Authority and Leadership

There is no ignoring the outdated tradition that men are inherently better leaders than women. Deep within the annals of almost every culture there have been one or more dominant male figureheads leading their community. This is most likely due to the primal yet apparent physical superiority of man, at least in prehistoric societies. However in modern times, this distinct guideline for gender-based roles is not as expected. There are no physical competitions for leadership anymore, forcing competition to only be based on the quality of one's character. However, there are distinct emotional and psychological differences unique to both genders still separating them from each other. Women are more characteristically gentle and nurturing, as they are natural mothers. Technically, the actual chemicals, such as estrogen, found in women make them the loving mothers whom we appreciate and love. But the real question is whether this detracts from the qualities of real leadership. A true leader has an incredible talent to persuade others. This ability includes connecting with people's true emotions on a very personal level, a quality that most women have in spades. Men have a more direct approach to relationships with people, and do not enjoy this advantage that women have. However, men have natural intimidation and powerful demeanor in their gait. Despite these gender-based benefits, there are also detrimental sides to being a woman. Becoming too emotional in an international summit would be a complete disaster. Some real signs of weakness within the nation could occur if someone displays too much emotion. The kind of emotion that is found in the feminine gender can be controlled to gather followers and help with personal popularity. In the article about Hillary Clinton's emotional outburst, a sarcastic reporter joked that she must have debated whether or not to cry for a long time. In a sense, this can be completely logical. She might have cried purely out of reason to try to get some compassion and pity from the nation. Connecting with the people is a very important yet difficult task that some politicians face. It can make or break the career of a leader. I believe that if any person possesses the true qualities of a leader, then they definitely deserve it. While gender can affect the type and quality of a person's character, it does not necessarily affect their leadership abilities. However, the public's perception of a female leader could diminish her authority, even though she wouldnt be able to do anything about it. Women have the same capacity for leadership that men exhibit, despite their physical inferiority.

On the subject of Accountability

When forced to act unjustly, do any negative moral ramifications take place? This question is subject to the type of situation that the dilemma occurs in. In the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare, three murderers are ordered to kill innocent lives by their corrupted king, Macbeth. The murderers carry out the order without remorse and give no second thought to the deeds they commit. This kind of order following is outright wrong. The three could have walked away from the king's order without any repercussions. This type of cruelty is just completely and unabashedly wrong. In the two stories of the nazis, this type of distinction was not so clear. One person, Victor Capesius, sends his former neighbors to their deaths just as he is ordered to. He mentally eradicates any human memory of his friends in order to carry on with his horrific malice. This type of following is also obviously unlawful and completely unjust. The other man mentioned in the article is Konrad Jarausch. He is another nazi charged with malicious orders just like Capesius. The only difference between the two is that Konrad truly feels regret about what he was doing. Konrad created documents where he expresses his direct regret for his actions. However, he does nothing to stop the wrongdoings. During his time serving as a nazi, he knew that he could have never affected the outcome of the third reich. This logic, he stated, was why he never chose to protest against the unlawful duties he was charged with. Despite his deep and profound regret for his actions, he is still accountable for what he did. Participating in the absolute horror of the Holocaust can never be justified. Just because Konrad felt intense peer pressure from his nazi friends doesn't mean that his innocence can be salvaged. He was, in a sense, more moral than the completely intrinsically evil Capesius. Capesius never admitted one tiny bit of regret, even at trials after the war. These situations beg the question of where the line of innocence while committing sin can be drawn. While most of the time judgment must be passed independently on each situation, it can be said in general that a person must do everything in his power to not commit mortal sins, even when threatened. None of the people in any of these cases tried at all to stop the tragic murders before they were committed, and they should be all held accountable for it.