Scientists have discovered historical queens were “38.8%” more likely to declare war than kings.
Professor of Psychology and author Steven Pinker claimed men instigated “almost all the world’s wars and genocides”. Pinker is the Author of the book Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters. In the book he argues that rationality is a key driver of moral and social progress. It attempts to resolve the apparent conflict between scientific progress and increasing levels of disinformation. Pinker explains several concepts underlying rationality, including from the fields of logic, probability theory, statistics, and social choice. Ironically, it seems that Pinker has been caught in the irrational cognitive bias known as the “women are wonderful effect” and publicly offered misinformation about his feminist-influenced beliefs about women’s superior nonviolent morality.
The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree. 1
Following Professor Pinker’s grandiose assertions, US researchers developed a study to formally assess if there was indeed more peace under female rulers, but their results showed the very opposite: that female rulers “caused wars” much more often.
The same idea has been further perpetuated by feminist misandrists around the world. Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg suggested Russia and Ukraine wouldn’t be at war if women were in charge. “No two countries run by women would ever go to war,” Sandberg told CNBC during an International Women’s Day event.
Throughout history there are countless stories of powerful male kings declaring and fighting in great wars. It has long been the assumption that women were less aggressive and more likely to maintain peace than go to war. However, this study now reveals that queens waged war over the centuries a terrifying 39% more than kings.
Findings In The Study
The paper authored by political academics Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University, analysed a selection of primarily European kings and queens who reigned between 1480 AD and 1913 which covered 193 rulers in 18 countries. A Daily Mail article says the 400 years of European history included female rulers such as Catherine the Great, who made Russia a warring nation in the 18th century, Britain’s Elizabeth I , who defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588, and Isabella I of Castile , who led Spain to dominate the world in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Over 193 reigns the researchers found that states ruled by queens were 39% more likely to wage war than those ruled by kings. Not only did the cohort of academics find that states ruled by queens were more likely to fall into conflict and war than those led by kings, but females were also more likely to gain territory. Co-author Oeindrila Dube told The Times that there is a stereotype that men are greatly responsible for wars and genocides and that women are natural peace-makers, but “our research turns this stereotype on its head”.
Royal Marriages Mattered Little
It is a common social perception that because women are (on average) physically weaker than the men they select to marry. But the authors say their findings “contradict” these misconceptions. They played with the idea that queens, more so than kings, had to show that they were not weak but they concluded that this was “unlikely” because queens were not only war-thirsty at the beginning of their reigns when a greater need to show strength existed, but also throughout the duration of their reigns.
The study also shows single queens were attacked more than single kings, probably because threatening foreign powers perceived female rulers as a “soft touch” and that their territories were more vulnerable. However, according to Sputnik News, at the same time, married queens were also more likely to attack than married kings. This was partly because they would “enlist their husbands to help them rule”.
Were Males Pushing the Queens into War?
The authors of the new paper explained that queens often put their spouses in charge of the military or financial reforms. This greater spousal division of labor might have enhanced the capacity of queenly reigns, “enabling queens to pursue more aggressive war policies”. The roles of male guides, pushing a queen’s foreign policies towards war, wasn’t factored in. The researchers said that this male influence on war should be “even larger among monarchs who acceded at a younger age” since they were more likely to be influenced by their male advisors. However, the conclusion in this paper is, “we do not observe this type of differential effect”.
How About in More Recent Times?
It has been argued by many feminists that with the dismantling of the Patriarchy and the rise of feminist leaders of the superior sex that it would obviously result in less violent conflicts.
Authors of the book Why Leaders Fight analysed every world leader from 1875 to 2004 and statistically examined gender differences in military aggression. They discovered that 36% of the female leaders initiated at least one militarised dispute, while only 30% of male leaders did the same.
In recent history, there have been many examples of aggressive female leaders who have led military attacks. In 1982, Margaret Thatcher responded with military action when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands. Thatcher made the decision to go to war to recover the islands despite warnings from several male members of Parliament and her advisers. Even U.S. President Ronald Reagan urged Thatcher to utilise peace talks. Instead, Thatcher went ahead with military action and personally ordered the sinking of the Argentine ship, Belgrano, killing more than 300 sailors.
