1
0

[–] Blapta 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I have heard from women I know and read from women I don't that women leaders would be more peaceful. It is good to have things like this ready to refute them when they make that claim. Once upon a time, I guess I would have believed it.

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago 

Now imagine what the number would have been if every European country had simultaneously had a queen. Probably more than double the 27% I wager.

0
2

[–] scoopadoop 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Women do not value mens lives. I bet queens get power boners when they send thousands to die

2
2

[–] unpeeled 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

BelieveAllWomen #EmpowerVaginas #LabiaLeaders

0
3

[–] ForTheUltimate 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

nterestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.” Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”

0
0

[–] 7e62ce85 [S] ago 

Women, always relying on their husbands for the hard work.

0
5

[–] draaaak 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I would have expected it to be more than that.