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.

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.

To have a leading role you must have a support system. If you assume a leading role in a area of knowledge, a business, an industry, then you must have a support system.

You cannot be the owner of a company, for example, and have an effective business unless the people in the company are supportive of you, unless you have a support system. People working for you must trust and respect you as a business professional, and you must have a support system.

People must be available to work for your company and to work for you and to do the work to the best of their ability and expertise.

You must have customers and those available to buy your products and services.

The community that you have the business in must be supportive of you.

Many business people for example before even setting up a company must find out if they have adequate support system for that company.

A community that doesn’t want a Wal-mart, for example, and is not going to be supportive of Wal-mart, then Wal-mart can not set up in that community.

First, Wal-mart must have a sufficient work force qualified to do all the different types of work that Wal-mart in that community requires.

They also must have customers enough in that community to support Wal-mart by buying the products so that Wal-mart has sufficient money to make a profit in that community, buy its products, and to pay salaries to its employees. Plus the community in general must be supportive of having a Wal-mart in their community.

Whoever is the local manager of Wal-mart must be a trusted business professional who people are able to work with in a professional and business manner.

This is true not only of the large companies like Wal-mart, but small local grocery stores.

Mainly to stay in business you need quality products and buyers of those quality products and a quality work force. Many things you need to go into business and to stay in business.

If you have very few people supportive of you you can have a company or business, but it would have to be a small, private company and you would have to assign the type of work that very few people can do.

What are the types of companies where you can work with very few people and have an effective business or company? The owner must list these types of companies.

If you have very little money for startup costs and advertising, then you must list the types of companies that you can start with very little money.

Of course your goal is to have a large company or a corporation perhaps, but you start with business goals that are possible.

Perhaps with the very few people that you employ the only type of business that you can think of is web content writing. Then you can start your small, private company writing web content. Those who work for you are assigned to write web content. So you are a web content company.

We use web content only as an example. You can also study the internet and your community for the types of companies that very few people are needed to have that type of company.

Perhaps a small candy store or a small toy store in your community. Or perhaps a small store that buys and sells used books. Perhaps these are the only types of stores that you have a support system in your community. Then consider these stores.

Let’s say you’re interested in setting up a publishing company. There is not sufficient support in your type of community to sustain a publishing company. Perhaps you can set up a small private company in your community and try to have a branch of that publishing company in a community in which there is more of a support system for publishing, including qualified workers. Perhaps in your community few know anything about publishing, then you have to find a community, including an online community of qualified workers in publishing. You certainly cannot work in publishing when you don’t have qualified workers or a support system of buyers for your books, and/or even a community that is receptive to published works,

We are using business as samples of support systems for leadership role-playing, nevertheless these questions of support systems for leaders applies to every area in which you have leaders, from entertainment to sports to politics to intelletual to spiritual leadership.

In addition you must have people knowledge of the type of leadership. As we have noted previously, most practical, materially oriented people only recognize material world leadership and material world leaders.

For those interested in intellectual or spiritual leadership, then they must work with the types of people that recognize this type of leadership. If it’s necessary for them to translate this recognition into the material world, then they must learn the appropriate methods of translating this into the material world.

Now for The Caesar Principle. Most leaders must maintain an adequate support system for their type of leadership. Of course, you can have truly independent leaders, but generally truly independent leaders are not necessarily leaders of others, they are their own leaders, and mostly they don’t have a support system. In a business, for example, such business people just do the work themselves.

You have independent scholars and independent intellectuals that merely do the work themselves. They might record their work in personal journals. They might self-publish their work, but generally they are their own support system. Many of these types of independent scholars and independent intellectuals work online with their articles on blogs. Nevertheless, generally their must be readers, so that readers are a certain type of support system. Having a public blog to write on also provides a support system, even if people don’t necessarily like what the blogger has to say. A support system does not necessarily have to be other people, although generally human beings look towards other people to provide some type of support system, as we find in internet business communities.

Most independent types try to be as independent as they can be, including those who need to work with others, such as directors and producers and even actors, who have to work in a collaborative art, nevertheless seeking more control of their intelletual property.

But in The Caesar Principle most leaders recognize very easily the people who are genuinely supportive of them and the types of support systems they have.

If you are working with others in a leadership mode, then certainly you have to maintain a support system.

Political leaders demonstrate The Caesar Principle very easily. Let’s say you’re a political leader and you start your career with many supporters, then you find your supporters become your “accusers,” and then you find very few people continue to be your supporters, and you have only a very few “mark anthonies.”

Some political leaders do not follow this example, but continue to have or appear to have a very power support system, genuine supportive of these as leaders.

This doesn’t mean that people just have to go along with a Caesar. They have the right to object, to complain, and to interfere, if necessary, nevertheless they are constructive types with constructive criticism, and they are not necessarily interested in the role of Caesar themselves. They are supportive.

Those interested in the role of Caesar themselves must then work independently.

We find this in singing groups where everybody wants to be the lead singer. Then you find that these lead singers have to work independently of each other and then find their independent support systems. Those genuinely committed to each other find a way to accomplish this without being destructive to each other. They simply recognize that they are all leading role figures. They can work together and/or independently.

Some of these workers are simply supportive of their Caesar. They are not interested in doing anything except to try to help them to become the best Caesar that that person can be. If they truly believe another is better, including themselves, then of course they can say so. But they can do so in a constructive rather than a destructive. And also they can encourage their Caesar to a constructive form of leadership. However, there are many destructive forms of leadership that leaders have traditionally found necessary. In the postmodern analysis of role-playing, of course, we can discuss the constructive leadership models and the destructive leadership models. Students of role-playing can study both of these models of role-playing and every role.

As for the role of Caesar, people to have right to accept or reject the role. They also have the right to redefine the role, not according to the archetype, but according to their understanding of how they want to play the role.

Many times however if you play a role in a society that has an archetype of that role or a stereotype, as we have noted, even if you want to play the role differently, your society often forces you into that role according to their stereotypical or archetypal understanding. In order not to play that role according to your cultures or societies understanding, sometimes you have to withdraw from the role altogether or go into another civilization that has a different archetype, where you have more freedom in role-playing, such as when so-called civilized role-playing go to more primitive societies–from their understanding of the primitive, such as when Gauguin decided to go to Tahiti.

Of course the Tahitians might have considered Gauguin as equally primitive as he considered them. And we must note, for these Europeans who like to discover people that when Gauguin went to Tahiti he didn’t necessarily discover any Tahitians, he discovered himself. He didn’t conquer any Tahitians necessarily, but according to Cervantes, he conquered himself.

So what do you do if you find yourself playing Caesar in your leadership role. What do you do with your mark anthonies?

By recognizing this pattern, you can alter the role. By not recognizing this pattern, you simply find yourself playing the role.

This is the importance again of role-playing recognizing the stereotypes, archetypes of their civilizations, so that when they can into a role, they do not have to always play the role according to their civilizations understanding of the role.

In addition, when other people who have certain stereotypical and archetypal understandings try to get them to play the role according to some naive and intuitive stereotype or archetype they are able to say yes or no. But they do so with a freedom and self-conscious understanding.

This is no different from people who understand customs, values, mores and folkways on the self-conscious and not on the primitive level. They often appear “crazy” to their societies and civilizsations, but nevertheless they have a certain freedom that others do not have.

However, if they want to discuss why they object to certain customs, values, mores, and folkways, they have to talk to experts and professional people that understand their objections, along with them, on the professional and expert level. The so-called people are certain not going to understand them, because they just follow the customs, values, mores and folkways of their societies. They have been doing so for centuries. Societies need these people to maintain a certain cohesiveness; but they also need the professionals, experts, and scholars that understand on the professional level.

