"A practical man can always make what he wants to do look like a noble sacrifice of personal inclinations to the welfare of the community. I've decided that I've got to be practical myself, and that's one of the rules. How about breakfast?" The Pirates of Ersatz, Murray Leinster
From your question I noticed a few things. Nominally, I completely agree with @mxyzplk's answer, so this should be in the way of an addendum.
It sucks to be the leader
In a RPG, it just completely sucks to be the leader. Most players when confronted with a plan, remember about fifteen percent of it for the first fifteen minutes. But they'll certainly remember when you deviate. Leaders get no additional responsibility and no perquisites, but they get all the blame.
In the military this is mitigated with the clear distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. Not least because the isolation provides both support structures and necessary emotional distance (to a degree, of course). Being "elected" leader, especially with the pack dynamics of typical werewolf games is an extremely dubious honour that I'd flatly reject.
The fact that while you may be leader in character but not dominant over the player group makes things even stickier. You need to assert authority within the realm of the narrative without actually having that authority in reality. Again, something that will cause friction and resentment any way you cut it.
Depressing environments bleed emotions into play
The world of darkness does what it says on the tin. Having played in a horror game myself recently, the iconic themes of the world of darkness do not make for "happy" or, for that matter, validating game experiences in the main. (And, if they do, it's a violation of genre.) When you are faced with the stresses of being "leader" which are compounded by the stressors of the philosophies baked into the setting, no wonder you're having a rough time.
Some solutions:
On leadership:
Fundamentally, a gaming group is a relationship. Bad relationships that do not provide validation are a drain on mental and emotional resources. When they don't work, cut them off or change them. In your case, I'd play a game that's a bit lighter in tone and focus: a nice traditional dungeon crawl or similar heroic fantasy.
I'd also reject the leader role for all the reasons I outlined above. Or, if they force it upon you, demand the perquisites and authority that is concomitant with it: they can't have it both ways.
On the group:
I've found that group character creation creates a far more cohesive group. By having entangled backstories, the group can draw upon a deeper understanding of each others' characters, creating the basis for empathy and respect within the characters, instead of the necessary simulacrum imposed by players.
By articulating desired tropes, a "palette" (as Microscope) calls it, before the game begins, you'll be able to shape the narrative of the group in directions that you want to play. This allows you to avoid the nominally depressive tropes that come default with the setting (not limited to world of darkness) and describe a source for future characters to connect with the current group. Replacement characters, if they tie into the shared narrative, will continue to maintain the tropes and social trust.
Be practical:
As players, we shape our narratives to an amazing degree. Emulate Bron Hoddan in the Pirates of Ersatz. While playing, you will be aware of the desired practical outcome that will provide validation and satisfy your personal goals. With that outcome in mind, you then frame it in terms that suit both your character's narrative and the expected narratives of the other players such that they will act to reinforce your framing and thereby your outcome. If you fight their narrative control by "being a loner," it is difficult to achieve your own goals. If you help them work as a team and appear to sacrifice nobly on their behalf while executing your own goals... the entire process is smoother and more effective.
Note that I am not saying to lie. Instead, consider the causal constructions of your actions, the explanations for those actions to be an aspect of the role * separate* from the actions themselves. By manipulating the framing as well as the actions, you can provide the necessary hooks for the other players to support your version of reality, rather than rejecting it and, by extension, you.
Postscript
Looking at your comments to other questions, you should absolutely give this group two last tries. In the first trial (of one or two games), try a heroic romp where you can be "Big Damn Heroes." Require the players who need the spotlight be leader. In the second trial (again of one or two games), try a game where players can intrigue against each other (I'd recommend Ars Magica, but then again I recommend it for most things. Most games support PvP intrigue quite ably.) If neither game provides the validation you need and the spotlight the other players need, move on. Before you do anything, take a month break, sit down, relax, and try to game with some strangers. I'm pretty sure that if you go looking for games in the chat section of this site... someone will oblige. For more on the framing problem, I'd quite recommend Rule 34 by Stross, as it describes it in a delicious narrative context.
Best Answer
On Going Beyond Stereotype
One of the ways the authenticity of female characters in movies are judged is called the Bechdel test. Essentially, if a movie has only one female character, or if it has more than one but they only talk to each other about men, it fails the test.
This is a good lesson to keep in mind when trying to fairly portray women in a roleplaying game, too. Unless you're playing a costume drama where words like "chattel" belong, your character will not be defined merely or even primarily by her relations to men, and she has many ways to be a woman that don't have to do with flirting or being hit on.
When you're GMing you're going to be playing a lot of women. You can use this to your advantage in doing convincing portrayals of women because you're going to have a variety to play. With one female character it's hard to play convincingly without overplaying it and stumbling into stereotype, or underplaying it and having gender fade out of view. With many female roles to switch among you can show off the variety of half of humanity (or elvenity, whatever):
As the GM, by showing that your female NPCs are not all just the same cutout stereotype, you'll make all of your female NPCs much more convincing in the eyes of your players. If one NPC is (e.g.) a stereotype, then the variety will make it obvious that it's the character being an unfortunate stereotype and not just the GM being unable to play a more authentic character.
On the Differences Culture Brings
Undeniably, most cultures treat women and men differently, and as a result those women and men conduct themselves and behave differently in order to operate effectively in their culture. You'll have to make a decision for each of your cultures as to how strong the cultural pressure is for men and women to act differently, and for each character (both male and female) you'll have to make a decision about how strongly they accept or reject the explicit and unspoken rules their culture pushes on them. Using a technique like Lynn's answer about cultural cheat-sheets can be useful to zoom in on the defining attitudes of the culture, and to keep them present in your mind during play.
There are all kinds of great character details you can get out of this, and not all of them are going to be just about the differences of the genders either. (For example, thinking about characters this way might lead you to wonder what happens when an upstanding person nevertheless is outspoken in their rejection of the official religion.)
If you decide that the cultural pressures are slight to non-existent, you're going to have a very different set of characters—male and female—than if you decide that culture has moderate pressures to differentiate the genders. A culture with strong pressures is going to result in a very different set of characters again. (And in each of those, you'll get yet another very different set of characters if you decide to invert the way men and women are differentiated compared to our own culture.)
Finally, (assuming one of the cultural choices where women and men are somewhat to significantly distinct) there is a good article on portraying women as distinctly-gendered without leaning on stereotype or their relationships with men, written from the perspective of an avid female roleplayer: Saving Throw for Half Cooties: Gaming and the Femininely Advantaged.
For making female characters the article has sections on common creation mistakes to avoid, how growing up female makes a difference, and how the relationship influences of women are distinct from those of men. (It also has another half of the article about women as players, which is very worth reading but tangential to this question.)
The article also makes one of the best points for caring about how you portray women when roleplaying:
We can't be perfect, of course, but genuine care to make a good effort is enough in most people's books that imperfections will be forgiven, and you'll end up with a convincing female character despite being male yourself.