Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Administrator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,229
    Reputation
    14614
    Type
    enigmatic

    Queens started more wars than Kings and were more likely to acquire new territory

    UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that Putin attacking Ukraine is toxic masculinity and that if Russia was headed by a woman, it wouldn't have happened.

    I'm tired of hearing this trendy shit. Toxic masculinity, as identified here, is not restricted to male leaders.

    Consider this article about who gets into more wars, Kings or Queens (I've emphasized two sentences):

    In European history the answer is queens, especially married ones

    WOMEN were less likely than men to support the Vietnam war, the Gulf war, or the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They commit far fewer murders. They are less likely to favour drone strikes. For scholars such as Steven Pinker, a psychologist, and Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, these are grounds for thinking that a world run by women would be more peaceful.

    But European history suggests otherwise, according to a working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University. They studied how often European rulers went to war between 1480 and 1913. Over 193 reigns, they found that states ruled by queens were 27% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings.

    This was not all the queens’ fault: men, seeing them as soft targets, tended to attack them. After Mary Tudor became queen of England in 1553, the Protestant reformer John Knox declared “the Monstrous Regiment of Women” unfit to rule: “nature...doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish.” Echoing that sentiment, Frederick the Great of Prussia declared: “No woman should ever be allowed to govern anything.” Within months of reaching the throne in 1740, he fell upon the newly crowned Archduchess of Austria, Maria Theresa, and seized Silesia, her empire’s richest province. Despite years of war, she never recovered it. Indeed, unmarried queens were attacked more often than any other monarchs. Think of Elizabeth I, the historical figure with whom Theresa May most identifies, fending off the Spanish Armada.

    But perceived weakness is not the whole story. Queens, the researchers found, were more likely to gain new territory. After overthrowing her husband, Catherine the Great (pictured) expanded her empire by some 200,000 square miles (518,000 sq km), which is a lot of territory, even for Russia. (She was the first, though not the last, Russian ruler to annex Crimea.) And married queens were more aggressive than single queens or kings, whether single or married.

    The authors suggest several reasons for this. First, married queens may have been able to forge more military alliances, emboldening them to pick fights. While female martial leadership remained taboo, male spouses had often served in the army before they married, and were well placed to cement military ties between their homelands and their wives’ states.

    Second, unlike most kings, queens often gave their spouses a lot of power, sometimes putting them in charge of foreign policy or the economy. Ferdinand II, who ruled Aragon and Castile with Isabella I between 1479 and 1504, led the expulsion of the Moors from Granada. During the 1740s Maria Theresa’s husband, Francis I, overhauled the Austrian economy and raised money for the armed forces while his wife ruled much of central Europe. Prince Albert was Queen Victoria’s most trusted adviser, shaping her foreign policy until his death in 1861. This division of labour, the authors suggest, freed up time for queens to pursue more aggressive policies.

    In the democratic era, too, female leaders have fought their share of wars: think of Indira Gandhi and Pakistan, Golda Meir and the Yom Kippur war, or Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands. The number of countries led by women has more than doubled since 2000, but there is plenty of room for improvement: the current level of 15 represents less than 10% of the total. A world in which more women wielded power might be more egalitarian. Whether it would be more peaceful is a different question.


    June 3, 2017 - Who gets into more wars, kings or queens?

    Regarding the last paragraph mentioning Margaret Thatcher, we have this summation provided by a fellow:

    "In response to the invasion, the British government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declares a war zone for 200 miles (320 km) around the Falklands, assembles a naval task force with which to retake the islands, and launches long range air attacks from the mid-Atlantic Ascension island on the airfield in Port Stanley to disrupt the flow of supplies to the Argentine forces. From start to finish, this strange undeclared war lasted 72 days, claimed about 1000 casualties, and had a cost of at least 2 billion dollars. From a political point of view, it secured the reelection of Margaret Thatcher". source:http://www.ability.org.uk/falklands-war.html
    That source link has expired but I found it archived here, where you can scroll to the bottom of the page to see the bulk of the referenced info, followed by a list of sources for that article.

    I mention this stuff if members are faced with the toxic masculinity argument that men start more wars than women.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org and www.breitbart.com/tag/hate-crime-hoax

  2. #2
    Senior Member mgtower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    5,921
    Reputation
    16336
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Queens started more wars than Kings and were more likely to acquire new territory

    When they start selective services for women, only then do women have any right to say anything about war, until then, honor the scores of dead men by shutting the fuck up!

    The 19th amendment should hinge on selective services at the least!


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    1,246
    Reputation
    2849
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: Queens started more wars than Kings and were more likely to acquire new territory

    Boris is forgetting why he was voted in. He was meant to be the alternative to the Liberal agendas.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Posts
    465
    Reputation
    1940
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: Queens started more wars than Kings and were more likely to acquire new territory

    On the eve of Independence Day in America, I content myself with the knowledge that one of my forefathers probably shot one of Spooky's forefathers.

