I guess I view it exactly opposite as you. I have no problem with 'powerful' women, especially those who are still feminine (like on BG) and I don't see this as any way 'liberalism'. After all, pure conservative philosophy is that each person is an individual and not limited by their box (no pun intended.) Conservatism states that a woman can become the president or general you refer to, not limited by or because of the label, but through her own merits.
It is liberals who would say that this is unrealistic because a woman be a president because of factors of society against women in general... They would find every small error or failure as 'proof' society discriminates against this or that label..
Well, I have no problen with women anywhere, my point is, like on the old Star Trek or old BG, the women were just like everybody else. But in liberal land, you can't just have a woman on. She has to be the smartest, or the toughest, best, what have you. Has to be the leader like the BG president/Cain/stargate Atlantis leader/the old TNG Star Trek where all the admirals were women, or Voyager with the woman captain.
To me, if you were going into combat, would you rather be led by Patton, or Scott Bakula? Alexander the great, or whoopie Goldberg? In real life, this stuff doesn't pan out-- it's too forced to watch.