Instapundit: European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings.
. . . as are Democrats.
European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings
"There’s an assumption about women in power that you may have heard: that women who lead tend to be more diplomatic than their male counterparts, resulting in a more peaceful world. Psychologist Steven Pinker, for instance, wrote in his 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, “Over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force.” But how much of that is true?"
Heh! Both are correct even though it seems that would be impossible. It helps to understand this if one keeps in mind, women, within the personal sphere, are the party of security, while men are the party of liberty.
Women with power, or position are more likely to act bellicosely, for the same reason we see married/longterm-relationship women more oft willing to fight with their husbands than the unmarried/short-term-relationship women are willing to fight with their man. A woman with something to lose is a formidable force when one threatens her with loss. This perception of potential loss causes these women to aggressively fight to maintain their power, or position. These women are willing to use any force to annihilate any who would threaten this loss. While this dynamic happens with men, it is far more limited.
On the other hand, women who have no power are far more willing to negotiate, wheedle, flatter, flirt, even self humiliation. These women have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. They will act in nearly any way they deem necessary to obtain what they desire.
How women act depends upon how they perceive their position, whether one of power, or one of weakness.
In our political system the Democrats follow this feminine model. This is unsurprising since they are the feminine party, the party which constantly attempts to move the political marker from liberty to security. Thus, we see the Democrat party constantly lobbying to protect the individual from perceived slights, and injuries, for example, work regulations, welfare, Social Security, Obamacare. The fact that these all came into existence after women achieved suffrage is not a coincidence.
The Republican's used to be the counterpoint, the party of liberty seeking reduced regulation, reform Social Security, and the welfare state primarily as a personal safety net.
And so, with the European Queen's we see an increased bellicosity. While we might presume Democrats would be the party of peace, that has not been the case. The four great US wars of the last century were started under Democrat Presidents, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and either Kennedy, or more accurately Johnson. Since there appears to be little difference between party affiliation. Clinton was bellicose in Southern Europe, Middle/Near East, and North Africa, Bush Middle/Near East, North Africa, and Obama essential the same but with a far greater number of nations involved.
"Interestingly, 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."
Interesting theory, but I am not sold. This looks more like a continuation of the feminine roll from the male/female arena to the political. This would also make more sense. It is how women act, not something created across a continent by the fortuitous fact that all of these Queens used the same bureaucratic style. The problem with intellectuals is they believe they need to over think every problem, because the straightforward solution cannot be the correct solution. Dude? Ockham's Razor. It's not just a good idea, it a law, heh!
The authors nicely make my argument here: "The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with 13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack."
Gee, married Queen's attack more than unmarried, just as married women start more fights with their husbands. Who would have guessed? Every time I read one of these papers, I come away with the deepened understanding that the division of labor both benefits and hurts the intellectuals writing these papers. While they have the time to perform esoteric, and often ludicrous research, they no longer have the life experiences to adequately interpret the data they obtain.
Women are the amoral element because their moral position, and how they act, is a dependent clause, a clause dependent upon their position. Men are the moral agent because their moral position is an independent clause. Their moral position, and how they act is not dependent on their position, they achieve, and maintain their moral position, and how they act independently of their position. In other words, the feminine lives in a world of situational morality, while the masculine lives in a world of absolute morality.