women in leadership

I do believe that it has remained the public’s opinion that women must “be one of the men” in order to be a prominent leader; However, I do not feel that this should be the view that the public holds. While it is surely reasonable to ask that a woman does not burst into tears at the slightest mention of hardship, I feel asking a woman to completely suppress her emotions restricts her benefit to a cause. Women were given their personalities and emotions for a reason, and human kind would cease to function if these traits did not exist. Men and women were intentionally created to be different, and to balance each other with these differences. Both have faults and values, which is why it is essential that the two sexes work together and on equal terms. While the stereotypes of men and women are both grossly exaggerated, these stereotypes do bring up some important and relevant differences between the two genders that explain the necessity to have both as leaders. Men tend to be more action-oriented and aggressive, and women tend to be more emotionally-led and compassionate. While either side can be argued as a positive or negative in certain situations, it is easy to see how only getting one side for EVERY situation could lead to problems. Men are often seen as better leaders because they generally have an easier time putting aside their emotions and making level-headed decisions, but this is not always the case. Men are also more rash and quicker to jump to violence. For occasions when violence is not the best solution, a women’s softer disposition could be the necessary ingredient. However, because our world is dominated by male leadership and therefore male thought, emotion is often associated with weakness or as “an act” to get sympathy. Yet in a cruel double standard, women that show very little emotion are considered cold-hearted and mean. Political women such as Hilary Clinton are under constant scrutiny to achieve an unrealistic balance of being the “right amount of women”. People want them to look and act in an attractive way, yet if they are doing this too much people believe they are only getting by on their looks. People want them to show compassion and womanly reason, yet if they are too soft on enemies or get emotional people feel they can’t handle pressure. I feel a women’s personality is necessary in the leadership world, and that women should stop being the subject of such close criticism so that they can focus on what really matters.

response 2

The responsibility of the bystander has been a highly debated topic for many years. There are those who feel it is the bystander’s civil duty to stand up for what is right and prevent injustice; others believe that the bystander should only worry about his/her personal happiness and avoid unnecessary conflict. But this often becomes a gray area for matters such as the Holocaust and Macbeth’s dictatorship because these issues make the bystander an actual part of the injustice. The bystanders that comply to the demands often insist that their refusal would have had no effect, that the wrongdoers would just punish the bystander and find someone else to carry out the original order. But I believe that this mentality is how genocides and tyrannies are allowed to grow. A single bystander may feel they have no major influence, but what they fail to realize is that there are other bystanders making the same decision. And when all these bystanders choose the “easy way out” instead of standing up to the evil, they allow the evil to spread.

Victor Capesius and Konrad Jarausch were right to assume that if they refused their positions, someone else would have filled them. However, if every German who felt uneasy about the Holocaust had refused their positions, millions of Jewish lives might have been saved. What these two men, and millions of men like them, failed to realize was their power over the Nazis. Dictators and tyrants are nothing without people to manipulate and boss around, and Hitler was no exception. He was able to succeed by controlling a small group of dedicated followers and using them to overpower everyone else. He was nothing more than a disturbed bully, but no one rose up to oppress him before it was too late. Eventually most Germans either became like Jarausch, doing small acts of kindness to ease their tortured conscious, or like Capesius, brainwashed by Hitler’s teachings and left with no compassion.

Macbeth started out as a noble duke that was respected and revered for his bravery, which was part of the reason people failed to realize the dictator he had become. When a person idolizes someone, it is often very hard for that person to break away from their perceptions about their idol and see the reality of their actions. They refuse to believe that their hero has failed them, and so they blindly continue to offer support.  And even if they realize how their idol has strayed, they often feel too indebted to the person to abandon or even question them. They would rather remain under the safety of an evil power than stand up for a fragile truth.

I am in no way claiming that Jarausch and Capesius should have valiantly stormed up to Hilter and refused his orders to kill Jews, nor saying that I would have had an easy time refusing these orders if I were in their shoes. And while I believe that they do share the blame for the people they murdered, I know that the true evil and malicious intent came from the Nazis. What I’m getting at here is a problem that plagues all of humanity- the belief that one person cannot make a difference, and therefore should do nothing or just give in. We must somehow find a way to learn from our mistakes, and begin to combat every injustice that we can. Eventually in Macbeth, surrounding nations and people of power realized the evils of Macbeth and sought to end his reign. Eventually in World War II, America and the Allied Forces realized the evils of the Nazi and sought to end them. But in both cases, it took violent extremes for people to step up and fight back. I hope that one day, people will learn to always stand up against evil, even when that evil does not directly affect them.