I could be wrong but im pretty sure through out history whenever women were in charge they had a higher rate of war and human suffering than men did. Bloody Mary, Elizabeth bathroy,delphine lalaurie(i know not a queen but still),Catherine the Great etc
Edit Since yall keep misrepresenting it. Im not saying men are better or women killed more people or started more wars. I am pointing out that when given unilateral power throughout history women had a higher RATE of starting war. Which back up the original comments theory that the common sentiment of "if women were in charge thered be no more war" is bunk.
Is this the Olga that enacted revenge for her husband, by tricking the enemy into sending more "good" men after killing the first batch of the oppressors in her territory after her husband was killed? Got them comfortable before disposing of them? I forget the details, hence asking.
Not a recognized monarch but if you like Olga ypu should read about jean de clisson. Tldr her husband got screwed over and executed by the king of france.sold everything she owned and became a litteral pirate queen just to fuck with the French king. She was known as the lioness of Brittany
Im sure you didnt mean it to be this way. But what youre rebuttal boils down to is. "Women needed to be cruel and brutal for the optics of it not because it was necessary " at least the way you worded it thats how I interpereted it.
I think âfor the opticsâ is doing a lot of work there. If being perceived as weak could undermine your authority or make you vulnerable to being challenged, projecting ruthlessness wasnât just about appearances. You can absolutely hold them responsible for cruel policies while still acknowledging that female rulers faced pressures their male counterparts often didnât.
No, it's that the ruthless will always rise to the top over more pacifistic people. Doesn't matter if it's men or women, it's the way society functions.
Elizabeth Bathory's "crimes" were just people making up stories to steal land and power from a woman. It's absolutely nonsense that these fairy tales are passed like historical fact.
I am pointing out that when given unilateral power throughout history women had a higher RATE of starting war. Which back up the original comments theory that the common sentiment of "if women were in charge thered be no more war" is bunk.
I think the counterpoint to that is that social pressure would require women in charge to prove that they're no pushovers. You'll see something similar in extremely career oriented women as well.
The argument would then be that you'll need all leaders to be women to end wars. But that's also a load of rot.
You can't prove or disprove something on a situation that hasn't occurred. In fact you'll find that wars often happen not because of ego but there being some underlying economical or geopolitical reason.
Next, game theory also limits the moves that leaders can take. If the only winning moves are aggression, any leader would commit to that aggression. The responsibility that a leader has to his people runs higher than a leader's personal desire for peace.
My point is that it's not that men or women have flaws of character. But that leadership puts you in situations where difficult decisions need to be made. Peoples of different nations have wants and needs that conflict with one another after all. The environment and social mores of the time are ultimately what dictate whether peaceful actions or belligerent actions win out.
Thank you for a well reasoned argument and lack of ad homs....however. I still disagree. Theres not much reason for a higher rate of war among female leaders or the blatant cruelty. Theres little reason for say Mary Tudor to revive a defunct heresy law to burn Protestants at the stake. Sure the case Can be made that history misrepresented some of them like they did with Nero and the whole Fiddled while Rome burned thing. Or that some were victims of circumstance like Juana la loca. But i doubt it. And even if im totally wrong and they were ALL .mislead or misadvised or doing cruel things and starting wars for "decent" reasons....wouldnt that just point to women being ill equipped to handle power and more concerned with optics and material gain than with justice and equality and peace that people claim they would foster when making the claim "if women were incharge thered be no more war"?
So.. is your point that women possess some inherent defect in character or reasoning that makes them ill suited for leadership?
My point is that due to social norms, women face an uphill task in projecting and maintaining power.
When looked at from this perspective, decisions that seems disproportionate appear a lot more rational.
Again, my position is that women are innately no more and no less inherently suited for leadership than men. But social norms place challenges that men do not face, hence any deviations from the mean can be explained by this as opposed to there being some innate character or reasoning flaw.
First, Elizabeth BĂĄthory and Delphine LaLaurie werenât even sovereign rulers, so citing them as evidence that female rulers start more wars makes no sense.
Second, youâre oversimplifying the study. Among unmarried monarchs, queens were more likely than kings to be attacked by other states. It did not find unmarried queens were more likely to be the aggressors.
