The English Bitch, Volume II
Consider the phrase, "Behind every great man is a woman". We're all familiar with the thought, if the precise wording varies: that there is causation between the presence of a woman and the success of her affiliated man.
Does it follow then that behind every loser is a bad woman? Does the causation flow downhill too?
Discuss.
Posted by
GeekLethal
on
| § 3
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Behind Alexander the Great
Behind Alexander the Great was Hephaestion (literally according to some historians), 2 wives, and the Persian eunuch Bagoas. Hmm.
Behind Julius Caesar were Cornelia Cinnilla, Pompeia Sulla, Calpurnia Pisonis, Cleopatra, Servilia Caepionis, and King Nicomedes IV.
Maybe it's quantity not quality.
He's back.
He's back.
Anyhow, based on my observations so far, the answer to your question is that the initial premise is patent bullshit, so it should be no surprise that its contra is, likewise.
I'd test the hypothesis, but am presently unable to think of any great men (primarily because I'm presently "in a mood"). If I could, however, I'd filter that list to include only gays, and would then have made my point.
There's a third thing to consider, the other contra-premise, that "Behind every great woman is a man". In the context of this discussion, that, too, is bullshit. In a totally different context, the response would be "Duh!".
I didn't think of the homo
I didn't think of the homo angle.