New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. “People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story....
Female reigns may have had higher capacity to carry out war since queens often put their spouses in charge of official state matters. This division of labor would then have freed up time and resources for queens to pursue more aggressive war policies. In contrast, kings typically were less inclined to put their spouses in official positions through which they could aid in managing the polity.
The authors emphasize that the increase in wars on a queen’s watch is not likely explained by an attempt by the female leaders to signal their strength. Were that true, you’d expect a spike in war participation earlier in the queens’ careers, and that wasn’t the case according to the data analyzed here. Dube and Harish also argue that the queens were not actively seeking to fight more wars.
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Where Americans think Ukraine is These are the guesses of 2066 Americans as to where Ukraine is. Only 1 in 6 were correct. Presumably the... -
Hmmm. [The comments below include a prime example of someone claiming they're interested in truth but just want higher standard, where...
-
Of course you can prove a negative. In one sense this can be the easiest thing in the world : your theory predicts something which doesn...
Girls just wanna have fun, I guess.
ReplyDeleteI guess in a world that's all about macho posturing, queens needed to follow through more often. If just to counter everyone's presumptions.
ReplyDelete