First of all - the original article never claimed men are the only ones responsible for violence. But they are more responsible. That is statistically undeniable. So the douche talking about the bay of pigs was changing the goal posts already.

Second - I never claimed women have NEVER been in a position to go to war. I said "men get all the opportunity" in politics, which was of course slightly hyperbolic, but since you can't grasp that I'll amend that statement - men get the VAST MAJORITY OF OPPORTUNITY in politics. And especially during the era OP used as an example with the nuclear war thing.

The reason I'm bringing the political opportunity side of things up? OP was trying to use an analogy to talk about how both women and men can be violent (which the author of the original article was never disputing) and hilariously used an example that illustrates how much power men have in society and how little women have. He talks about the President of the United Fucking States (of which there has never been a female one) and compares it to how women will fight in bars sometimes (which men also do, probably more so).

So I bring up the topic of equality for women, for which numbers ABSOLUTELY DO MATTER, and you have yet to counter the fact that even in recent history, men across the world have dominated politics. (As well as many, many other facets of life).

The purpose of feminism is not to suggest female leaders would be less violent than men - it's to suggest that female leaders are EQUALLY CAPABLE as male leaders. That their gender does not inherently affect their ability to lead. That there could be female equivalents of any kind of leader from Abraham Lincoln to Adolf Hitler. But women rarely get the opportunity to lead because we live in patriarchal societies.

Go ahead, dismiss everything I said because I used the word "patriarchy" and you've gone ahead and dismissed that term ages ago, while understanding little to nothing about it or feminism. I'm done wasting my time with you troll.