Does anyone else think the great women in history (Catherine the Great, Emily Dickinson, Marie Curie) are either faked, or were secretly men? It's just so hard to believe that a woman could do such things.
>>29852962
There are always outliers, anon. So some women can be theoretically somewhat decent, though it's rare.
Curie basically just brought her husband coffee and got a noble prize for it
>>29852962
great is such an overused term anyway
Saint Olgachan is not a man!
>>29852962
womyn are only good for making babies. Thats it.
Men good. Women bad.
>>29852962
Its more that the examples roasties use are singularly great people but then they try and claim that because these towering figures were great that it proves women are as good as men
>>29853029
It really isn't. It's not like every king gets called 'the great.' It's usually just one per country.
>>29853068
Most of these 'historical' figures were based on complete lies, people lied all the time about crazy shit that supposedly went down in their eras which then got passed around and gained currency as truth
>>29852962
Elizabeth I, queen of England, had a small penis.
It's an historical proven fact.
>>29852962
The only woman in history I find questionable is Joan of Arc, because they generally make for very poor leaders.
>>29853129
>great women in history (Catherine the Great, Emily Dickinson, Marie Curie)
i said great not "the Great" you illiterate
>>29853130
>implying saint olga didnt actually burn a city down with doves
I think a lot of stuff is embellished but I dont think it's all entirely lies. I'm sure saint olga really did assassinate all her suitors diplomats and military leaders and then pillage his city. it doesnt really seem that far fetched.
