Sign into an existing account

What are you being irrational about?

The Trojan war was not over a woman. Assuming that the events were real, we can say that it was about the most powerful military force in the Med getting their hands on the wealth of the richest country in the world at that time,Troy. It wasn’t about a particular woman any more than the Civil war was about slavery or the Ukraine war is about unchecked Russian agression.. Powerful rulers who like their odds in a potential conflict manufacture a casus belli to justify an attack. 10,000 Mycenaeans didn’t attack Troy cause some tart cheated on her husband.

One theory casts the Mycenaeans as the infamous “sea peoples” who attacked every major civilization arount the Med during the late Bronze age. We know their settlement in Canaan became Philistia. They were warlords.

Queen Elizabeth didn’t do shit. She had a council which advised her on everything. Very few kings and queens of Europe from that era took a shit without asking permision from their handlers. William Cecil controlled Britain with alot of help from Francis Walsingham. Guys like that decided whether Britain went to war.


You’re going to have to be specific if you want me to refute your examples. All slavery is fueled by male sexual competition as is all war. Ever since the agricultural revolution, the main way to obtain and support many wives is through war and slavery or similar exploitation of one male by another.

Males are the only sex that can achieve high reproductive success by hoarding many female mates. Females can’t achieve high reproductive success this way. That is why many male animals will try kill each other in mating season— to obtain a competitors territory and access to new females. This is particularly true in mammals. Killing other males is a key strategy to reproductive success.

War among humans is the analogous behavior to other male animal agression. Primitives would often kill off all the males of nearby tribes to obtain thier females and their hunting grounds. But with ‘introduction of agriculture, keeping conquered males alive as slaves became an obvious benefit to supporting harems of women. A man working in a meritocracy can almost never produce more than 2x the wealth of his average competitors— a necessary requirement to making polygyny favorable for a woman or her familiy. This level of economic success required slavery or some other exploitation to achieve.

Slavery and war (leading to more resources and more available females for conquerors/enslavers) are a tempting pathway to higher reproductive success for many males. The victims of this male strategy are other males. I agree that the motivation is ultimately female aquisition. But you can hardly blame women for the extreme violent intrasexual competition that men and male animals inflict on each other.

Theres never been a female war. There never will be. War and violence is male sexual behavior. The way to avert it (in humans and animals) is to force monogamy which disincentivizes violence as a path to reproductive success.

You mean Roman men taking over north africa was not the provocative act? How is Cleopatra the troublemaker here?


CIA propagit because the American deep state wanted a regime change in Philipines. So they demonized this woman and her shoes. Theres nothing particularly likeable about the Marcos’ (one’s in power now) but targetting Imelda as the bad guy of the Philipines was totally arbitrary. How many shoes does Milania have? Is she the source of our nation’s woes? You are seriously arguing that Imelda was the cause of the political crisis of 1986 Philipines? It was some kike in the state department that decided Cory Aquino would be a better puppet to serve their interests.


Ceaucescu’s wife isn’t the reason he’s dead. Youre just circulating CIA propaganda again. The CIA or the State department fomented a color revolution there. Maybe they arent that reliable as a source? Women were not the cause of the take over of Romania by communists and they weren’t the cause of the fall of communism there.

Your laundry list of wahmen in history does not refute my thesis, that all war and slavery and most crime are forms of male-on-male exploitation and genocide incentivized by the high reproductive potential of male promiscuity. I would never put a lid on it. I know that I understand the problem better than you. Its an evolutionary problem and you cant see the forest through the trees. I can.