[HusseinsVoice]

I hear this so much, but this has got to be the biggest bullshit. Women base everything they do off emotions, while men base everything from justification. Every war in history that was caused by man even though we personally find some disgusting, we know that there is a massive justification. American-Indian war; Indians fought for their land and right to live, American settlers fought for all the land, and manifest destiny even though it was wrong it was a justifiable cause. WW1, Germany fought because arch duke ferdinand of austria was killed by a serbian and they knew austria would get raped by itself so they decided to help a brother out. WW2 was fought because of the fact that germany was sweeping up europe and eventually no matter what brittain would fall or be completely decimated (even though adolf hitler liked brittain) all throughout history every war a man started was justified, and everyMAN WANTED TO PROTECT HIS WOMEN I just get so pissed off when i hear this shit in the media so often that women would not cause any war and it would be completely peaceful. Imagine a feminist women having complete control of america, she would start a war just to spread what is ''right'' Or they would start wars because girls in poland are way more womanly aka sluttly/weak willed in the eyes of feminists. And guess who would be fighting the wars? us men, imagine YOU fighting because girls on the other side of the world are hotter than the ones at home. Any thoughts? i would love to read other peoples responses

[Gmac]

or belongs in newbie forum.

[HusseinsVoice]

(08-15-2012 09:24 PM)Gmac Wrote:  



or belongs in newbie forum.

Its not a troll dude. Its a serious question and should be considered among men who have taken the red pill and have seen women in their true form.

Your worthless troll response is unnecessary. This also is not about game its addressing a serious issue.

[T and A Man]

Margaret Thatcher wave's hello.

[Bad Hussar]

(08-15-2012 11:21 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Margaret Thatcher wave's hello.

Was about to bring up the Falklands as well. The thing about women who ACTUALLY attain real power and influence in the world (as opposed to academics/writers etc. who just shout from the sidelines) is that they rarely, if ever, have much time for feminist, lovey dovey, one world claptrap. The two exceptions I can think of are Hilary Clinton, who of course failed to achieve presidential power, and the Australian PM, Gillard I think who, at least to me, appears to support the feminist world-view.

[Timoteo]

This is a popular feminist argument. Since men are driven by testosterone, and are more prone to aggression and other ego-driven behavior, women in leadership, employing more "sensitivity" would result in less, or no war. Women are jealous, vindictive, spiteful and petty. We'd have just as much, if not more war based on that. The wars might be fought differently though. Bitches are less direct, so they would launch covert sneak attacks...HA HA!

[Parlay44]

If women ruled the world there would be no wars.
Just a bunch of jealous countries not talking to each other

[Kitsune]

The assumption is absolutely correct, because in a hypothetical world where such a thing were even possible, there would be no wars. That is because there'd be absolutely no development whatsoever and there wouldn't be any socially cohesive group strong enough to actually wage a war.

Of course, on planet Earth in hypothetical scenario, the matriarchal world would last exactly as long as it took for a bunch of patriarchs to conquer everything and kill the matriarchs that didn't like the new system.

Notice how there used to be a bunch of polytheistic societies which used to encourage the worship of multiple gods? Eventually, they got fucked by the few religions that preach 'intolerance'. Then, as those religions became more tolerant, now notice the new 'enemy': A religion which is fiercely strict and preaches 'intolerance'.

Weakness isn't evolutionarily stable because it can be weeded out so quickly.

[Blackhawk]

Cleopatra
Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni
Zenobia of Palmyra
Aefelflaed, daughter of Alfred the Great of Wessex
Matilda of Tuscany
Joan of Arc didn't start the 100 years war, she just led armies in it.
Margaret of Anjou fought for her husband King Henry VI
Queen Elizabeth started wars against Queen Mary of Scotland, wars against the Spanish Queen, the wars against Ireland, and well, pretty much everywhere.
House of Borgia's women preferred poisoning, but murdered everyone in their way.
Elizabeth of Russia, Seven Years War among others.
Catherine the Great started many wars and kicked ass everywhere.
Queen Victoria started multiple wars, mostly kicking ass on India.
Lakshmibai (the Valiant Rani) queen of Jhansi, fought fearlessly against the British in the Indian Mutiny in the 1850s
Margaret Thatcher succesfully implemented the war against Argentina in the Falkland Islands.

And that's just a western-European centric overview. The Byzantine empresses are completely batshit crazy. (Harls' lectures are recommended when on sale) Asia, Mezo-America, North America...

When in power, women create just as many or even more wars than men do. The only issue is lack of opportunity --when wars are fought by upper body strength with swords, spears and lances, women have a very difficult time procuring the necessary military successes needed to move to positions of leadership.

[SVK]

^^^ Nice list Blackhawk, this should be the standard response to this bullshit ignorant claim. It would be cool to see a research which gender, when in power at the same level actually does start more wars. My guess is that there wouldn't be a statistically significant difference. Women, in general, tend to be more petty and act on their emotions so my guess is that there would be more bullshit wars for unwarranted reasons.

[tenderman100]

Blackhawk's list of course is a list of women who have POWER. In some cases, absolute power. (I'd scratch Queen Victoria off the list as even then the monarchy in Britain was a constitutional monarchy).

Note too how some of the women were cock carousel sluts (Catherine, Cleopatra) or sexless types (Thatcher, Elizabeth, Joan of Arc). If your a middle group semi-feminine female, you are not going to have the opportunity to be militaristic.

But bottom line? Women are cruel, and if they have the chance, they are not beneath (above) taking it.

Finally, here's a thought experiment. What if Ghenghis Khan were a woman? After looting, destroying, killing, torturing and pillaging across an entire continent, she would have said:

"It just happened."

Cue the group hug.

[Scott]

There would be wars on every street corner.

[Hades]

Yeah, whenever I read that quote "behind every strong man, is a woman, etc", I also have to hold back my laughter. From what I recall reading in history books, it was generally the women goading the men into conflict, questioning the masculinity of their tribal leaders, insulting the other side, and overall being conflict-escalating bitches.

And to think of it, women really do not expect to lose anything in an armed conflict. Men can lose their lives, their freedom, their property, or their friends in a battle or a war. Women can lose whatever, but afterwards they're often separated by the winners as spoils. Immediately they're getting pounded by super-alphas. Unless (from history) it was some kind of religious skirmish, the women almost always lived and prospered hugely afterwards. Like eight to ten kids, all with a claim to the throne prospered.

In all the fights I've been in or seen, when it was just dudes it ended peacefully except for one instance (one punch, then everybody pretty much split), but whenever a woman gets involved everybody who wasn't insulted by her has to white knight and there's a fucking brawl.