This is about the dumbest argument I've seen in a while. There WERE more great men than great women in history. Is this because men are inherently better? No. It's because all of recorded history (and to a lesser extent, even today) has been in a staunchly patriarchal social stage. Men control the resources, get education, wield power, and lead armies. Women stay at home and raise kids and do chores, and until recently, get no education and have no opportunities unless they are amazingly gifted or lucky, or more likely, both. I don't think the proper conclusion is to be upset that there are so few great women. I think the proper conclusion is to be amazed that there are great women at all, when one considers the huge social forces set against women ever excelling in the first place. I, for one, would be quite happy with them including more great women in the game (and hopefully a female great person unit of each sort, as women with beards is silly), but to insinuate that somehow the number of women and men on the great people lists should be equal is silly. And to insinuate that historians wrote women out of history is silly. Sure, they could've just overlooked Joan of Arc or Boudicca, but there's a huge gaping hole in history where those two women made their mark. No serious historian can ignore it, no matter how he tries. I grant that lesser important women may have been overlooked, but in the course of time, lesser important men get ignored and overlooked as well once their importance seems less relevant to the historian and his audience. We're left, just like in civ, with the towering giants of the field that nobody can forget. And that's just how it is.