For example, Jospeh Mbele has a book sold at Lulu Press that discusses the difference between American and African culture. Americans visiting Africa need to know the difference from a professional African scholar. Africans need an African scholar to study their culture, their customs and folkways and who can communicate with Americans in a language that American understand, and who knows on a self-conscious level the customers of both Americans and Africans. These types of experts are needed along with the Americans and Africans who just go along with their customs, values, principles, folkways, civilizations without thinking self-consciously about these.

This is the same self-consciousness that is necessary in role-playing. We need the intuitive role-players, but we also need the experts and the self-conscious role-players, and scholars similar to Mr. Mbele.

Should Julius Caesar have understood The Caesar Principle, perhaps we might have had a different history. Or perhaps not. However, he is the archetype for many of this type of role-playing.

Many of these problems have nothing to do with the person necessarily. The person becomes identified with the role.

That’s the way it is with many roles.

As we have noted in previous discussions of role-playing, that some friends who are perfect friends for these people in some roles, are not necessarily any more perfect friends for them in the new role.

Hillary Clinton, for example. Some friends perfect for Hillary Clinton at Wellesley are not necessarily perfect for her as lawyer role as senator role, and should she become president, not necessarily the perfect person for her as president.

Some friends can continue with people throughout the roles that they play. Others, although they value these friends, are not necessarily the perfect people in the different roles.

This is the same with Oprah Winfrey. Some people appropriate for her best friends as a child on the playground are not necessarily the appropriate people to be her friends as a high profile public person and the type of requirements that she has for people who are her friends now.

Some of these people might continue to value Oprah Winfrey, remembering the childhood friend, but they know very well that they are not the right people to be accompanying her to Africa to do the type of work that she is required to do now. Some of them understand this, and when she says do this and do that as her friend now, many of these friends would not be qualified for the type of work that she is doing now. They are qualified to be a friend of hers, but they are not qualified for the type of work that it is necessary for her to do now. Some friends know and understand that. Some friends don’t know and don’t understand that. The friends that know and understand that do what they are qualified to do. Maybe they are only qualified to give money to her causes.

Some of her friends are not qualified to be high profile public people like she is. In fact, there role would probably be very destructive, whether they want it to be or not. So she has to find friends who are qualified for that role.

Of course, people can work with their friends to help them to meet the qualifications that come with certain roles. They can have workshops and experts to meet with them, to discuss this person and their new role, to discuss the various things that their friends have to know and learn now, such as how to understand and deal with the media. How to understand the public world and public roles.

For example, if you have a friend who becomes president. There are many things in this new roles that many friends probably don’t have a clue about. Suppose a president witnesses their best and dearest and longest friends rejecting them because of the media and the press. The president and the professionals who work with presidents are not going to reject some president easily because of the media. These are professionals. Some of them are also professional friends. Some of them are just professionals. Those who work on the staff of many presidents are not necessarily going to reject a president because of the media. Professionals in this world understand how to be professionals. They are not necessarily the best friends in the personal sense of friendship. But they are best friends in the professional sense of friendship.

Of course public figures are concerned when their best and dearest personal friends don’t understand enough about the media, the press, the public world, public roles, and are that naive. Should they scold their friends? Of course. However, they would nevertheless have to be educated to understand that new role and that new world.

Some people do not even consider public roles because they witness this too often. They don’t consider public roles and public careers for precisely this reason. They don’t necessarily consider the fault their friends, because they value them very much, but certainly they are not interested in having public careers that can disrupt and corrupt honorable friendships so easily.

Some public figures continue they careers and go to war with all of their good friends if it’s necessary. Others draw a line at that. They understand what is going on. If their friends understand also, and are professional enough, then they continue the careers. If the people they value don’t understand, then many draw a line on their careers right there.

Those who have friends who are in the public world themselves, and who are used to playing these roles, who understand the press, the media, and the whole public role-playing including the leadership role on the professional level, most of the time these types of friends continue longer, including with all the scandals, real or imaginary.

Bill Clinton, for example. Some of his friends might have been acceptable as boyhood friends. But his political friends now, who continue throughout all the scandals, and the corruptions, deserved or not, are a different sort of friends, and certainly they have to be pure professionals. Many personal type of friends who don’t know how to accompany leaders and political types are not going to continue through the first few scandals. Many of them just are not. And they consider themselves to have some integrity also.

This is something for leaders and for their friends, who are friends of leaders, and public people to consider.

When leaders go into roles, their friends go into these roles along with them. Most of the time professional friends are able to continue longer than personal friends, no matter how noble and honorable. So they must decide should they go into these roles at all.

Some people when they go into a career that requires their best and dearest and oldest friends to deny and reject to continue a career, some continue. Some decide it’s best to draw a line on that role at that point.

Most leaders are “little caesars” and many can find out very quickly who their mark anthonies are. It’s very easy when you go into a role like that.

Most public figures are “little caesars” also and many can find out very quickly who their mark anthonies are. It’s very easy.

How do you know? The only time you know is you have to play the role, and it’s very easy. You have to actually go into the role first, be their playing the role, and then you can find out very quickly who your mark anthonies are.

Go into the role first, whether you’re a political leader or an entertainment or business leader or even a literary leader it’s very easy to find out.

Anybody who assumes any type of leadership, even if it’s just a leader in a small, private company can find out very quickly who their mark anthonies are.

Explain ourselves. Just go into the role.

Think of yourself. Do you have a leadership in any area at all. If you don’t, then you cannot easily identify these people. Or maybe you are the mark anthony to a leader that you know–in your company or business, for example.

If you observe and study roles and/or go about with people who are leaders, even if you do not play mark anthony for them yourself, you can identify these people very quickly. If you’re playing mark anthony, then you can identify yourself also.

What role do you want to play?

Whether you’re playing “little caesar” or whether you’re playing a mark anthony–try to be honorable.

If Hillary Clinton ever becomes the first female president and gets to play this role, and truly goes into the role herself, the little caesar, then she will probably be able to find out very quickly who her mark anthonies.

Perhaps Bill Clinton? Perhaps her daughter? Perhaps a few of her personal friends? Perhaps a few of her professional political friends?

Some of us oberving Hillary Clinton–she’s just an example–might know, who study roles and role-players, or perhaps only Hillary Clinton is going to know for sure. Or perhaps Hillary Clinton is not going to recognize her mark anthony.

So, what do you do if you assume a leadership role and you witness the behavior that most leaders witness? First, you find out who are the professionals who understand that role and that behavior on the professional level. These people are experts who study role-playing. They are not necessarily going to play your “mark anthony” for you, but if you need to discuss this problem and figure out what to do about it, these people can discuss the problem with you, discuss the problems with the many “romans” and discuss the problem with your “mark anthonies.” These people study this behavior, and have been students of this behavior in their study of roles and role-playing throughout history, and so these people can discuss the problem as professionals and experts. They are not necessarily going to interfere unless it’s necessary.

If you are fans of Ugly Betty for example, it’s very easy to identify the various “little caesars” and their various “mark anthonies,” and the various “romans.” This is role-playing at its best. Some of the leaders are honorable leaders, some of them are corrupt, some of their mark anthonies are honorable and some of their mark anthonies are corrupt. The “romans” play the role differently also, and sometimes the leaders, the mark anthonies, and the romans exchange roles in different contexts. We can study this in movies, in fictions, and in the real world.

On the American Idol real world reality show, Simon, Randy, and Paula get to play “little caesars” and surely they have all by now identified their mark anthonies and the romans.

In this philosophy of role-playing as it involves leadership, we call this “The Caesar Principle.”

Once we understand this role-playing, we don’t have to necessarily play any of these roles. But we have to understand it on a self-conscious and not intuitive level. Then we don’t have to play caesar, mark anthony, or the roman.

In fact, we can, as we’re stated before in our role-playing philosophies, we can counsel caesar, mark anthony, and the romans. Or we can play some of these roles ourselves, but we would do so understanding the roles, not as naive, intuitive role-players.

Whether caesar, mark anthony, or the romans. We’ll just use these archetypal symbols in our role-playing philosopy of leadership. How do we be honorable in these roles?

