Circle back around to this when you put pregnant and lactating women on the battlefield to prove you contention that men are NOT better suited than women for these leadership positions.
Yeah, Milk boobies, that's teach the attacking hordes not to mess with 'Murica.
Still stuck on the battlefield and so obsessed and blinded by pregnant females, that you have become not only inarticulate, but come off as deranged.
Is it your contention that only men on a battlefield can be a "leader"? I guess that lets out all of the generals in WW II, who directed action a safe distance away for the action, all of the lowly privates, and non-coms too.
But hey, what about the "leaders" from the side/s who LOST? Are any of them "leaders" and if so why?
Joan of Arc was pretty damned good as a battlefield "leader"...until she lost, that is. But she was a far better "leader" than say, John, I WAS IN NAM, Kerry ever was. ;^)
How about one of THE greatest "LEADERS" of the 20th century? His "leadership" skills weren't so great in South Africa the Boer War ), worse at home in the UK during WW I ( the disaster that was Gallipoli anyone ? ), but hot damn, what a REAL "leader" he was and fantastic re WW II and just afterwards.
I know that you have a penchant for great libraries, but is it just the buildings you love? Goodness knows, it sure isn't the books; unless it's only fiction you are drawn to!