Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Women Wage More War than Men

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 7:52:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
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?

After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it"s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, 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.

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. 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."

Here"s Dube and Harish with more on that:

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.

This asymmetry in spousal division of labor emerged in several realms. Since women didn't serve as heads of militaries, queens would often appoint their husbands to this role, though kings of course, did not do the same with their wives.. As an example, when Queen Dona Maria II of Portugal married Prince Augustus Francis Anthony in 1836, their marriage contract stated that he would serve as commander in chief of the army.

And when husbands of queens managed state affairs, the success of the country was strong. The authors point to Francis Stephen, who revamped the Austrian economic system while his wife, Queen Maria Theresa, used that cash to bolster the army. "Spousal support," in other words, was a win-win for these royal couples, allowing queens to not only be more invested but also more successful than their peers who acted alone. (Modern couples, take note.) That doesn't mean that queens and kings always agreed " qualitative data suggests that, in fact, queens and kings often disagreed, and virulently, with some queens marching onto the battlefield without their spouse"s approval. And a few kings weren't too happy with being "king-consort," bickering with their wives over the title.

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.

But 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. But here are a few more relevant commonalities of queenly reigns: Queens didn't tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.

It"s just a working paper, which means that Dube and Harish may uncover more as they continue to research this subject. But so far their findings have already begun to poke a few holes in some commonly held assumptions.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Foodiesoul
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2016 9:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/18/2016 7:52:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
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?

After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it"s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, 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.

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. 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."

Here"s Dube and Harish with more on that:

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.

This asymmetry in spousal division of labor emerged in several realms. Since women didn't serve as heads of militaries, queens would often appoint their husbands to this role, though kings of course, did not do the same with their wives.. As an example, when Queen Dona Maria II of Portugal married Prince Augustus Francis Anthony in 1836, their marriage contract stated that he would serve as commander in chief of the army.

And when husbands of queens managed state affairs, the success of the country was strong. The authors point to Francis Stephen, who revamped the Austrian economic system while his wife, Queen Maria Theresa, used that cash to bolster the army. "Spousal support," in other words, was a win-win for these royal couples, allowing queens to not only be more invested but also more successful than their peers who acted alone. (Modern couples, take note.) That doesn't mean that queens and kings always agreed " qualitative data suggests that, in fact, queens and kings often disagreed, and virulently, with some queens marching onto the battlefield without their spouse"s approval. And a few kings weren't too happy with being "king-consort," bickering with their wives over the title.

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.

But 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. But here are a few more relevant commonalities of queenly reigns: Queens didn't tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.

It"s just a working paper, which means that Dube and Harish may uncover more as they continue to research this subject. But so far their findings have already begun to poke a few holes in some commonly held assumptions.

Well then, whoever says that female leaders are better than men or that male leaders are better tan women is stupid and sexist!

There are/were tons of terrible female leaders and tons of good female leaders and there are/were tons of terrible male leaders and tons of good male leaders!

It really just depends on the individual, NOT their gender!
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 4:43:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/20/2016 9:26:11 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
At 7/18/2016 7:52:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
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?

After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it"s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, 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.

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. 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."

Here"s Dube and Harish with more on that:

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.

This asymmetry in spousal division of labor emerged in several realms. Since women didn't serve as heads of militaries, queens would often appoint their husbands to this role, though kings of course, did not do the same with their wives.. As an example, when Queen Dona Maria II of Portugal married Prince Augustus Francis Anthony in 1836, their marriage contract stated that he would serve as commander in chief of the army.

And when husbands of queens managed state affairs, the success of the country was strong. The authors point to Francis Stephen, who revamped the Austrian economic system while his wife, Queen Maria Theresa, used that cash to bolster the army. "Spousal support," in other words, was a win-win for these royal couples, allowing queens to not only be more invested but also more successful than their peers who acted alone. (Modern couples, take note.) That doesn't mean that queens and kings always agreed " qualitative data suggests that, in fact, queens and kings often disagreed, and virulently, with some queens marching onto the battlefield without their spouse"s approval. And a few kings weren't too happy with being "king-consort," bickering with their wives over the title.

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.

But 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. But here are a few more relevant commonalities of queenly reigns: Queens didn't tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.

It"s just a working paper, which means that Dube and Harish may uncover more as they continue to research this subject. But so far their findings have already begun to poke a few holes in some commonly held assumptions.

Well then, whoever says that female leaders are better than men or that male leaders are better tan women is stupid and sexist!

No one says that


There are/were tons of terrible female leaders and tons of good female leaders and there are/were tons of terrible male leaders and tons of good male leaders!

It really just depends on the individual, NOT their gender!
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 10:25:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 4:43:19 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
No one says that

You'd be surprised.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 7:32:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 7/18/2016 7:52:44 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:

In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913

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.

If almost half of the cases used in the study were cases where queens were more likely to be attacked by other nations, that doesnt really qualify as women 'waging war' like the title of the thread suggests, since the women in power are having war being thrusted onto their countries, not them going out starting wars with other nations...... If a particular type of car for some reason is on the receiving end of traffic accidents more then a different type of car, that doesnt mean that the first car causes more accidents, it just means it ends up in more accidents, which is an important distinction.

The other chunk of the article regarding division of labor also only suggests that nations that have monarchs who delegate more responsibilities of internal management to others (so that they focus more on foreign policy and military upkeep) means nations fight more wars when the job of the top executive revolves around foreign policy, not if the top executive is simply a woman...... If you looked at male monarchs who focused their efforts on foreign policy and affairs and delegated internal issues elsewhere, it would be reasonable to conclude that those types of monarchs would also wage war more then other monarchs who tried to control everything.

TLDR: The study doesnt suggest women wage war more than men like the title of the thread suggests.... The study suggests that women are more likely to have wars declared against their countries if they are unmarried, and that monarchs who focus on foreign affairs and foreign policy are more likely to wage war then monarchs who split time equally between internal and foreign affairs. Its not just a sex/gender issue
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 5:06:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Frankly, I think the sample size is too small, to geographically confined, and too temporally confined. How were those 28 Queenly reigns selected? Where were they? Were the Queens the aggressors in those conflicts?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2016 8:48:27 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
http://xkcd.com...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 1:58:37 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 1:42:59 AM, Hayd wrote:
Argghhh, I hate women!!!

*adjusts problem glasses* you need to check you cis-het-white-male privilege, young man.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 6:55:46 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/15/2016 8:48:27 AM, tejretics wrote:
http://xkcd.com...

Lol... that's funny - I think it's the third time I've seen the strip in the past couple of months, but it's an old strip lol.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...