The great African American composer Scott Joplin also presented a principle of leadership in his great American opera called Treemonisha.

In the opera the community comes to Treemonisha to get her to play leader. The text of this opera can be found online at “Gary’s Treemonisha Page”, http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Bayou/9694/treemo.html.

Let’s quote from Act III of this great American opera and call this the Treemonisha principle of leadership:

No. 26: We Will Trust You As Our Leader
Treemonisha:
We ought to have a leader
In our neighborhood,
An energetic leader,
To follow for our good.
The ignorant too long have ruled,
I don’t see why they should.
And all the people they have fooled,
Because the found they could.
Chorus:
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader,
No one else could lead like you,
For you know what is best to do.
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader,
You must lead for you are wise,
And we will surely rise.
We want you to lead,
You should lead us.
Dear, your bidding we will do.
And we’ll always follow you.
We feel blue, dear,
We feel blue.
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader.
Treemonisha:
If I lead the good women,
Tell me, who will lead the men?
Men:
You, you, you, you, you!
Treemonisha:
Women may follow me many days long,
But the men may think that I am wrong.
Men:
No, no, no, no, no!
Chorus all:
We all agree to trust you,
And we will be true.
We all agree to trust you,
And we will be true.
Treemonisha:
There’s need of some good leader,
And there’s not much time to wait.
To lead us in the right way
Before it is too late.
For ignorance is criminal
In this enlightened day.
So let us all get busy,
When once we have found the way.
Chorus:
We will trust you as our leader,
We will trust you as our leader, etc.
Lead now, please lead now,
Please lead, for we will trust your as our leader.
Treemonisha:
I will lead you;
O yes, I will lead you.
(quoted from Gary’s Treemonisha Page)

We note that Treemonisha does not accept the leadership role until she gets the assurance that the people trust her as leader. This does not, however, mean that the people are going to continue to trust her in the role. Perhaps she’ll have her “mark anthonies.” Perhaps another and greater leader than Treemonisha shall come forth and become the new trusted leader. It’s also significant that Treemonisha is a female leader, and makes sure to find out not only if the females in the community trust her as leader, but do the men of the community also trust her.

Let us repeat this section, for the good female leaders:

Treemonisha:
If I lead the good women,
Tell me, who will lead the men?
Men:
You, you, you, you, you!
Treemonisha:
Women may follow me many days long,
But the men may think that I am wrong.
Men:
No, no, no, no, no!

Certain masculine leadership must also make a similar request of females in a community. Women leaders understand this, men leaders may or may not understand this role of trusted leadership.

There might be other leaders in the community, perhaps more qualified than Treemonisha, nevertheless she is the person that the community decides upon as their trusted leader.

Communities can be right in this or they can be wrong. However, to be a leader according to this Treemonisha principle you must have the trust of the people who you are leading.

Again, this is only the beginning of a leader’s career as leader. And even for Treemonisha, the Caesar Principle, as an archetype of leadership, probably also applies.

As for Treemonisha, we must make it clear, it’s possible that Treemonisha could be among the leaders of her community, but be unrecognized as that. There are many leaders of many ethnic groups and nationalities than are greatly qualified for leadership but are recognized as leaders only by the few. These people can therefore only be leaders of these few and not the many. These are certainly acceptable leaders also. Sometimes they are never recognized by the many. Sometimes they are.

Possibly many of us have known these types of leaders also. Where a very few of us recognize and connect to them. Generally these are not material world leaders, but intellectual leaders or metaphysical leaders. Intellectuals recognize them, metaphysicals recognize, but those who connect to material world leaders don’t always recognize them.

Some leaders, like a Moses, for example, are recognize often as leaders on every level, so that they can claim the role of leader–materially, intellectually, and metaphysically. Very few leaders achieve all of these levels of recognized leadership.

It’s also possible that some leaders can be recognized by the divine intelligence that cannot be recognized by worldly intelligence. These are leaders also.

Materially recognize leaders have it easier in proving their leadership to a material world seeking leaders.

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.

We witness this in the acting, political, and public worlds all the time. We witness it with presidents. Some presidents are required to resign, some are impeached, others for whatever reason people witness their mistakes, help them to correct them, and then continue with these people and help them to become the great role-players. Some have the necessary advisors so that they don’t make the mistakes in the first place. This is the same in business.

If you go into any role, you can decide if you want to be a naive role-player, making your own mistakes and correcting them, and/or if you want the advice and consultation of others who have played the role before and many times before.

Those who go into roles and think they are better and greater than previous role-players and that have greater innovations, say in business, often they don’t seek the advice or experienced role-players. They make their mistakes, they correct them, they try not to make the same mistakes again–that is, if they recognize these as mistakes. People that think that othes are greater and better than themselves often behave differently. They seek the advice of these others. They ask them about the mistakes and the potential mistakes. These are the types that accept apprenticeships and accept to be mentors. These are very different types.

We have discussed leading role and supporting role people and the people having a different psychology. Most leading role people, for whatever reason, perceive themselves as better and greater than others in that role. Sometimes they are absolutely correct, sometimes they have a conceit. You must be sure if you are correct, and/or whatever it is just a conceit. Of course, having the conceit is acceptable also if that helps you to get to a level that another person might not even consider. But your understanding must be reasonable and rational. Supporting role people often have the psychology when they go into a career or role that others are better than themselves, say an “Ugly Betty,” who very easily can play a supporting role for people in the TV show. In reality, she might be a leading role person, but she is perceived as a supporting role type and she perceives herself as that. There are many areas in which she is truly a leading role person; some recognize this; others do not.

There are many excellent role-playing themes that are in the TV show “Ugly Betty” and that we can also find in a study of almost all of these TV shows, in movies, and in fiction.

In some ways “Ugly Betty” is a fresh type, a naive role-player. In some roles, she is an experienced role-player that others can learn from. In some roles she needs a mentor; she’s the apprentice. In other roles, she can be the mentor and others must be the apprentice.

Many people new to roles are naive role-players, then they become more and more experienced role-players. Sometimes role-players stay on the level of the naive. For some roles there is a certain degree of naivite that you must have just to play the role, or the sense of naivite. For others roles you need to be experienced role-players.

In addition, some people do not get to play the roles that they should play in society because others control those roles not them.

There are many roles that people can play on the intellectual level of society, maybe on the metaphysical level, but when they attempt those roles in the material world, the material world rejects them in those roles. This is very easily understood and we have discussed this problem previously.

Let’s say Ugly Betty is a great teacher. She has all her credentials. On the intellectual level she has her credentials. Her metaphysical understand and intelligence is on the highest level. Then when she makes her appearance, on the material level of the classroom, where people perceive Ugly Betty, she is rejected. This happens in many roles.

There is a commercial in which a woman points out her boyfriend. In the material world he certainly doesn’t fit the type for this type of woman, he is rejected. Then when he enters the automobile he changes his appearance to a form that the material world accepts. Then he is accepted. This is the nature of the material reality. This other man might be a perfectly great person, but in the reality of materialism he is rejected. Experts of course could work with this man, perhaps, so that he is accepted by the material world. And he would have to go to “charm school.”

People who study roles, role-player, and role-playing find subjects for study all over the civilization, in the real world and in the imaginary world.

They find that most people are naive about roles and role-playing. Roles are not something that most people study as an academic pursuit. Most people understand roles on the naive level, excerpt for the professionals, including psychologists. And many people when they assume roles merely play the accepted stereotype of those roles, or the accepted archetype of those roles. Others that study roles, role-playing, and role-players often transform the stereotypes and the archetypes. However, unless they are dealing with other “expert” and students of role-playing, most people perceive them as “doing wrong” unless they conform to the accept stereotype or the accepted archetype.

Those who decide to transform stereotypes and archetypes must do so in association with people who know what they are doing, who are experts, like social-psychologists, anthropologists, professional role-players who know what they are doing, and approve along with them of the possibilities of the new roles.