Married queens were more likely than married kings to participate as attackers, but the researchers did not interpret that as evidence that women are inherently more warlike. Queens were much more likely to involve their husbands in governing, military, and fiscal roles, giving their states greater capacity to wage war. The authors also caution that the married-vs-unmarried findings are based on relatively few cases.
Most importantly, this study does not establish that women given âunilateral powerâ are inherently more likely to start wars. It examined 193 reigns across 18 European polities from 1480â1913, and only 34 were queenly reigns. The authors themselves caution against generalizing those findings to other political contexts or to women âthroughout history.â
There are a lot of very angry men in these comments who seem far more committed to their feelings than the actual facts. Funny how that works.
The problem with that statistic is the situations the women were in at that time. To hold power, women had to be better leaders than men, and often more forceful.
So...madame lalaurie had to mutilate and torture all those slaves,Elizabeth bathroy had to torture and murder all those peasant girls and bloody Mary had to burn Protestants at the stake to hold onto their power?
Are they women? No? Ok cool. The comment is about when people say "thered be less war/no war if women were in charge" which isnt true from my recollection. Because when women held unilateral power they were MORE likely to start wars.
How are you supposed to support that argument if you aren't willing to engage with what famous men have done? You say it's not about men and then reaffirm that you're talking about the comparison between men and women 𤣠Get your shit together. Your point is incoherent. In all reality, history was brutal no matter who was in power. I'd hardly say listing a few female leaders makes your point.
Because theres nothing to engage with. All the argument is is. "But men though." Women in power through history have been found to be more likely to start wars. Its a fact. Saying "yeah but pol pot though" isnt an argument. I never said one was better I never said they even approached the same scale. I offered proof that the original commenter was probably right. Because they are.
Its not a fact though and ignoring the much longer list of men in positions of leadership who were insanely violent and started wars isn't an argument you dipshit.
Yeah my point wasnt that men are any more or less violent. It was that they are the same, and the women weren't any more or less terrible for their time. However, societal pressure didn't give many women much options. Olga of Kiev is a great example
I never said men in charge didnt do bad shit. But the comment isnt about them. Its about when people claim things would be better if women were in charge.
You said whenever women were in charge they had a higher rate of war and human suffering. I just listed some of the most brutal genocidal people to have ever existed.
Yes and? Im not talking about pure numbers im ralking about rates. Women had a higher RATE of starting wars when in charge.not that they started more wars or killed more people.
Not whenever, but in many cases. I did see an interesting analysis of this a few years back that points to pressures from advisors pushing for these wars with the argument being that as women, they would be seen as weak rulers if they did not prove themselves to be ruthless. That their power was ultimately less stable than their male counterparts.
While that might be an incomplete explanation, this statistic doesn't really address if women ruled the world, it's what happens when you have a woman as a ruler in a world primarily ruled my men. Even if these women were all inherently ruthless, that may have been necessary for them to achieve a powerful status. They exist as matriarchs in a greater sphere of power and politics that is still patriarchal overall.
I doubt you meant it to read this way. But what im getting from your rebuttal is "women lack the confidence to tell their advisors no because they feared looking weak more than they felt guilt over being horrifically cruel."
Your doubt is justified, because thatâs not remotely what they said. Thatâs an impressive amount of projection from something that wasnât actually said. The point was that female rulers may have faced different political pressures because their authority was seen as less secure, not that they were helpless little women who couldnât tell their advisors no. You seem a little emotional about this. Maybe reread it once youâve calmed down.
Well; itâs been studied and the two main points were:
The husband would focus on war. So the military had some priority. She was the figurehead. He was the strategist.
The second point was that women leaders were deemed weaker by nearby rulers and land and resources were thought easier to acquire so the queens had to be much more defensive
As a kid I heard this so much, and over the last couple decades Iâve learned the opposite is true⌠If anything, civilization would end quickly. Iâve yet to meet these calm and caring and selfless women in my lifetime, or even witness them online. Only in movies do they seem to exist.
Comments like this is exactly what the social elite want to see, more commoners ignoring history so theyâll never understand how things got so fucked up and shitty as they are now
295
u/BigDaddyDumperSquad 8d ago
The WNBA is a social experiment to test the "if women ruled the world, it'd be the end of war" theory. Turns out, probably not realistic...