That the idea of "male aggression" as the source of war is a fraud, a fantasy, a delusion. Running into machine-gun fire at the behest of one's nation and its leaders has nothing to do with aggression or "violence." The sad fate of these young men. 

Even the great social scientist Scott Atran, who has read 7700 Library of Social Science Newsletters since October 6, 2014, at 11:53am (nearly for ten years) cannot bear to abandon this obsolete theory. 

Scott has written endlessly (I've published many of his papers) that entering into battle manifests submission to a sacred object, the precise opposite of "male aggression."

Why has this specious theory persisted? Perhaps because those who fight in wars--enter battle--cannot bear to know that they have been set up to become sacrificial victims.

Richard Koenigsberg