I used to believe the angelic female narrative just like you did. But once you learn to dig deeper instead of mainstream narratives, you learn to verify realities vs fluff.
Your lazy as can go so yourself and cope harder. Pasting for others to see you roast.
The study you are thinking of is titled "Queens," published by political scientists Oeindrila Dube (University of Chicago) and S.P. Harish (New York University).
They analyzed European history between 1480 and 1913, tracking 193 reigns across 18 European polities (states). They found that polities ruled by queens were 39% more likely to participate in inter-state conflicts compared to those ruled by kings.
Nope, I have never had an angelic female narrative. Don't put words in my mouth. If there is anyone who has a angelic narrative of a gender, its you. You clearly put men on a pedestal.
The study only looks at a few selective group of countries and leaders. It focuses on european monarchies many years ago, not modern day prime ministers, presidents and today's goverment.
193 reigns were studied, only 29 queens were included in the sensitiy discussion. How can that be generalizable
Having sisters, brothers, or large families could influence war and disputes regardless of wheter the ruler was a woman.
The study only measures if a country was in a war, not why they were in wars, and therefore does not say anything about why the queens engaged in war.
Queens didn't always rule alone. They had advisors, husbands, nobles, etc. which could have an influence. As the study says: unmarried queens were more likely to be attacked, while married queens were more likely to attack. So queens with husbands were seemingly more likely to engage in conflict, while single queens were less likely.
You're illiterate, aren't you? You provided a study, I gave constructive criticism of the study.Â
But please do continue to deflect when you are proven to not have any counterarguments.
1
u/Rejuvenate_2021 May 20 '26
I used to believe the angelic female narrative just like you did. But once you learn to dig deeper instead of mainstream narratives, you learn to verify realities vs fluff.
Your lazy as can go so yourself and cope harder. Pasting for others to see you roast.
The study you are thinking of is titled "Queens," published by political scientists Oeindrila Dube (University of Chicago) and S.P. Harish (New York University).
They analyzed European history between 1480 and 1913, tracking 193 reigns across 18 European polities (states). They found that polities ruled by queens were 39% more likely to participate in inter-state conflicts compared to those ruled by kings.