was not allowed to continue with his people into the Promised Land because he began to think that he himself was the actor and not the Divine Spirit working through Moses.

Perhaps this is so. There are many other interpretations of this divine history.

We certainly celebrate Moses and continue to do so. However, spiritual history also lets us know that there is a divine agency that can work through human beings in the ancient, modern, and postmodern worlds. Moses had to prove worthy to that divine agency, and so that divine agency was able to work through Moses as a worthy human agency.

Those who have leadership roles and who believe in this divine agency and especially when they have leadership over many people, should try to connect if possible to this divine agency that is greater than any human being.

Many leaders understand this.

Moses had to combine spiritual and secular leadership. He had to be both a military and a spiritual leader. Very difficult because these things appear to contradict each other. Before Moses made an appearance, the Jewish dictate was to be nonviolent–not to go to war against anybody. Then Moses made an appearance and made it clear to these nonviolents that the Divine Spirit now said to liberate the Jews it was wartime. Moses had to gain the approval of the Divine Spirit first. He had to continue to appeal, as in other spiritual histories to that Divine Spirit. What should he do? What should he do?

Other spiritual texts and spiritual histories have similar stories.

There are many stories of leaders when human beings make an appeal to them to assume leadership, especially those who understand the Spirit, make an appeal to the Spirit–What should that leader do? What should that leader do? Should that leader even become a leader?

Some appeals are made to the people as in Treemonisha, others appeals are made directly to the Divine Spirit. The Divine Spirit, as with Moses, then often helps to provide proof to the material world.

We have talked about the Caesar Principle as a principle of masculine (or any) leadership.

We can also include the Moses Principle as a principle of archetypal leadership, in which the leader continues to make an appeal not to the world, but to the Spirit. These masculine leaders, according to the Moses Principle–or we can use the archetypes of Eastern religion, such as Arjuna–these masculine leaders, military or spiritual, make an appeal to the Divine Spirit–to That Who is Greater Than This World.

Moses understood, like other spiritual leaders, that although he was going about in the world he was in the presence of the Spirit. He was/is both “in the world” and “in the Spirit.” Masculine leaders, who are also spiritual or Spiritual Leaders, understand this. (Feminine leaders, who are alwso spiritual or Spiritual Leaders, also understand this.) People who have a spiritual history that continues with them even into the postmodern world also understand this. That’s why they continue to have both masculine and feminine spiritual leaders and spiritual leadership. These people, even though certainly they are not on the level of Moses or Arjuna, to the best of our modern understanding, nevertheless continue to make that appeal to the Divine Spirit. Some of these masculine leaders are recognized by the world. And as we have stated previously, some are recognized by the Divine Spirit.

What do we mean exactly? There are Spiritual Leaders among the Native American people, for example, who although they might be recognized by a few native peoples are not necessarily recognized by the world. They are recognized, we assume, by the few native people who can recognized these leaders, and they are recognized by the Spirit. Whether the world ever comes to recognize these leaders depends upon the history of the world and the history of Native Americans in the world.

The people who’s spiritual texts are central to the spiritual history of the world have their masculine and feminine spiritual leaders, historical and contemporary recognized because of the role they have in the world and we all acknowledge their important roles. If these other groups begin to assume certain important worldly roles, then certainly we might begin to know and recognize their great secular and spiritual leaders. This is how the world works.

As Mexican Americans and Hispanic Americans have a greater role in America we come to recognize more and more of them and people who are central to their secular and spiritual histories. More and more Americans are learning and relearning their language. This is how the world works. The Spirit has always known these great Mexican peoples and their great histories and their great Spiritual Leaders. Perhaps the world shall also come to know them.

What do we mean? The Spirit always knew the Jewish people even when they were the lowest of the low among tribal peoples. The Spirit always knew them and had/has and continues to have a role for them. But this is true of all the different peoples. The Spirit also witnesses how the world deal with all the different peoples, from the lowest primitives, to the worlds understanding, to the highest technological peoples. The Spirit bears witness to and with all of these peoples, and continues to do so. Their Spiritual Leaders recognize this and continue to recognize this.

Before the conquerors made an appearance on the American landscape, the Spiritual Leaders of the native peoples, for example, if you believe them, were told about these conquerors, and even why they were to make an appearance to “conquer” America.

Many of the spiritual and sacred texts and scientific texts of these great peoples were destroyed. Perhaps these texts shall be restored to us, through the old messengers and/or the contemporary messengers of these peoples. Some of these texts, if they had not been destroyed, would probably be among the great and classic texts of our many civilizations. This history can be found in The Broken Speears: The Aztec Account of the Conquest of Mexico. Translated from Nahuatl into Spanish by Angel Maria Garibay K. and English Translation by Lysander Kemp. It should be good to retell this history on film from the point of view not of the conquerors but the Aztecs.

There are many such histories and stories, secular and spiritual.

Males in leadership roles can study all of these historical and postmodern roles. Females have critiqued their civilizations in their feminist writings. However, masculine leadership must critique their own civilization, the secular and spiritual leadership roles and role-playing.