    I'm out. Peace.
    - Owen, 07.03.2022
    Last edited by OwenWentFullMGTOW; July 4, 2022 at 4:17 AM.

  5. #5
    Administrator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,229
    Reputation
    14614
    Type
    enigmatic

    Re: Queens started more wars than Kings and were more likely to acquire new territory

    Another article and with a few more details:


    July 3, 2022
    Checking Boris Johnson's stupid remark about peace-loving women
    By Edward E. Bartlett

    British prime minister Boris Johnson came out with a whopper. In a television interview, Johnson issued this broadside:

    "If Putin was a woman ... I really don't think he would've embarked on a crazy, macho war of invasion and violence in the way that he has," Johnson told German broadcaster ZDF, adding that "if you want a perfect example of toxic masculinity, it's what he's [Putin] is doing in Ukraine."

    Johnson obviously had ignored his history lessons.

    Because one of the greatest expansions of modern Russia took place under Catherine the Great. During her rule in the 1700s, Russia colonized the territory of Novorossiya in southern Ukraine, and Crimea was crushed during the Russo-Turkish War. This is why Catherine was later granted the sobriquet "the Great." Indeed, one historian has credited Catherine herself for Putin's recent adventurism into Ukrainian.

    Boris Johnson's facile ignorance of history becomes even more eyebrow-raising when you consider Margaret Thatcher's role in waging the Falkland Islands War in 1982. You may recall how Thatcher ordered the deployment of 38 warships; 77 auxiliary vessels; and 11,000 soldiers, sailors, and marines in a bid to protect the remote South Atlantic island. As a result, 649 Argentine military personnel and 255 British troops perished during the conflict.

    Margaret Thatcher was not the first female English monarch to succumb to bouts of toxic femininity.

    Beginning in 1553, Queen Mary I, also known as Bloody Mary, betrayed a fondness for burning hundreds of heretic Protestants at the stake. And Queen Anne was the first English monarch to have an entire war named in her honor — Queen Anne's War. Thanks to her support, that devastating conflict ravished North America and Europe for over a decade.

    Moving on to Spain, the scheming Queen Isabella II sponsored a series of military sorties, including the pointless Chincha Islands War against Peru and Chile in 1864 to 1866.

    No discussion of female leaders would be complete without mention of Israeli prime minister Golda Meir and her role in carrying out the Six Day War in 1967.

    And what about the United States?

    In September 2001, Islamic terrorists hijacked three airplanes, resulting in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and a treacherous attack on the Pentagon. Days after the 9/11 attacks, an Authorization to Use Military Force was brought before Congress. All but one female member of Congress voted in favor of the authorization to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to wage the War on Terror.

    Ten years later, Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's security forces killed protesters in Tripoli, touching off a civil war. The American secretary of state was none other than Hillary Clinton, a woman. Clinton demanded that President Obama take military action. Within days, U.S. warplanes decimated Libya's air defenses. Gaddafi was eventually captured and brutally killed. Clinton later bragged, "We came, we saw, he died."

    (Hilariously, a few months later, Hillary Clinton convinced President Obama to issue an executive order launching the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, heralding "the role of women in ending conflict and building lasting security." Yes, really.)

    Bellicose proclivities are not limited to female political leaders. In his enlightening book, War and Gender, University of Massachusetts professor Joshua Goldstein documents how women throughout history have fomented military adventurism.

    In the face of imminent conflict, Goldstein documents how women goad their men into combat. Among the Bedouin, frenzied Rwala women bared their breasts and urged their men to war. Before the 1973 coup in Chile, women threw kernels of corn at soldiers to taunt them as "chickens."

    In the American Revolutionary War, women were known to withhold sexual favors from reluctant fighters. During the Civil War, Southern belles refused to accept suitors who did not take up arms.

    Goldstein also highlights the White Feather Girls who roamed the cities of England during World War I. They sought to humiliate able-bodied men who had not enlisted to fight in the conflict, pinning white feathers to their lapels.

    Based on his scholarly review, Goldstein reaches a simple conclusion: "Most women support most wars."

    It's time to consign archaic phrases like "toxic masculinity" to the dustbin of history and cast doubt on gauzy claims that women are somehow more peace-loving than men.

    July 3, 2022 - Checking Boris Johnson's stupid remark about peace-loving women
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org and www.breitbart.com/tag/hate-crime-hoax


Similar Threads

  1. Hello Fellow Kings!
    By MaxEffort in forum New Member Intros
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 7, 2021, 8:40 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 30, 2021, 1:02 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 22, 2021, 12:13 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 7, 2015, 7:06 PM
  5. Men must acquire verbal agreement before sex?
    By FapMaster in forum Lounge
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 17, 2014, 2:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •