Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'roosters'.
Found 2 results
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
Getting ready to rumble has never taken so long. On Sunday (AEST) at 2pm, they step into the Las Vegas ring in a hugely anticipated event. Mayweather's never lost a boxing match, his record stands at 49 wins. This would make 50 and he can retire, pick up $400 million plus his share of pay-per-view entitlements and walk off into the sunset undefeated. McGregor's the pride of the Irish in the MMA/UFC and is not a boxer but can throw punches. He'll pick up $100 million if he wins and worry the "boxing circus" about their so-called integrity. The trash-talk has been cruel, racist, homophobic and targeted. The barmaids in the local Irish Cock 'n' Bull pub told me they've employed 20 bouncers for the day as that pub calls itself McGregor Central. The barmaids themselves hope McGregor wins. I helpfully suggested they call in sick because if Mayweather wins under a controversy cloud, expect localised ugly rioting, and if McGregor wins expect normal Sunday trading unruliness x 100. Should be good either way. I'd like Mary McGregor to win but he's at $4.50 with Mayweather the firm favourite at $1.23. The ref being punched by either is at $50s. McGregor losing points for throwing a kick: $7.50