We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Archaeology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: isopatch who wrote (6229)11/25/2019 10:35:03 PM
From: Joachim K  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6299
I don’t think any red blooded male that has a mother, sisters and a few girlfriends would disagree with that article. The fact that the blithering idiot Steven Pinker said men were more often the aggressor would be enough to make up my mind women were more often the aggressor. In my personal experience females are ten times as predatory and territorial as males, this of course is not a criticism, just an observation.

To: isopatch who wrote (6229)11/25/2019 10:43:52 PM
From: DMaA1 Recommendation

Recommended By

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6299
More accurate to say a hurricane defeated the Spanish Armada

To: isopatch who wrote (6229)11/25/2019 11:07:06 PM
From: Stan1 Recommendation

Recommended By

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6299
One factor I'd like to see explored is what objectives did women monarchs have in mind when they started wars.

Particularly, were they more likely to start them because of maternal instincts, that is, in order to pre-emptively fend off threats to national security? It's not the male, but the "mother" bear who is known for ferocity.

Whereas expansionist lust seems to be a male trait. Caesars, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Attila, Napoleon. If queen-started wars could generally be categorized as protective, it would blunt the surprise the article creates about them.