People who understanding role playing often write books on the subject, sometimes these become popular texts, and popular with enough people, so that they begin to accept new possibilities and new roles. That doesn’t mean that others do not continue to play the roles according to old stereotypes and old archetypes. Certainly these traditional roles continue along with the new variations on the roles and the role-playing.

Housewife is a role that women are continuously returning to even though other disparage the role, other women recognize it as a good and traditional role that is necessary in society along with all the other roles. Yet it must be a role that women truly want to play. Also, with the nature of the modern economies, men who have housewives must be able to afford to play the role of provider in the manner that these women want. Or, certainly these women might consider some type of home-based employment so that they can contribute to the economy of the family and at the same time be housewives. There are many similar roles in society in which people must have mutual agreements and must be the appropriate role for that person.

In addition, there are many stereotypes and archetypes housewife. Many communities and regions and nations have different understandings of the role. Women can have their understanding of the role and men can have their understanding of the role. How is the role understand and what are the obligations of women who select to be housewives? They must also decide the chores and the work obligations that they have if another is the provider? There are many things in this role to consider along with the traditional and non-traditional roles that women in society have. And certainly, there are naive players of the housewife role and experienced players of the housewife role. Men who have housewives can also be naive players and experience players, or should we say expert players if they are assigned the provider role.

Every role in society can be a subject of study and analysis. Why do people roles and role-playing. Because people who assume roles in societies often do need expert advice on playing those roles, especially when playing those roles involve many many people, as in presidential role-players, for example. Throughout presidential history, for example, we have witnessed naive presidents and expert presidents, or rather those who appear naive and those who appear experts. And we have also witnessed the experts who have played naives. And maybe even the naives who have played experts.

Many roles in every society, many people have played before you, whether it’s a president of a nation, a business professional, public or private, or an elementary school teacher. Even if you are playing the role of a mentor. This is also a role.

Before you go into any of these roles, if you know a person who is currently playing that role, and/or who has played the role historically before you, then try to find that person as a mentor (and that person might also have a mentor).

If you are playing a public historical role, for example–like perhaps you are playing a president, a senator, or a congressman. Who has played that role before you? Who are the current people playing that role? Who do you trust as a mentor?

Read books written about and by former presidents. Have advisors that understand the role on the professional level, who are experts in the role. Include among the experts people who have played the role before you, people who are currently playing the role.

If you are a president, for example, and you are also a spiritual person, then you can, as many presidents do, seek spiritual advice. You can have spiritual advisors as well as secular advisors. Even though you know there is a different between the secular and spiritual, and you understand that you are secular president, nevertheless because most people also have a spiritual role, you can certainly include a spiritual advisor among your secular advisors. This can also be a private matter.

Suppose for example, you have a Buddhist, even a Western-style Buddhist, who wants to be president. There are many things that presidents are required to do that for a Buddhist, even a Western-style Buddhist might be considered “corrupt.” Does a Buddhist participate in corruption? Can a Buddhist truly say, like many American Christians, they are just doing their job?

There are some careers that you might have to decide, because of your commitment to a faith, that while others can assume those careers that you yourself might have to decline. Even though many want to be president, for example, because it’s the most pretigious career, you might have to decide because there are many things that presidents are required to do that for you would be corrupt, even though the state demands these jobs, that you yourself cannot be president. Perhaps you can have an intellectual role, perhaps you can have a spiritual role, but you can’t be president, unless you can accord, like many spiritual leaders, your faith with the presidency, your faith with politics.

These are some of the things that role-players have to consider.

Think of Nixon as a Quaker, for example, of Kennedy as a Catholic, of Jimmy Carter as a Christian. Americans have not yet had presidents who profess other faiths. Even Catholic they found problematic. Are we going to have the first Catholic president?

Nevertheless, whatever role you assume you need mentors, whether you are interested in the many secular roles in societies, whether you select an intellectual role, or whether you are a metaphysical type of person and want the many roles for metaphysical types, including the people who become Rabbis or Imams or Priests, even Popes. This depends upon the type of character that you have and the type of person that you are. Your role can also depend upon a society which allows or does not allow you to assume a role. Perhaps we have had many Africans qualified to be Pope, but is society going to accept an African as Pope? Would society allow an African this highest spiritual role in the Catholic church? There is a debate about whether a female ever became Pope? Pope Joan?

Then who are your mentors? Your historical and your contemporary mentors? Who are the best role models that you can find? Not only children need role models, but many times adults who go into roles also need to find the best and the most honorable role models that they can find–secular, intellectual, and/or spiritual.

These role models can be from the ancient world, the modern world, and/or the postmodern world. Then, of course, you can add your own notions of the role, your innovations on the role, if you think and truly believe that you are best at offering a new role model. And certainly you don’t have to agree with everything these role models present, but you can learn from them, you can learn from their triumphs and you can also learn from their mistakes. Learning from their triumphs can help you. They can also teach you, if possible, to avoid the mistakes that they have made in the role. Of course, you have to certainly consider the times that you are playing the role in. How are things different? How are things the same?

Some people who have a role model like Kennedy for example, think that it’s acceptable for them to do everything a Kennedy did or might have done. Some things that Kennedy did or might have done might or might not be acceptable. You don’t have to follow everything a role model might do, because some of this behavior is not necessarily acceptable for you or for that person. For example, if you know a role model is a womanizer, that doesn’t mean you have to become a womanizer, even if you think this is the ideal. Certainly sometimes fictional characters can be role models, like a James Bond, for example. Fictional role models have influenced many children and adults. But are these the acceptable role models for the “real world.” These are questions you should ask? What of a fictional president? A fictional senator? A fictional congressman? Sometimes fictional role models can influence people? Think about the best fictional role models also. Movies and movie heroes and heroines have also introduced many role models into society. Many public and private figures introduce role models to children and adults, including favorite teachers. People who understand role-playing in children and adults study role-playing and are certainly considered about roles and who plays what role. People who study role-playing have a certain degree of self-conscious about roles that naive players of roles often do not. That’s why public role-players sometimes need the advice of those who study roles on the professional level. Naive role-players can sometimes be better and greater that those who study the roles. But nevertheless we still learn from naive role-players and professional role-players and they all become the subject of study for scholars, experts and professional advisors.

Most role-players need experts advice especially if their role-playing involves others. Then of course they need expert advice. Presidents role-playing affects many people. Teachers role-playing affects many people. Private role-playing affects fewer people, but nevertheless private role-playing often need advice as the parents on the Nanny shows. The Nanny as a public role-player, while teaching the parents on the Nanny shows are teaching many others, who need similar expert advice in this very important to society role-playing. People who study presidential role-playing for example often study the parents and siblings of presidents. They even study the friends of presidents. For these are roles. The role of being the friend of Bill Clinton the president is going to be very different from the role of being the friend of Bill Clinton the college student or the little boy in Arkansas. The friend of Bill Clinton who is also a president or former president is going to yet have a different, before both know what it’s like to be president, although having different presidencies. What is the difference in all of these role-playings?

People that you know personally can be your roles models. People that you study and read and learn about can also be your role models. As we have noted real or fictional people can also be role models.

Suppose a person wants to be a writer. There are many writers who have played the role before. There are many problems that writers have to deal with both public and private. Also, you can consider the role models in your own ethnic and national group as well as other national and ethnic group. Let’s say you’re a Native American writer. Maybe you read the works of Ernest Hemingway and James Joyce and these writers provide a sort of role model for you. Nevertheless if you become a writer, you are not becoming a white male writer or an Irish male writer, you are become a Native American writer, whether male or female. Are there any problems that you are going to have to deal with that they are not going to have to deal with? Are there any Native American writers that can also become your role models that you can learn from them the problems that you have to deal with. So you have to learn from as many writers that you can learn from. However, when you go into the role you’re going to be Native American playing the role. You might have the same problems and different problems.

