Leadership

As I have had ample opportunity to appreciate with fervor and enthusiasm, traditions are one of the greatest resources for insights, if not the greatest. This I first realized at the time of writing Habits. Traditions exist for two different reasons, and for two different types of people: Leaders and Followers.

For Leaders, they exist to answer the question “Why?”, and for those open-minded and intelligent leaders like myself, the answer becomes clear at the moment of asking (if you also understand “Why?” instantly upon asking, leave a comment telling me about your experiences with this– for now I’ll have to assume I’m the only one).

But for the vast majority (Followers), such a desire to ask “Why?” does not exist, as they much prefer to live in the bliss of ignorance and conform to “the norm”.

Tradition was (and is) created originally for the masses that make up the majority of intelligent life, in order that we might:

(a) Have the greatly needed guidelines by which to live our lives, and to fulfill our inherent insecurities.

(b) To feed the cravings of those that wish to remake the world in their own image, and thus confirm and satisfy their hopes and dreams that the insights they had gathered both from former traditions and independent observations, might be proved valid, and more importantly, that they might be recognized for gathering these insights, and contributing them to society in a very real, influential, and meaningful way.

Of course, most people are not strictly and radically conforming to either of these two categories– not any more than most members of political parties conform to the ideals their parties represent. But, as if has been proven and still stands after millenia of universal beliefs and practices, sentient beings fall under these two groups– Leaders and Followers.

As mentioned earlier, I am most definitely a “Leader”, and although I am quite aware of “Follower” motivations, I cannot bring myself to truly understand them. This is likely because I am a leader; I’m sure that followers cannot understand my logic either. But it is also a fact that leaders and followers need each others– one cannot live without the other.

In more mystical terms, both leaders and followers exist to “preserve the balance”. It can also be thought of as one of the original laws of nature upon which the Evolutionary Pathway (the Logos, AKA the Essence of the Soul) was built. (This prominent belief, and one that I adhere to, is that Evolution is based on a set of rules that has always existed; these rules are (and were) made more complex and complimented by a (theoretically) infinite string of iterations– in the same way that fractals are created– or in this case, create themselves).

But in either case, it’s clear that “Leadership” and “Followership” [as I hereby dub it!] are to some extent genetic:

For females, the “leader” trait is to this day very rare, and sensibly so: the traits associated with good leadership (muscles, proactivity, power-hungry, emphasis on “status” (hierarchy), appropriate communication style, as well as other factors– all of these actually comflict with the more prominent female tendencies, which are clearly more accomodating of a “supporter” role.

This is where Tradition comes in: Males to this day fill most leadership roles, because history has continually pointed out that woment are not suited for this role, whereas men are.

To further support these traits being genetically pervasive, there is insight to be found in the somewhat obsoleted traditions of the ”bloodline” and dynasties, among many other paralleling practices. These were very logical and intelligent traditions, which is why they have stood the test of time for so long. Because high-ranking warriors tend to ahve most or all of the traits of leaaders, the greatest warriors were made leaders. Because throughout history leadership has been genetic, countries ensured security and stability to ensuring that only those with royal (leadership) blood could rule.

With the advent of democracy, however, great changes have been made, and these benefitted women most of all. Even though we are superficially considered a democracy– internally, “special interest” groups call all the shots. The “ignorant masses” side with one group or the other based on who In their opinion gives the most convincing (good-sounding) arguments.

Most people aren’t very concerned about politics (although many of them will indignantly claim to be), so a democracy just isn’t possible. As such, every democracy is (at best) a bureaucracy.

So where do women come in?

Special interest groups do not actually make the decisions, so the leadership component is not required. However, the men who make the decisions don’t stand a chance unless they support special interest groups, and by now, the majority of these are composed of women– or at the very least– most polically active woment get what they want to some extent, due to the bureaucracy that makes up every democracy.

Here is a very wise Chinese proverb: “Man is the head of the family, woman the neck that turns the head.” Even though men actually call all the shots, women have all the power, without needing to actually do anything!