a concubine or a housekeeper is an unfortunate fate, but not nearly as bad as being slaughtered in battle as the men were. To anyone who disagrees, would you like for the men and women to trade outcomes?

Most of this narrative stems from 'feminists' comparing the plight of average women to the topmost men (the monarch and other aristocrats), rather than to the average man. This practice is known as apex fallacy, and whether accidental or deliberate, entirely misrepresents reality. To approximate the conditions of the average woman to the average man (the key word being 'average') in the Western world of a century ago, simply observe the lives of the poorest peasants in poor countries today. Both men and women have to perform tedious work, have insufficientrecent FR discussion, someone claimed that various male traits had evolved as part of the evolutionary process as men competed for female sexual attention. I tried to point out that until quite recently even in our society the choice of which men a woman had sex with was not up to her. Just could not get through to the other posters that our present freedom for women to decide who with and whether they will have sex is extremely unusual.

In most wars thru history the civilian deaths vastly exceeded the military dead.

In fact, one could develop a quantitative analysis of various wars by determining the ratio of military vs. civilian deaths. The US has been quite lucky in this regard. All three of the wars fought on US