We should note there are many fiction writers in literature that also add to the role-playing literature. Many of these fictional writers are merely stereotypes of writers, but they are writers and these stereotypes influence many writers as role-models. Some people who become friends of writers often become friends of a stereotype that they have of the writer. Often writers then have to correct their friends, that they are not some stereotypical writer. This however is true of many roles. Roles can be stereotypes. People can also provide the originating role, which is the archetype, this is the originating role. The first king of a nation, for example. The first national hero. The first Pope. These can be historical or prehistorical originating models. These models can also be provided by the imaginations of the people, as in folklore and folkstories.

Let’s say we have the first female president of the USA, which unlike other countries, has not yet had a female president. That female can have many presidential men as role models, but when that person goes into the role she is going to be a female president. Are there any females who have been leaders of nations that this female can learn from along with all the men? How is the role going to be the same? How is it going to be different? Are there any choices that men leaders of nations make that a female leader of a nation might feel required to make a different choice? Do the people in the nation even know how to have a female president? They know how to have men presidents, but do they know how to have a female president? This is true of course if we have different ethnic groups as presidents. And some ethnic groups of course might be excluded from being the president of certain nations, like a gypsy being president of France for example, even though gypsies have been in France for centuries, and many might even be qualified. These are questions we must ask. Maybe a gypsy might be accepted as president of a gypsy nation, and certainly they have their “presidents.” These are questions that role-players might consider. Gypsies who have been in Mexico for centuries might be allowed to be president of Mexico–maybe? These are questions that role-players ask.

However, role-players should seek mentors who have played the role before them. These allow them to study the role before they play the role and study the role while they are playing the role. Again, these mentors can be secular/worldly, intellectual/worldly, and/or spiritual.

People who accept roles in societies must make sure they are qualified for those roles. They must study what are the qualifications, according to their society, for the role that they are playing.

How do you determine these qualifications?

First, you study the best players of those roles in your society. What makes them the best? Do you meet these qualifications? What are they? What are the specifics? What are you required to do and to know if you play that role in your society? Should you transform the qualifications? Should you introduce different qualifications? You must be the best of the best as your society interprets the best? You also must have your input into the best of the best? Are you truly qualified for that role?

Not just that you want the role. People want all kinds of roles. Many want to be president, but what are the qualifications for being president? Do you meet those qualifications? And, for a role, such as president, even if you meet the qualifications, you must be approved by the people of your society. That is also an aspect of the qualifications. Many people are qualified to be president of many civilizations, but are you available to win the approval of others? If not, it’s best to try to find some career in presidential politics or the administration but you don’t necessarily have to be president. You might become an advisor or consultant in presidential politics. You might become a presidential historian. You would have to seek a presidential political career that doesn’t involve elections to office. You can also become an expert on the presidency, writing books on the subject. You might even become a friend of presidents, writing books on them. To become president yourself means the approval of the people, through elections. Some people are quite qualified to be president in theory, but not for an elected office.

You can also become a non-elected polical person, in various non-elected political office, and you can work on the staffs of political people. Many of these people also write speeches for presidents, and have a great influence in public policy just as (lowly) speech writers. It’s good if these people are known, and given credit for the great speeches that they write, nevertheless, as with playwrights, they need the great president to deliver the speech. Nevertheless, with many of the great presidents it’s excellent when they can also write their own speeches, and have literary abilities as with an Abraham Lincoln or a Thomas Jefferson. Certainly it would be good if they are co-authors and contribute lines to some of the great speeches. But no wonder actors now become presidents, and mayors and governors. This is the media age. Many of the non-charismatic (in the media’s understanding of charisma, as some people are charismatic off-camera but not on-camera; there’s a different type of charisma) people who used to become the presidents and mayors and governors now are relegated to lesser roles.

Many of the greats of previous generations, before the media age as we know it, we assume would be the greats of our generation, but many of these people would probably not even be known, as with the radio age or any new age. Mostly when these people are portrayed in the movies also, we generally get people to play the roles who are meaningful for our age and generation. Usually these are people who are attractive and charismatic for the screen. Sometimes the people they play are also this, sometimes they are not, sometimes they are attractive and charismatic in a different manner.

But as for roles and role-playing? Suppose you want to be a teacher in a little African village? Just because you’re a teacher and have that role in European or Asian society, for example, and you’re qualified to be a teacher, doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re qualified to be a teacher in that little African village. You might go to that little African village and find that the people reject you in the role of a teacher but accept you in the role of a student and scholar.

And vice versa. An African who gets qualified to teach in a little African village might not necessarily be qualified to teach in an Asian University. That African has to determine are they qualified to teach at that Asian University also. That Asian University also has to determine that. Maybe that Asian University says to that African we’ll accept you as a student and scholar at our Asian University–you must learn from us–but we don’t accept you as a teacher. In our society, they might say, you’re not qualified. Or that African might be qualified only to teach their own African language or a course in African anthropology, as many Chinese in America are hired in Universities to teach the Chinese language, while others are considered equally qualified to teach any subject.

This is role-playing as a concept and as it involves civilizations, societies, including the types and stereotypes of those roles.

Some people who want to be teachers are not qualified to be teachers at all, in any society, nor do they have the personality for that type of work. They are not “teachers.” (And think metaphysically.)

Let’s say the person is a teacher of science, or rather, is hired by a community college to teach science because they have scientific credentials and a resume. That person might be qualified to be a research scientist but they might not be qualified to be a teacher of science. Their personality and their interests qualify them to be a research scientist, so when people ask them to teach science, they must decline, saying they are qualified to be research scientists, but not teacher of science. They have all the scientific information to be great science teachers, but they don’t have the talent, the interest, the enthusiasm, nor do the student like them at all. Perhaps the students reject them in the role of teacher. They can’t even learn from them or don’t want to. They can’t get the students to learn from them. Maybe the students even claim they don’t understand this teacher, who might even be a “genius.” So therefore this teacher disqualify himself or herself from teaching, and from the role of teacher. Other scientists are more effective teachers than themselves. They might be able to teach several students who can relate to their personality type, but not a general student community. These scientists are qualified for the role.

So that type of person as a teacher role is better to be a research scientist and being the mentor of several research scientists who can relate to their type rather than trying to be a teacher for many people. That’s not their role.

Let’s just use teacher as an example.

Also, if that person becomes a teacher they have to be qualified to be a teacher. Also, if a person wants to connect to that person who is playing that role, that person should be qualified to connect to a person who is playing the role of a teacher. For example, let’s say the teacher connects to a person who doesn’t especially like teachers and/or is destructive towards teachers, and/or is just not qualified to be connected to a person who has that role and/or the responsibilities that come with that role. This is something that people have to decide upon also.

Many people don’t know how to relate to teachers. They and the teacher must make an assessment of whether or not they are the right person to connect to that person in the role of teacher. Perhaps in another role they’d be right for each other. Perhaps in no role.

For example, there’s a certain politician who had a wife who was available to be his wife and qualified when he was a lowly political figure. When he become more ambitious as a political figure to become governor and then potential president, this woman understood that she’s qualified to be the wife of a lowly politico, but not a person with these greater political ambitions. She understood that. She understood that for this greater role he had to have a wife that could be qualified for this greater role. She understood, to the best of her understanding, that she possibly could never become qualified to be the wife of a governor or even president. She knew he would need another woman for that ambition. Perhaps these two people are perfectly right for each other, but the new role-playing makes it, at least from the point of view of that woman, impossible.

For John Kennedy for example Jackie Kennedy appears to be the right woman for the right role at the right time and vice-versa. We learn now, and maybe always knew, the exploits of John Kennedy with many women, including Marilyn Monroe, but none of these women could have been the right woman for that role. Imagine Marilyn Monroe as first lady?

Or imagine as Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt as first lady of that era? The role person at the right time with the right role. Or so it appears.

Maybe people don’t like to hear this about roles and role-playing, but it’s often true. However, this is something that people have to decide upon.