Indira Gandhi was a political candidate in Indian in 1966, sought the blessings from two Hindu saints for her to win the elections which wasn’t looking good. They gave her blessings for success, on the condition that she would implement the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution per Article 48 for the protection of cows & other cattle against slaughter as per their religious and ethical beliefs. Gandhi kept the banning of the slaughter of cows as one of the main campaigning points in her electoral strategy. In return, she received massive support from Hindu groups. After winning the election and ascending to power, Indira Gandhi refused to keep her promise to the Hindus. At that time, an estimated 15,000 cows were slaughtered per day.
On November 7, 1966, Gopashtami day which is the most sacred day for worshiping the cow according to Hindu beliefs – a large crowd of Hindus protested peacefully in front of the Parliament to once again petition a ban on the slaughter of cows. Under Gandhi’s command, the police unleashed tear gas on the entire group as they began to scramble she then ordered them to fire bullets at the crowd, killing Hindus indiscriminately.
The most conservative estimate, given by magazines, is that 375 Hindus were killed. But first hand accounts state that more than 5000 Hindus were brutally slaughtered in the protest, and many more injured. The dead bodies were removed immediately. Gandhi deployed an estimated 5000 buses and military trucks to remove all eyewitnesses so that the news of the genocide was contained, and no sources of information were readily available. Her government did not permit journalists and media outlets to publish any news of this incident. A journalist, Man Mohan Sharma, nevertheless gave a statement later that even evidence of the genocide was destroyed by the Indira Gandhi government. The government had explicitly commanded to the media that no personal reporting was allowed, and only the press release by the government was to be published verbatim.
There are many accounts like this during Indira Gandhi’s reign. It’s hard to say what is true because people who reported on her actions seemed to disappear.
Operation Blue Star was launched by Gandhi to remove one of her political adversaries in another state. Under her directions, soldiers fired into civilian buildings including Sikh temples which resulted in the death of 8 innocent people. The locals fought back and it turned into large conflict resulting in thousands of deaths of soldiers and civilians. A few months later 2 of her personal body guards assassinated her. They shot her, through down the guns and said “I have done what I had to do”. Many Indians celebrated them as heroes for ending her tyrannical reign.
Park Geun-hye, the first female president of South Korea who served from 2013 to 2017 was described as “dangerously aggressive.” Park and her army threatened to wipe North Korea “off the face of the earth” if it dared to launch a nuclear attack. Park reportedly told her generals that if North Korea staged even a limited attack, they should strike back “without political consideration” and without waiting for her approval. She was ultimately impeached and convicted of corruption charges
In the U.S., in 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged President Obama to take military action in Libya. Although she initially sought a diplomatic resolution, Clinton changed course and convinced Obama of the advantages of military action. Male leaders including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and national security adviser Thomas Donilon were against the military action.
Clinton has become most famous around the internet for her horrifically misandrist statement claiming, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat“.
This quote originated with a 17 November 1998 speech that Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, delivered at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador. One of the central themes of Clinton’s speech was the effect that war had on that country. Clinton referred to women as the “primary victims of war” not just in the literal sense of being injured or killed themselves as civilian non-combatants, but as being left without the provision and protection their male family members offered them:
The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence.
The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people — family members — who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That’s why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfil their God-given potentials.
It can be horrifying reading the words of feminist leaders who reveal their hatred and disregard for all men in every situation. Clinton, if she’d succeeded in attaining more power, demonstrated she would’ve started unnecessary wars that would have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many men. She doesn’t care about them. She only cares about the “primary victims”. Someone can only say this if they actually believe that only women are humans and valuable and that men are not. She makes it clear in her speech at a Domestic Violence that she isn’t concerned about supporting victims of domestic violence and holding perpetrators of domestic violence accountable. She’s only concerned about women because she’s a female supremacist.