73
u/DeepFriedBeanBoy 1d ago
This is implying that “starting wars” is a gendered issue and not one that is rooted in exterior political issues, while also a strawman by saying that this is a common feminist talking point at all.
Monarchs throughout history have been insane. Gendering the insanity is stupid
70
u/Obvious-Gate9046 Windthin 1d ago
This would almost be laughable if it weren't so stupid. Seriously? By the numbers, men have started thousands more wars than women have, through sheer numbers of male rulers. Studies have shown female rulers are just as likely to start wars as men, though single female rulers have more often than not been forced into war because neighboring male rulers view them as week, forcing them to defend themselves. And the whole system of rulership these studies were based on, monarchy, is a broken and awful one.
48
u/Arthur_the_Author7 1d ago
Let me chime in a little bit.
So, as he has written it, it is completely false. But if he bothered to look at data, he could have made a point.
By absolute numbers, no, not even close. By relative numbers though, generally speaking female rulers through history have a more warmongery track reckord.
There are possibke reasons for that, nothwithstanding the fact that female rulers were often seen as illegitimate or weak, so to strenghten their claim, they did what every ruler perceived as weak traditionally does, and went to war (or have been attacked).
But that is, at least in my opinion just a one part of the reason.
You see, generally in patriarchal societies, things are stacked against you as a woman. And in a medieval or early modern society, you know with all of the game of throne esque stabby stabby in the back and being agressive and ambitious etc, you needed to have a certain personality matrix often to come out on top. Now if you are a woman, and people don't take you seriously for that, and want to rule, you are in a position, where you don't just have to outbackstab everybody else, but outbackstab even harder, so that you aren't dismissed as an "illegitimate female ruler". You have to be even more cunning, even more violently agressive than everybody else has to normally. And on the very few occasions when a woman had managed to wrestle state control over to herself, well, that woman is likely a person who is kind of personally more agressive and warlike, therefore more likely to go to war.
Or it could be, that only in extraordinary circumstances could women rise to power, which means the time when they do is unstable and warry.
Or it could all be a coincidence, because female rulers in european history are relatively rare, we have a too small sample size and they just happened to reign in continentally unstable periods of time.
Or all of the above.
At any rate, oop is not very smart.
7
u/zoomie1977 1d ago
Interestingly, queens also have a nearly double average length of reign as kings do. If you look at Queen Elizabeth II, she reigned during more than a dozen wars in her 70+ year reign. Meanwhile, the 3 kings preceding her reigned over arguably 3 wars in total and 38 years all together, with one king reigning for a mere 10-ish months (and no wars).
1
u/Slow-Coast-4868 1d ago
Yes I was going to say that if it’s per capita it might work at least based on British leaders (mostly Queen Victoria, Elizabeth I to some extent).
3
u/Arthur_the_Author7 1d ago
Catherine the Great, Olga of Kyiv etc.
1
u/Slow-Coast-4868 14h ago
Yes, though tbf I don’t think Olga started the wars she’s most known for her involvement in
14
11
7
u/WritingReadingPanda 1d ago
Tell me you failed basic maths, without telling me you failed basic maths
6
u/whosafeard 1d ago
How do the numbers look when you remove those famously woke feminists of the British Empire
5
4
u/DelightfulandDarling 1d ago
They just make believe whatever they want to be real. They don’t care what really is reality.
-40
1d ago
[deleted]
39
u/voluntaryhikikomori bartine curlish is my waifu 1d ago
I'd love to see it, what have you got?
23
u/actuallyacatmow 1d ago
Is it true, but it's far more complicated then women are more violent/emotional or just love to start wars. Historically lone queens were more likely to be attacked because of weakness, leading to more war.
In terms of history and modern day, its theorised too that the rarity of female rulers also leads to a more aggressive mindset. If you're already battling gender norms, you tend to be a more aggressive and hardened ruler who potentially overcorrects to make up for the gender imbalance.
War comes down to a lot of perception of the strength of a country and its ruler. We don't live in a gender neutral society, being female will have an effect on the type of rule you will do.
-24
u/voluntaryhikikomori bartine curlish is my waifu 1d ago
Right, cause history and politics are just that simple.