And in this, we’re talking role-playing on the level of the material world, not necessarily the intellectual or the metaphysical world. Sometimes roles transcend the material world, othertimes they are just roles for the material world.

Example: Let’s say you have several actor friends. George Clooney gets to play the leading role on the material level. Let’s say there’s another actor friend intellectually superior to George Clooney. Then he gets the role on the intellectual level, the leading person. Let’s say the third friends has greater metaphysically authority, then that friend gets to play the metaphysical leading role. Sometimes these can be the same people, sometimes they are different people.

This is a type of Trinity–for those religionists who often don’t understand that concept.

It’s possible of the three acting friends that George Clooney could have all three leading roles, the leading role on the material level, the intellectual leading role, and the metaphysical leading role. It’s quite possible.

People in careers must determine if they are qualified for that career–as a role–and also if the people connected to them are qualified to be connected to a person who has that career–as a role. (It should be noted that sometimes roles are not careers they are just roles, as a person who has the role of a Patriarch or Matriarch of a group–which is not a career. Or a person who has the highest standing in a community, but it is not a career. For example, you might have a community that has a mayor, as a role, but the person that everybody looks towards for advice is not the mayor but another person who has a higher standing in the community than the mayor and therefore the higher role. This is true of many communities. Also, the same person who can have a high standing with some has a low standing with others, for whatever reason, including they just don’t like the person. However, other people are able to make an assessment of people independent of their personal likes and dislikes. For example, someone can have a political rival, even enemy, nevertheless admit that that person is better than them at various political talents and abilities. Their personal likability or even friendship has nothing to do with it. We need these types of people in every society.)

You witness some people reject people to continue the role; others reject the role to continue with certain people. For example, Paul McCartney decided that the media interfered with his relationship with his wife. So they divorce. You have other public figures who rather than divorce a wife would withdraw from the career and the media. That is a different type of commitment. Usually women are more likely to do this than men, and this is even stereotypical. However, sometimes men do this also. Every now and then you have people in public office talking of withdrawing because of their commitment to others. Sometimes other must just contend with the fact these are public figures. However, this is generally a private and personal matter. It would be good if Paul McCartney and his wife could continue as friends. We don’t like to witness the media interfering with commitments and relationships on this level. It’s corrupt. But nevertheless people who go into the public world are going to have to become more savvy so that media doesn’t corrupt relationships that might otherwise continue creatively.

If people know how to relate constructively to people in roles, then often they continue the role. If people only know how to relate destructively to people in certain roles, it’s often difficult and/or impossible for them to effectively play that role. They either withdraw from the role and/or forced by the people from the role. Also, it’s possible when there are these types of conflicts in role-playing to talk to experts. Many therapists and psychologists are experts at role-playing as a study, that’s why they often make use of role-playing techniques, including having people reverse roles so that they understand their behavior and can if possible correct themselves. This helps them to understand the other person.

People who put on dark-skinned make-up or light-skinned make-up to reverse black and white roles often learn a great deal in this type of racial role-playing. Michael Richards could learn a great deal being required to put on dark-skinned make-up as his “assignment” and being placed in certain communities in this country. Then he might learn more about his behavior than all the talk from the blacks. Let him play that role for a while.

Everybody knows the British king who gave up his kingdom to continue to an American divorcee. Everybody knows that love story.

This is understanding roles and role playing.

In a modern-day England, of course, the king can have the divorcee.

There are secular and spiritual roles. Anybody who plays a role needs to study the role, study the players, study the history of that role, whether a secular or spiritual role, whether a public and/or a private role.

Let’s give Jesse Jackson as an example of a role-player. Everybody knows Jesse Jackson. (Almost.) We assume there are remote parts of the planet where people have never heard of Jesse Jackson. Once Jesse Jackson goes into the role of the great African American leader he is not just Jesse Jackson a person, an individual, he is a role player on the highest political level. And especially if Americans assign him the role of the leading black leader, then he goes into the leading role. Does he accept himself as the leading black leader, since many people go towards Jesse Jackson whenever they have a race problem. Why not Farrakhan? Or some other leader? This means that many people recognize him as the leader. Otherwise, why go to Jesse Jackson? Or Al Sharpton?

He is playing a role that many before him have played. What is Jesse Jackson going to do with that role. How is he going to define the role? How are people connected to him going to define the role?

When Jesse Jackson gets into the role of the leading African American leader, then Jesse Jackson defines that role. Of course others who have dreams, needs, and desires and who look towards African leadership are going to have some influence on Jesse Jackson, nevertheless Jesse Jackson defines the role and people who study roles are going to study Jesse Jackson politics, and how Jesse Jackson politics is different from other black leaders of other generations. So Jesse Jackson has a political role and he has a historical role. We are Jesse Jackson’s contemporaries and so many of us are not aware, even his friends that Jesse Jackson has a historical role and many of those connected to him have historical roles, whether leading or supporting. A meeting between Jesse Jackson and anybody, whether they are a greater or lesser figure, according to people’s understanding of this idea, this is a historical meeting–whether you like it or not.

If anybody sets up Jesse Jackson like they’ve set up other African leaders then they are messing with history. Blacks by now, however, should be savvy enough not to mess with Jesse Jackson. If they are not, then by now, it’s there problem. Even if they don’t like Jesse Jackson, they should know enough about role-playing that we’d suggest they don’t go near Jesse Jackson, even if they don’t like the man. Unless they want to be involved in another corrupt history. Nevertheless, Jesse Jackson must decide when it’s time for him to retire as a great leader and help put forth new leadership. Or, he can continue the role. Certainly, he must have advisers. This is not a call for him to retire however, as many people continue to look towards him for leadership and continue to be supportive of him. Even there are some who know that if America were a different country, or another country, to quote a great African American writer, Jesse Jackson might have become president. However, he can have greater influence in role-playing not being president.

Let’s continue with Jesse Jackson becomes he’s such an excellent role-player. Because of certain personal and political mistakes he’s made he cannot truly be the moral conscience of America except by proxxy. He and other Jackson Jackson fans might not like to hear that, but let’s be truthful to our best understanding or moral conscience and moral responsibility. Many African leaders are leaders by proxxy, because many great Africans who challenge their civilizations on the level that it should be challenged are destroyed, as Native American leadership has been destroyed and destroyed and destroyed, and many of the current Native Americans leaders are also leaders by proxxy.

Many people have stereotypes of African American leaders. Some people that meet Jesse Jackson personally or via media, web content, print or film are truly meeting Jesse Jackson, others are just meeting some stereotype they have of African American leaders and are assigning him all those stereotypes which he has to continuously do battle with to make it clear he’s Jesse Jackson, not just some stereotype of an African leader. Many of the stereotypes of African leadership are no different from the Reconstuction stereotypes, especially as portrayed in film such as the infamous The Birth of a Nation. Some of the stereotypes of black leaders might be true, possibly are greatly true, some of the stereotypes might have nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Jackson but with other African leaders.

Some people approaching Mr. Jackon, no matter what their ethnic group, are assigning him their idea or ideal of a black leader. Many of them are coming to him telling him how he has to play that role–their idea or ideal of a black leader. He has to play the role their way or he’s not playing the role correctly. Whenever anybody gets into any role, others who have ideas and ideals of those roles, whether those ideas originate with themselves personally and/or with their civilization, society and/or the media as in ideas and ideals that many people have of love and romance roles in different civilizations. Many of the people looking for love are looking for some ideal that they have and/or that their society portrays to them in novels, films, TV, other people’s stories, and no wonder so many people are having problems finding perfection in love. And, it should be noted, the ideal for one person is not the ideal for another. Sometimes people can be the ideal for many, sometimes they find only one who recognizes the ideal within that person. Of course, it’s easier for the lovers who connect to people that other people champion. It’s far easier. The young woman who “won” Tom Cruise, who many people praise and celebrate finds it far easier to explain her love than the person who connected to a rejected and denied “Tom Cruise,” some honorable young man that nobody but that young woman knows. There are many of these throughout civilizations.

But let’s return to the African American role-player Jesse Jackson, who appears continuously in American newstories, with his own show and with the American race question. Certainly there should be standards for African American leadership. There should be qualifications and Mr. Jackson should be able to meet those qualifications. What are those qualifications? They cannot just be charisma, who’s the most charismatic leader? And Jesse Jackson is certainly a charimatic person. Except of course for those who don’t like Jesse Jackson or Jesse Jackson politics, or just reject African leadership no matter who’s the so-called leader. These qualifications cannot just be the qualifications given to Mr. Jackson by a naive people, but they have to become specific professional qualifications a minimum of which Mr. Jackson and other African leaders must meet.

And African Americans on the highest level of their civilization are going to have to be those who define these standards of African leadership, not any other ethnics. They must decide. And also they must learn the strategies that others make use of to disrupt and corrupt their leaders, as well as the disruptions and corruptions of the leaders themselves.

Americans in general decide upon their leaders. Other people don’t. Sometimes they don’t like the leaders they elect, nevertheless they elect them. And their leaders can help define an era. Some people in the world make a distinction between American people and American political leadership and/or media leaders, others do not. For them, these represent American people. And those who consider America a decadent country can only be reinforce in this belief certainly by the public antics of the celebrity class. Or we should say certain of the celebrity class.

African leadership must move from the naive charismatic level to the professional level–possibly. But again, this is something for Africans to decide upon. What are the qualifications for African leadership? Qualifications cannot just be liking a person. Everybody can like Jesse Jackson and he still has to meet minimum standards of leadership.

Similarly with President George W. Bush. Everybody can like Mr. Bush and he can be a likable guy. Nevertheless in his role as president what are the minimum standards that you have to meet. People can decide they don’t like George W. Bush. What’s the reasons for this dislike? Personal? Political? Can he be a good guy and not a good president? Or does his presidential tarnish the “good guy.” There are many corruptions that are built into the role of president that makes the presidency problematic for many good people. There are many roles like that. In fact, there are corruptions which are a part of almost every career choice. How does a person do the career and avoid the corruptions that are built into career roles? Many people dismiss these corruptions by saying they are “just doing their job.” However, this phrase admits that many aspects of their job are corrupt. In fact, some people withdraw from roles because of the corruptions built into those roles and those role-playing. Jimmy Carter is able to manifest himself as the “good guy” more effective outside of the role of president and into the role of former president.

President Richard Nixon, certainly among the least charismatic of American presidents, and the least likable–which become a problem for Mr. Nixon–understood that when he didn’t meet the mimimum standards of his role–had to resign. Had Richard Nixon been a “charmer” like a Bill Clinton, another presidential role-player, he might have even gotten away with Watergate. Many more charming presidents have had their versions of Watergate. There are American presidential corruptions perhaps greater than Watergate and yet these presidents are not forced to resign.

Role-players have to know when to play a role and when to resign from that role.

And those connected to role-players must determine if they are the appropriate person for that role-player.

Oprah Winfrey in playing her role appears to be a savvy role-player, knowing the role she wants to play and knowing the people that she wants to play that role along with her.

These are questions that role-players must discuss and those connected to role-players. Of course, the more people learn about role playing the less the spontaneity of many of these people, and that’s why a lot of people don’t like professional types, just pure, sheer professionals and many of the naive players of roles are more interesting people and interesting types and things are not so easily choreographed. Nevertheless, you need the pure, sheer professionals along with the more naive, and perhaps more spontaneous role-players. Certainly there are women who have worked with Bill Clinton, pure, sheer, professional woman not available to play with Bill Clinton or any of these other politicos. Surely there are not as interesting as his conquests maybe, but nevertheless they’re professionals. They are not available to play with him or anybody else in the political world while playing their roles. These are the types that helps to maintain a certain consistency in the government. And they are not the colorful types either. They are the political people that possibly nobody notices, like the professional role-players at the Vatican. People don’t notice these types and they don’t necessarily want to be noticed; they just do their work.

Role-players also have to decide or the so-called people decide when it’s time for a new generation of role-player to come forth. For example, you might have an actor the leading actor of his generation, then a new generation leading actor comes forth. Sometimes the actors decide upon this, sometimes the people decide upon this. And people should not try to “stay in power,” it’s good when new generations of leadership come forward. The role for the older generation should be a mentor or apprenticeship role. They play the role of their generation, then they become mentors or apprenticeships for the new generation. Even though Third World types like staying in power, like with Fidel Castro, and many times nobody can compete with these leaders, nevertheless it’s better for them to retire like others do, and then become mentors for new leadership. However, the Third World is very different from the First World. But the Third World should probably learn how to have elder statespeople, as with Nelson Mandela. Revolutionaries do not always make the best bureaucrats, the day to day details of running and managing governments, although they must have a leading role in the directions of their countries. This is yet a problem of third-world role-playing.

Madonna is a role-player, for example, in the American entertainment industry and also considered a world-class entertainer. Colorful, charismatic. She plays an iconic leading role in the American entertainment industry. Most people connected to Madonna are playing a role. Most are supporting roles to the great Madonna. Is she the right person to be playing a leading role? Are they the right people to be playing a supporting role to Madonna?

Some great country singers, unlike Madonna, retire from their careers, from their roles. Barbara Mandrell, a great country singer, among the greatest decided to retire from her role as a great country entertainer. Very good that this great country singer understood that you can retire from role-playing. No doubt Barbara Mandrell has a private role and continues her private as a retired great country singer.

Again, when playing roles learn everything about that role, the history, the players, and how do you define and redefine that role. People connecting to role-player must learn the roles they are playing and are they the appropriate role-players to connect to these role-players. The more you learn and the more people connected to you learn–especially if you want to play a role on the world stage–there’s a lot to learn.

Even role-players in the private world of many societies find it problematic to play roles. At some point when we do more study on role-playing and the problems of roles, when people get into these roles, whether a president, an entertainer, a teacher, an artist, and they have problems in these roles, as society defines these roles, then they will have experts to consult with.

So when Jesse Jackson goes into his role as the great African leader he has experts to consult with him on this role. If he has any questions or problems at all, then he has experts that understand the problem and can work with him on the solution to that problem. There are no doubt experts that have been studying his role and the role-players for a long time.

Jesse Jackson is defining his role like Madonna and many of these role-players but people are studying them and their roles while they are also playing their roles.

If you’re having problems playing your role, whatever that role in your society, then you should read and learn what the experts have to say about that role, because people have played these many roles in many different societies for so long that people are studying these roles, studying the players, and becoming experts.

Especially public figures who play roles and those who connect to them in role-playing should have experts in those roles and that society connected to them so that if they and/or those who connect to them have any problems at all that go along with that role, then they can discuss problems with these experts. Those who play roles in societies have many problems and those who connect to them also. There are many pop psychology books on these subjects and many self-help books, and certainly these experts are needed. Many celebrities for example find themselves requiring therapists. Why do think? However, these people don’t necessarily need therapists. There are professional people that understand the problems of all of these roles that they can also discuss the matter with and not just therapists, although therapists appear for now to be the most qualified in understand the role-playing problems of public figures. However, the problem with going to therapists is that it’s easy to claim these people are “insane.” These people are not necessarily crazy and there need to be experts who are not “therapists” who can help them to deal with the problems and pressures of public and private role-playing that help them to understand they are not necessarily insane. Many have advisors and counsellors who are therapists and certainly these are necessarily include media experts who they are not media savvy. Many public role-players also need to know the difference between public protocol and private protocol. Let’s use Michael Jackson for this role. Let’s say you’re a private person in a private community, a man who teaches youngsters and helps young children. Most people in that private community are not necessarily going to accuse that man of having romantic interest in children. He might even be an honorable member of the society. Everybody likes the man. Let’s say he becomes a public figure and he has an interest in helping children and the next thing he knows he’s accused of helping them for romantic reasons.

