I remember a high school teacher of mine. A scrawny guy with a sorry look on his face. He wore the same black dusty coat every day. His hair was unkept, rowdy and probably the source of the dust on his coat. Every class with this man was pure chaos. We would chat away the first fifteen minutes to the backdrop of his whiny plea for silence. ”Can you pleaaase be quiet??” he would ask in a meekly effeminate voice. To no effect. His teaching often consisted of him explaining things while constantly asking ”okaay?” after every other sentence. As if he needed our validation to continue. I felt sorry for the guy initially but eventually gave up on him and participated in the chaos. He clearly wasn’t behaving like a leader and naturally we rejected his attempt at teaching, which is a form of leadership. He showed weakness. We exploited it. Shit test failed.

.

Quiet the contrast to one of my upper secondary school teachers. A bit of an artsy character with a background in philosophy studies, but this didn’t keep him from commanding our respect. He had an eccentric but confident way of moving across the class room. His class always started on time. If you were late, you were met by a locked door and had to wait outside for fifteen minutes until you were let in, conceded by a walk of shame to your seat to the quiet stares of your class mates. He demanded our attention, and when he found it lacking he made it clear with an authoritative voice. Not that we had a reason not to listen. His classes were captivating and he would often deviate from the script in long colourful rants. Some students who were completely alien to authority rebelled but got in line eventually. This man didn't budge.

.

This is up for debate of course but I would argue that the rebellious nature of teens, wether its directed towards parents, teachers or society is a form of shit testing. Any attempt at leadership and authority will suffer shit testing. And it’s universal for both genders but with women we add the element of leadership within a relationship.

.

Many men are too quick to abandon their leader role. Of course, there has to be substance and merit behind a mans authority. But as long as he has that, he should own it and power through the shit testing. You can’t budge on the first sign of resistance. Modern theory about leadership will have you believe that listening and bargaining is good leadership. It might be an element of it, but good leadership is mainly about unifying the group to one single intention. And showing strength and determination. Who wants to be led by a weak man who doesn’t believe in himself and his cause? If he can’t master the resistance of his friends and loved ones, how will he conquer the resistance of his enemies?