🐈

Because fundamentally leadership is about this: Decision Making Rights on When to Use Aggression/Violence. Or simplified: Being the One Who Pulls the Trigger. Or Ned Stark's: "The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword."

This aggression/violence doesn't necessarily have to be physical. Psychically it's the SAME thing as going TSSSSS to a dog or any other kind of reprimand. Notice how those who dislike violence often also dislike giving criticism? that's b/c mentally they are the SAME act.

aggression/violence isn't just about wars or fighting. it's the same boundary setting necessary for haggling, business deals, and dog training.

yes there's less physical strength required but still, men tend to handle the psychic burdens of this more easily b/c men don't care as much about being disliked/hated/sent death threats/etc...

the dog does not actually WANT to be leader because being leader means "When the shit hits the fan I will be hated." (FYI if you're demonizing trump supporters and don't want to anymore, use this as a springboard for empathy, Trump is a "good" leader in this regard)

To put this another way. The masculine is valued for its thick skin. The feminine is valued for its soft skin. You can't be both! Whatever the couple pairing both roles are needed.

this is where traditional values can get overly rigid because thick-skin/soft-skin is relative to the task. e.g. you can be thick-skin in one domain but soft-skin in another. it's not strictly necessary for one person to be thick-skin at EVERYTHING.

Thick-skin demarcates the border and soft-skin makes the interior beautiful and worth living for. Thick-skin faces the burden of life, being worn down by wind and rain and having it be worth it b/c of a home to return to.