Professional people have similar problems, the difference between professional protocol and private protocol. For example, we witness Emmitt Smith on dancing with the stars. His wife accepts the fact that “her man” is a professional and public figures. She’s not like many private women out of control with some notion that her man is having some romantic interlude with Cheryl Burke. Perhaps privately she’s as insecure as many women in many communities. Publically she understands protocol. She understands that Emmitt is a public figure and he’s going to be working with many different people, including professional women like Ms. Burke. She behaves herself. He behaves himself. And Ms. Burke behaves herself. They understand public protocol.

However, if Emmitt were a private man and his wife very insecure she probably certainly would not allow him to dance with this beautiful young woman. This is how many private people behave and many public people who have not yet learned public protocol or how to behave themselves.

The wives of University professors witness their men have many students and colleagues and they have to learn how to behave according to public protocol as the University understands it. They also have to deal with the stereotype of professors dating their students and many others. Sometimes these professors are the stereotypes, sometimes they are perfectly honorable people. But in this role-playing, a professor, whether a man or woman, must have a person qualified to play the role along with them and who understands the protocol of that role-playing. These spouses cannot be as “insecure” as ordinary people. Perhaps they are, but it’s problematically to be insecure and play such roles. Professional class people also find it problematically connecting to working class role-players because of the different customs and folkways as it involve romantic role-playing. A typical working class role-player is not necessarily going to allow her professor husband to be so friendly with so many co-eds without commentary. Very different than professional commentary. We are talking typical.

When the great Jim Brown had a problem with his wife thinking he’s running around on her. This is a problem for many public professional role-players who have many public obligations that require them to meet with many people, and so there must be a level of security and trust that typical community people don’t necessarily have to have. This is a question of protocol and Jim Brown and his wife must work on protocol because Jim Brown is a public figure who has obligations in the public world different from some private man in a private community. What’s the protocol?

Many men and women who have professional and public roles must learn a different protocol than the private world. Suppose Americans have the first female or Lady President and she has to meet publically and privately with many world leaders? Suppose we start accusing her of romantic interludes with all of the world leaders? What’s the protocol? Or suppose her husband starts accusing her of this type of misbehavior? What’s the protocol for this role-playing?

Because America has had many men presidents most American women know the protocol for accompanying a man playing the role of president, even the womanizing types. What’s the protocol for accompanying a Madame President? Women have a problem with protocol when men play roles and they must accompany the men in those roles. Men can also have a problem with protocol with women when they play roles and men must accompany them in those roles.

Oprah Winfrey has to meet with all kinds of people in her public roles. Nevertheless we don’t witness Stedman publically accusing her of any misbehavior with any of these people. Unless it’s in the tabloids, which we don’t necessarily read. Nor does she publically accuse him of much–for now. They appear to understand public protocol. Other celebrity couples must decide upon the difference between public protocol, private protocol, and public and private behavior. Many public role-players think all of their business should be played out in public. This is something for public figures to decide upon. Certainly the press makes it problematic for people to have any privacy. Nevertheless, this is something for pubic role-players to study and learn and develop strategies for.

The more sophisticated societies become the less naive and more self-conscious, then not only do you have players of roles–not on the naive level, but people who study roles, and not on the naive level.

Most civilizations continue to have naive players of roles, but they also are gaining expert role-players and expert students of those roles. Certainly the naive role-players can be very interesting and even endearing, but nevertheless they need to study and learn about the roles and especially how to transcend the problems of those roles. Indeed, there are many roles that are very destructive to people, and certainly we witness people being destroyed by roles that they do not fully understand, as a Marilyn Monroe or an Elvis Prestley. Or, maybe they do understand. Nevertheless, who likes to witness the great talents, public or private, being destroyed because nobody has any great expertise in role-playing. And when people get into role societies can be very cruel. That’s why many public and private role-players find themselves in therapy.

Many people get into roles without fully understanding the nature of those roles and the qualifications for those roles. This is on the public and the private level. Those who do understand often seek counsellors or advisors. This is also the reason why so many self-help and how-to books are popular with role-players.

If Madonna, for example, has any problems in the role that she is playing, no doubt there are experts who study Madonna, experts who study how she plays her role, experts who study the role of others who have played that same role before Madonna, and continue to study how she plays her role. And many of these experts want Madonna to be successful in her role. Of course, people like spontaneity, but on certain levels you need expertise along with the spontaneous, as in the jazz players–highly trained musicians who combine spontaneity of improvised with great skill. We learn this with many of the best actor-role players, highly skilled professionals that make acting appear deceptively simple and even spontaneous. But they know their work and they know their role.

Many of these modern-day role players have learned from many role-players before them.

Many of the Marilyn Monroe generation wanted Marilyn to be successful in her role. However, Marilyn Monroe in playing her role helped others to learn how to play that role and how not to play the role. She continues to be an icon and a teacher for her society and for the many starlets that go into that role. Of course, they are “no Marilyn Monroe,” nevertheless these icons become the standard for that role, whether they are an exemplary standard or a flawed and foibled standard.

Madonna in playing her role is teaching many of this role, as Jesse Jackson or George W. Bush or Richard Nixon or the various popes. These are public role players that we study and learn from.

However, we all have private role-players in our communities, whether they are naive role-players and/or self-conscious role players that we can study and learn from.

Before people go into any role in any society they should learn the minimum qualifications for those roles as that society determines these qualifications. Nevertheless, when they get into the role, they are the people defining that role, not another.

For many blacks of the twentieth century, Malcolm X came to define the highest role, greater certainly than Mr. Jackson. And for that, there are still those continuing to gnaw at the legacy of the great Malcolm–by any means. Yet the role is the role. Understand the metaphysics of manly independent African leadership and the role is still the role. Certainly enemies of African people or any peoples who have ongoing independence struggles, including Native Americans–are going to continue to discredit the independent leadership for the more agreeable types. That’s “human nature,” nevertheless the role is the role. Geronimo is Geronimo. Moses is Moses. The role is the role. Understand the metaphysics of role-playing.

We should speak of Moses here, because he represents for many of the faithful of many faiths an icon of independence struggles. Nevertheless, Moses played his role and then understood when to stop playing that role. He understood how far he was allowed to go with the Jewish people. At some point the Jewish people had to continue with “the spirit of Moses,” the metaphysics of Moses. Most Jewish metaphysical teachers understand Moses as Abraham as a metaphysical role. Moses (we assume) is celebrated as Moses but also as a corporeal manifestation of the metaphysical. Most peoples with a spiritual foundation understand this.

Most peoples with a spiritual foundation continue their spiritual roles even in a secular society. Many understand this. Others do not. Spiritual peoples continue their spiritual roles even in modern secular society.

Many role-players seek spiritual guidance when playing their roles. Many public leaders speak of seeking such guidance, because the decisions they make affect many people and the roles they play. And this is true even in private role-playing as some parents seek spiritual guidance in how best to raise their children.

For example, once Muhammad Ali, who considers himself also a spiritual person and not just some boxer, set the highest standard for African American boxers Almost every other boxer is told, You are not Muhammad Ali. Of course, they are not. Nevertheless, when they get into that role, boxers define and redefine that role.

Since Muhammad Ali no boxer has gotten into that role who can compete with that icon.

Metaphysically the role is still the role. Your role can be a purely secular role and/or if you are a spiritual type–and by this we don’t mean the crude fundamentalists–then your role is both a secular and a spiritual role.

Boxing is no longer considered by many the great sport because most of the people getting into the role cannot compete yet with the icons. But the role is still the role. And it can be a spiritual and/or a secular role and/or both.

Muhammad Ali is the exemplary modern-day gladiator. And almost every society has its equivalent of this as a role.

Understand the roles and qualifications for playing roles.

And furthermore, understand the metaphysics of role-playing.