THAT men make more aggressive rulers has been a frequent claim of feminists. Here is a study that suggests otherwise:

A working paper by political scientists Oeindrila Dube, of the University of Chicago, and S. P. Harish, of McGill University, analyzed a selection of mostly 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 waring 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 team of researchers 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 and were attacked more often. Co-author Oeindrila Dube told The Times that there’s this general 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”.

[Read more]

Is it possible that queens have resorted to military aggression more often in an effort to make up for the natural authority they lacked by virtue of being female? It’s an interesting question.

Please follow and like us: