Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bad girls'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Topics By Category
    • Current Events
    • Social Issues
    • Politics
    • Peace & Conflict
    • Science & Technology

Categories

  • Articles
    • Forum Integration
    • Frontpage
  • Pages
  • Miscellaneous
    • Databases
    • Templates
    • Media

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 1 result

  1. Chicks in power like going to war more than blokes Adam Creighton Economics Correspondent The Australian Perhaps we’re lucky the Queen is only a constitutional monarch. The idea female leaders are less pugnacious then men has taken a battering from a new statistical analysis of European kings, queens and wars over the 500 years to 1913. The 29 queens, who made up a fifth of the 193 separate reigns in 18 countries, were 27% more likely to engage in war than their male counterparts, according to research from the University of Chicago. “These estimates are economically important, representing a doubling over average war participation,” two political economists said of their research. “Queens were also more likely to gain territory over the course of their reigns,” they found, in a study released by the US National Bureau of Economic Research this week. Latter day feisty female leaders such as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and India’s Indira Gandhi — 20th-century leaders who fought Argentina and Pakistan respectively — didn't mind bunging it on either. “A common perspective posits that women are less violent than men, and therefore states led by women will be more peaceful than states led by men,” the study said, pointing to other studies that suggested female voters were less supportive of using military force. “Among married monarchs, queens were more likely than kings to fight as aggressors,” they said, suggesting women had greater scope to form military alliances with spouses than men did. Unmarried queens, such as Elizabeth I, who had to fend off a Spanish Armada, were attacked more, though. One theory is they needed to fight to send a message that they were tough. These were sexist times. Frederick the Great, Prussia’s flamboyant 18th-century leader, declared “No woman should ever govern anything” and invaded Austria a month after Empress Maria Theresa took the throne in 1745. Queen Ulrika Eleanora of Sweden simply declared in 1719 that women were unfit to rule and abdicated. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7MvN7f3B5r8J:www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/stats-show-queens-much-more-warlike-than-kings/news-story/7db0895d52a904a91c36bfd5bf412d7b+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au alleged research: http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Queens_Oct2015.pdf
×