Toxic Femininity [STUDY] Throughout history, queens were 38.8% MORE LIKELY to wage war than kings.

[MaxZM98]

A New Study Reveals Queens Were MUCH More Warlike Than Kings | Ancient Origins

An analysis of 193 kings and queens in 18 countries over a 400-year period has determined that queens are statistically much more likely to engage in war than kings.

www.ancient-origins.net

So much for the whole “men bad, women good” theory.

Queens

Do states experience more peace under female leadership? We examine this question in the context of Europe over the 15th-20th centuries. We instrument queenly r

papers.ssrn.com

The study looked at 193 rulers in 18 different countries over the course of 400 years (1480 - 1913), and found that queens were more war-hungry than kings.
Feminists in society claim that men are violent and that’s proof of toxic masculinity. In reality, the only reason men are more violent is because women are physically weaker than men and don’t have the means to commit violence. Given the means, it turns out that the ‘empathetic gender' is more bloodthirsty than men.

And yet foids are still pedestalised in society as ‘the fairer sex’.

 

[Deleted member 36666]

Tbh they probably had to overcompensate due to societal expectations though I'm even more sure that many women would be extremely violent if they had the power

 

[Murdoch89]

Elizabeth bathory sure is one of the biggest serial killers in all history

 

[ReconElement]

Take Catherine of Russia for example, nobody was more warlike and whorelike than that foid empress. She lead a coup against her husband with her lover and 14000 soldiers. After that she imprisoned and killed him

 

[FrothySolutions]

The study proves very little, almost deliberately. So it can be framed in any way you like depending on how you feel about this sort of thing.

For instance, reading the article is shows that they didn't consider that these queens might've been figureheads, pushed around by male advisors. So if I wanted to be like "Men are natural born monsters," I could say "No it wasn't the queens' faults, they didn't want to go to war, The Patriarchy made them do it." But if I wanted to be like "Women are strong and capable military moves and shakers," I could give all the credit to these queens. Not be too bothered about the cost of war. History is full of war, why should I be bothered?

 

[Gymcelled]

There was also a study saying that modern foid politicians are more aggressive or whatever

 

[JoeBruhcel]

Putting a parasitic demon with the emotional maturity of a retarded 3 year old in power, I wonder what could happen.

 

[MaxZM98]

The study proves very little, almost deliberately. So it can be framed in any way you like depending on how you feel about this sort of thing.

For instance, reading the article is shows that they didn't consider that these queens might've been figureheads, pushed around by male advisors. So if I wanted to be like "Men are natural born monsters," I could say "No it wasn't the queens' faults, they didn't want to go to war, The Patriarchy made them do it." But if I wanted to be like "Women are strong and capable military moves and shakers," I could give all the credit to these queens. Not be too bothered about the cost of war. History is full of war, why should I be bothered?

yeah but the paper says they did not observe this kind of differential effect. also the advisors could have done the same to kings. even if the advisors did play a role, ultimately the monarch has the last say in any decision, so you cant take responsibility away from these foids

 

[FrothySolutions]

yeah but the paper says they did not observe this kind of differential effect. also the advisors could have done the same to kings. even if the advisors did play a role, ultimately the monarch has the last say in any decision, so you cant take responsibility away from these foids

In the same way any adult is responsible for their actions, but if I can bully and persuade and influence you, regardless of your age, that's something to consider. Especially back then, maybe women and children were easily influenced by senior males.

 

[MaxZM98]

In the same way any adult is responsible for their actions, but if I can bully and persuade and influence you, regardless of your age, that's something to consider. Especially back then, maybe women and children were easily influenced by senior males.

sure, they could have been influenced, but the same could be said about kings. queens had the power to say yes or no to their advisors since the monarch had ultimate power.
anyway why are you trying to defend these foids?

 

[FrothySolutions]

sure, they could have been influenced, but the same could be said about kings. queens had the power to say yes or no to their advisors since the monarch had ultimate power.
anyway why are you trying to defend these foids?

I'm not, I'm just pointing out how like so many of these studies they don't really go about proving much. It's just we extrapolate conclusions from them.

 

[NorthernWind]

Tbh they probably had to overcompensate due to societal expectations though I'm even more sure that many women would be extremely violent if they had the power

They would strangle ugly men with their bare hands.

 

[Hoppipolla]

Women are just more emotional I guess. It really doesn't surprise me.

I'm not sure that women are really "wired" for positions of power, if you think about how human society evolved and how it naturally functions.

 

[MaxZM98]

I'm not, I'm just pointing out how like so many of these studies they don't really go about proving much. It's just we extrapolate conclusions from them.

if the monarch wanted to she could sentence her advisors to death. we can extrapolate conclusions from this. one being that if women ruled the world, it wouldnt lead to more peace.

 

[Deleted member 36666]

They would strangle ugly men with their bare hands.

Killing incels will be legal by 2030.

 

[trying to ascend]

Can't be used as a good example if you didn't analyze each country's situation at the specific time

 

[MaxZM98]

Can't be used as a good example if you didn't analyze each country's situation at the specific time

this study was done over 400 years so you can generalise it out.

 

[FrothySolutions]

if the monarch wanted to she could sentence her advisors to death. we can extrapolate conclusions from this. one being that if women ruled the world, it wouldnt lead to more peace.

So it could go for child rulers, but if I an adult tell a small child "Let me do this, you are a child and you know less than me" I stand a good chance of getting my way.

 

[MaxZM98]

So it could go for child rulers, but if I an adult tell a small child "Let me do this, you are a child and you know less than me" I stand a good chance of getting my way.

the study wasn’t about kids though?

 

[FrothySolutions]

the study wasn’t about kids though?

My point is, rulers can be manipulated under certain circumstances. If I'm a little boy and I don't wanna go to war, but the old guy my dad listens to is like "Impudent boy, you will take Saxony and that will be the end of it" I could sentence him to death too. But maybe I don't. Maybe I've been conditioned to believe that my place as Boy King is to listen to the adults.

 

[MaxZM98]

My point is, rulers can be manipulated under certain circumstances. If I'm a little boy and I don't wanna go to war, but the old guy my dad listens to is like "Impudent boy, you will take Saxony and that will be the end of it" I could sentence him to death too. But maybe I don't. Maybe I've been conditioned to believe that my place as Boy King is to listen to the adults.

sure but is there any evidence that women are more easily manipulated than men? the point of the thread was to prove that men are no more inherently evil than women are.

 

[FrothySolutions]

sure but is there any evidence that women are more easily manipulated than men? the point of the thread was to prove that men are no more inherently evil than women are.

Anybody can be manipulated by anybody, even men. We don't know who was and wasn't manipulated for sure and can likely never know. That's my point. This study doesn't and can't factor that in, so maybe I say "We all know that men are more violent than women, so the only way these findings make sense is if the queens were bullied/influenced into going to war by the men."

 

[Speedloader]

Yasss kween slayyy (quite literally)