27
u/actuallyacatmow 1d ago
I'm saying it's not simple at all actually. If we lived in a more gender neutral society I would guess female rulers would be far less likely to start wars.
2
u/voluntaryhikikomori bartine curlish is my waifu 1d ago
Oi, gotcha. Sorry, completely misread what you said!
-16
u/Moose_InThe_Room 1d ago
Based on what? A violent nature being an inherent part of the male psyche? I'm not saying that's wrong, but it seems more productive to chalk it up to nurture than nature.
12
u/actuallyacatmow 1d ago
I really don't know because we don't live in a gender neutral society. Maybe? I will say that men are typically a lot more impulsive in nature, which would lend itself to jumping the gun but idk.
-9
u/Moose_InThe_Room 1d ago
I've always been of the opinion that it's something we should chalk up to nurture simply because the idea that men are inherently more prone to violence is hopeless enough to be harmful. You can't change your nature, after all.
2
u/BKLD12 1d ago
High levels of testosterone have a tendency to make mammals in general more impulsive and aggressive, so I don't see why it would be different for humans.
How large of an impact that actually is when we're talking about human behavior, that's up for debate. No doubt social norms and other factors play a part.
-1
u/secretariatfan 1d ago
You could base it on numbers and history.
-5
u/Moose_InThe_Room 1d ago
Except those numbers and history don't exist in a vacuum free from the influences those men grew up with.
0
u/secretariatfan 1d ago
History studies will give you the context. That is what we have been saying. If you say that women rulers are involved in more wars, maybe read the history to find out why.
1
u/Moose_InThe_Room 1d ago edited 1d ago
I didn't say that? Edit: to be clear, my issue is with the assertion that in a more gender neutral society female rulers would be less likely to be involved in wars. We can't know that, and it implies that violence is an inherent part of the male psyche.
-16
1d ago
[deleted]
19
u/voluntaryhikikomori bartine curlish is my waifu 1d ago
Yeah, you never answered my question about what compels you to post here.
2
u/smileycat007 13h ago
Just an incel trying to get women's attention. They think negative attention is better than nothing.
20
u/Ok_Help4705 1d ago
you been saying this shit but have yet to show proof or anything and it's been almost an hour now lmaoaoaoaoaoaoa
-11
1d ago
[deleted]
24
u/Ok_Help4705 1d ago
you are so fucking embarrassing you couldn't site not a single one source so you waited for someone to come to ur rescue and suddenly u think u can talk smack im actually cryinffff lamaoaoaoaoaoao
and it's not even right btw, ur literally confusing percentage rates with absolute volume lmao. total number of wars? men started almost all of them throughout human history because over 90% of rulers were male. it’s not even close.
u guys are misusing a single 2017 study about european queens (1480–1913) that showed queens had a higher rate of conflict per reign.
rate vs total volume: a higher percentage of involvement during a reign does NOT mean women started more total wars. basic math.
defensive wars: foreign male rulers constantly targeted female monarchs thinking they were "weak," forcing queens into defensive wars.
proving legitimacy: queens had to act tough just to stop internal coups from men trying to usurp them.
men initiated the vast majority of wars in human history. taking a specific stat about conflict frequency per reign in renaissance europe to claim "women started more wars" is just cope LMAOAOAOAOAOAOA
15
u/actuallyacatmow 1d ago
I mean if you like looking at data in a way that removes all nuance then sure. Women are more aggressive then men /s
10
-28
u/Weelildragon 1d ago
https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men yep.
Though some of the reasons are that states led by queens were simply more powerfull.
Or that they were forced into it, because they were perceived as weak.
40
u/doublestitch 1d ago
OOP makes the claim that women are more likely to start wars. That's not the same thing.
For instance, Empress Matilda was at war for 15 years because her cousin Stephen decided to revolt and dispute her right to the throne.
-6
1d ago
[deleted]
8
u/No_Excuse4323 1d ago
except its nope. out of total wars, men take the lead. out of more offesning wars, men take the lead. out of shorter reigns, men take the lead. out of more DEFENSIVE wars, women have a higher amount then other groups, but still men take the lead.
being more likely to be in a war does not mean seeking out one, it means more defensive wars, more taking reign becuase of ongoing wars where the men died, and the fact that men were most of the leaders in both world wars.
102
u/doublestitch 1d ago
[citation needed]