[–] ForTheUltimate 0 points 3 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.”
[–] scoopadoop 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Women do not value mens lives. I bet queens get power boners when they send thousands to die
[–] draaaak 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
I would have expected it to be more than that.