Regarding the original topic, I think the gender that people tend to "see" takes on a statistical approach (which someone else here mentioned). In the broader culture, someone wearing a tie is suggested to be male, and wearing a dress is overwhelmingly evidence of someone (at least older than a young child) being female. Of course, facial features, voice, earrings (and pearl ones in particular are a massive female lean), other jewelry (even certain "bling" carries on a heavy male lean), make-up, and self-identification also contribute to small and large extents, and the size and nature of the effects can vary from person to person. An observer may be anxious if s/he sees massive leans in each direction from the same person, although realistically, there are other factors to take into account. For example, it's perhaps not so much that a man wearing a dress is exceedingly unusual, but that the instances of them carry a context that invokes hostility, ridicule, or laughter (hazing, low-brow movies, skits, October 31).
Studies have generally shown that aggression is fairly equal among men and women; it's just that the manifestation of that aggression may tend to be different. However, we can't say biology is the reason for the difference of the expression of aggression, because social roles tend to shape the way we behave. Ultimately, though, the notion that women may or may not be better rulers if they were "in charge" distracts from the fact you don't want that type of heirarchy in the first place. You want the most qualified people (women, men, androgynes, other) filling roles, not the most qualified ones that happen to have certain gender (or a certain skin color, or a certain economic status, or...). Period.
Regarding media in society, a comprehensive discussion of them is probably suited to another forum. To some extent, there is actually less consensus. There are far more channels on TV to choose from, and emerging media such as video games and the Internet (especially the Internet) have facilitated a greater splintering of ideas. Susan's Place may not have the influence to sway public opinion, but the Internet gives her the reach to help more people than would otherwise be possible for Susan. The days of Tom Brokaw (and similar figures) are not gone, but they are fading -- there are a lot of personalities that are biting and clawing just to have a fraction of the power that anchors from the big three networks had in the 60's and 70's (this is not to downplay how things are now, but to centralized things were then). And movies have come a long way from
The Birth of a Nation. Granted, each form of traditional major media (books, radio, music, TV, movies) is heavily controlled by a small number of corporations (which sometimes reach over multiple forms of media), but in the case of TV and movies, it is still an improvement.
As for the US being "socialist," I think there's more truth to the idea that the corporations controls society rather than society controls the corporations. More accurately, though, I think there's a mix of control by "the people" (who cast the votes) and "money" (which can influence how people cast their votes). I guess that makes western societies a blend of democracy/republic and plutocracy (the sway of each certainly depending on the particular state/province and country).
