A few posts back is a quote from Seneca. The classics are filled with obvious truths like that and the following.

This is my favorite from the best political philosopher in history, Machiavelli:

A difference arose in the City of Ardea between the Patricians and the Plebians, because of a marriage contract, in which an heiress about to be married, was asked for at the same time by a Plebeian and a Noble; and as she did not have a father, her guardians wanted to unite her to the Plebeian, her mother to the Noble: and such a tumult arose from this that they came to arms; in which all the Nobility armed themselves in favor of the Noble, and all the Plebeians in favor of the Plebeian. So that the Plebs being overcome, they went out from Ardea and sent to the Volscians for aid, while the Nobles sent to Rome. The Volscians arriving first, surrounded Ardea and besieged it. When the Romans arrived, they shut in the Volscians between the town and themselves, so that they constrained them ((being pressed by hunger)) to surrender themselves at discretion. And when the Roman entered the City, they put to death all the heads of the sedition, and restored order in that City. There are several things to note in this text. First it is seen that Women have been the cause of many ruinations, and have done great damage to those who govern a City, and have caused many divisions in them: and ((as has been seen in our history)) the excess committed against Lucretia deprived the Tarquins of their State; and the other committed against Virginia deprived the Ten (Decemvirs) of their authority. And Aristotle, among the first causes of the ruin of the Tyrants, places the injury they committed on Women, either by seduction, by violence, or corruption of marriages, as we have discussed this subject at length in the Chapter in which we treated of Conspiracies.

I say, therefore, that absolute Princes and governors of Republics do not have to take little account of this subject, but ought to consider the disorders which may arise from such incidents, and remedy them in time that it does not injure and disgrace their State or Republic; as happened to the Ardeans, who, for allowing the rivalry to increase among their citizens, were led to become divided among themselves, and wanting to reunite, had to send for outside succor, which is a great beginning to a sure servitude.

Here a commoner from a rich family has a mother who unsurprisingly wants her to marry the noble while the fellow commoners want her to marry the commoner.

Maybe you think the mother should be blamed for contradicting the will of her people to improve her family's lot, where you think that a man would self-sacrifice.

A great element of Machiavelli's style is that he rarely recommends a particular solution for a particular problem. When he does advocate a course, it's usually very general.

The reason why is because he has confidence in a man's of virtu ability to navigate a solution that can create the greatest benefit. He figures it's best to show men the typical circumstances they'll arrive and let them determine the best way to resolve problems.

He has little respect for women's reasoning. He doesn't even think it necessary to comment on the mother, the true center of the problem.

Undoubtedly men have failed to find a solution and chosen war, but the classics are filled with men of virtu who thrive by compromise and greater good.

A man of virtu may calm the commoners by giving her to their suitor while inflating the pride of the nobles by ascending the newlyweds so that they can be now claimed by them.

Finding an optimal compromise achieved by trapping the parties in their desires is almost exclusively the ability of men.