Featured image is “Leadership,” by Kevin Dooley
In The Red Pill Constitution proposed by Illimitable Men, there is a distinction between feminine and masculine powers – the feminine being soft power, and the masculine being hard power. Soft power, according to the author, refers to things such as “influence and charm” used to gain power and hard power refers to “economic and political” power.
Feminists crave privileges which consolidate the realm of male power with that of the female. … This is achieved by glossing over the influence of feminine soft power in society (influence and charm), and comparing men and women solely in hard power (economic and political). In taking this highly one-sided approach to power, feminists play upon humanity’s propensity to take pity on women, and where the myth of female powerlessness is bought into, more power is redistributed to them.
… All the while women continue to quietly monopolise soft power. Because social influence (the female monopoly on pity as well as beauty) is difficult to quantify, its prominence is neither stated nor factored into measures of equality.
Hard power and soft power in reference to leadership and power have been talked about before, except they’re not exclusive to men and women – good leaders of all genders use both.
In Joseph S. Nye’s published article “Soft Power, Hard Power, and Leadership,” he covers the history of the development of these types of leadership styles and claims the opposite – that women who historically tried to co-opt masculine leadership styles suffered for it.
Leadership experts report the increased success of what is sometimes considered a feminine style of leadership. In terms of gender stereotypes, a patriarchal leadership style was assertive, competitive, autocratic and focused on commanding the behavior of others. The feminine style was cooperative, participatory, integrative, and aimed at co-opting the behavior of followers. When women fought their way to the top of organizations with stereotypically masculine roles, they often had to adopt a male style, violating the broader social norm of female “niceness,” and they were often punished for it.
The author prefers to use the term “transactional” and “inspirational” styles instead of hard and soft power, respectively. He cites examples such as Bill Clinton and Franklin Roosevelt as examples of men who utilized the inspirational style of leadership over the transactional style. He claims that the benefits of soft power leadership, such as vision, inspiration, and emotional intelligence work well in tandem with hard power leadership, used together in various forms depending on the situation.
In regards to Red Pill philosophy, it would in fact benefit their cause to not attribute charisma and emotional intelligence as qualities that only women are capable of utilizing, but men as well. However, in order to do so, it would require admitting that the qualities that they are quick to vilify in women are present in all genders and all forms of leadership, and that success comes not through branding aspects of what they consider feminine as inherently harmful to all men but through active cooperation.