Study Finds Queens Were Much More Willing to Wage Wars Than Kings

a reply to: Nyiah

Maybe if you're a weak-spined little twat...

Really? "Weak-spined little twat." Isn't that special... or something.

...that doesn't need to be given responsibilities of adulthood yet.

Yeah. That's it. Riiiiiiight

Others [SNIP] read the OP and go "Huh, that actually makes sense, neat."

Which part(s) made "sense" exactly? The excerpts quoted which offered several and varied reasons for why queens were disproportionately "waging" wars? Such as, for example, the fact that the queens were not necessarily the aggressors? That they may have been forced to defend their people from a higher rate of attacks from kings? Of course not.

Or just every part written by the OP that assigned/assumed the worst motivations on the part of the queens? Such as wanting to be rid of her husband... or that they are necessarily the aggressors? Much the same way you assigned/assumed the worst about a woman pointing it out? And then using a vulgar and misogynistic slur to make your point???

You sure made your point. And it's absolutely vile. Shame on you.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Nyiah

Maybe if you're a weak-spined little twat...

Really? "Weak-spined little twat." Isn't that special... or something.

...that doesn't need to be given responsibilities of adulthood yet.

Yeah. That's it. Riiiiiiight

Others [SNIP] read the OP and go "Huh, that actually makes sense, neat."

Which part(s) made "sense" exactly? The excerpts quoted which offered several and varied reasons for why queens were disproportionately "waging" wars? Such as, for example, the fact that the queens were not necessarily the aggressors? That they may have been forced to defend their people from a higher rate of attacks from kings? Of course not.

Or just every part written by the OP that assigned/assumed the worst motivations on the part of the queens? Such as wanting to be rid of her husband... or that they are necessarily the aggressors? Much the same way you assigned/assumed the worst about a woman pointing it out? And then using a vulgar and misogynistic slur to make your point???

You sure made your point. And it's absolutely vile. Shame on you.

Oh give me a break. Nothing in the OP was disparaging, nor anything in the article. Which you'd damn well know if you ACTUALLY read it instead of going off on your auto-tangent again. It gave valid reasons for ruthless queens being ruthless to begin with. Ruthlessness does not depend on who started what, it is what is done during the campaigns that defines ruthlessness.
"Oh husband of mine, we're going to raze this opposing area to the ground and you're going to lead the charge in. You're the consort, you don't get to argue, either. Do as I say."
"I own this land, and I'm going to expand how much I hold. We're taking that kingdom from the next guy, like it or not."
"Hmm, that fool seems to think he can acquire my kingdom. I think not, let's make him regret it, kill everything."
How, in your twisted, frothing feminist mind, is THAT portraying them poorly? That's someone with all the power doling out the tactical orders, and the less powerful spouse complying, the unmarried queen in power getting the territory she wants, defending her lands, etc.

When you & others of your "everything's out to get women" mindset act like level-headed adults and not a petulant children dressed up as feminist knee-jerk armchair warriors with a perpetual axe to grind, then I'll treat & regard you lot like adults. A good place to start would be clamming it & absorbing the information, instead of making assumptions and being dishonest about the content presented.

I reserve the right to point out wet-noodle spines when they appear. This was a poor try at claiming misogyny, because there was none. And I also reserve the right to drop whatever "misogynist" insult I deem apropos. "Dick" would also have been sufficient, but I bet you'd whine about that, too, seeing as how you'd argue linking women and male genitalia insults is SOOOO against the wimminz, too.

I'm so sick and tired of every single thing that has anything at ALL to do with women in any capacity being a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for whoever posts it. Go make sammiches and babies, gawd.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: 727Sky

Not triggered, as I said I couldn't care less but if you'd be female and read the shiite that is often written on ATS you may become 'specialised' to notice these things. The same way you can tell racist threads even if OP states clearly that they aren't.

Maybe if you're a weak-spined little twat that doesn't need to be given responsibilities of adulthood yet. Others with a solid head on our shoulders and no victim complex read the OP and go "Huh, that actually makes sense, neat."

Truth is subjective on the ‘solid head’ remark. Honestly with the OP literally starting like this...

I guess the next time you hear someone say if women were running things there would be peace and happiness throughout the world. When you hear that refer back to this linked article.

... it does have a hint of misogyny to it.

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: 727Sky

Not triggered, as I said I couldn't care less but if you'd be female and read the shiite that is often written on ATS you may become 'specialised' to notice these things. The same way you can tell racist threads even if OP states clearly that they aren't.

Maybe if you're a weak-spined little twat that doesn't need to be given responsibilities of adulthood yet. Others with a solid head on our shoulders and no victim complex read the OP and go "Huh, that actually makes sense, neat."

Truth is subjective on the ‘solid head’ remark. Honestly with the OP literally starting like this...

I guess the next time you hear someone say if women were running things there would be peace and happiness throughout the world. When you hear that refer back to this linked article.

... it does have a hint of misogyny to it.

Not really, it's simply blunt. Many people, mostly women, have made the claim that if the world was matriarchal instead of patriarchal, that it would be a more peaceful and less violent place. Halfoldman gave two very good examples from more recent African history that showed no, it wouldn't be, they slaughtered just as willingly as men do. Catherine The Great did a particularly good job of it, as well.

I think trying to say that's offensive or denigrating or whatever is just trying to find something to wave a victim card over. Victim cards over pointing out a fallacy are unbecoming, and don't do anyone any favors anyway.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

that is grace omalley to a tee who is regarded as the pirate queen who interacted with queen Elizabeth (she demanded an audience and talked smack to arguably the most powerfull female on the planet at the time)

While ruling an empire of Viking Highlander Pirates is sweet and all, O'Malley was a tough lady herself as well, more than happy to wade into combat herself, and this was definitely not the sort of chick you wanted to cross swords with on the smoke-swept deck of a burning merchantman. One story claims that she gave birth to her third child on the high seas during a trading expedition to the Mediterranean. As she was popping the kid out, word came down that the vessel was under attack by Turkish pirates, so she finished giving birth, grabbed her gun, then immediately ran out to bust caps in pirates and command the defense of her ship. Another time one of her boyfriends was captured and executed by a rival clan, so she waited until the leaders of the Clan landed on an island for vacation, attacked the island, burned their ships, and killed everyone she could find. After wiping out the leadership of the Clan, she then led her soldiers to assault the Clan fortress, capturing it and reappropriating it for her own use. On yet another occasion a local English Earl refused to let Grace in when she stopped by for dinner, so she kidnapped the Earl's son and held him for ransom, only returning him when the Earl decided he'd cook her some bacon and leave an extra place setting out for the rest of his life, just in case she ever decided to show up again (this is a tradition that the family maintains to this day). As a pretty bitchin' side note, when the Spanish Armada came to attack England in 1588, one of the warships of the Armada got lost in a storm and ended up getting stuck in waters controlled by the Sea Queen of Connaught. Grace O'Malley personally led the attack that captured the war galleon. She was 50 years old at the time.

she was quite the trope buster in her day and is one of the few undefeated pirates in antiquity web.archive.org...://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=329819625394 edit to add source for snippets cant believe i forgot to add this

The English would have their revenge, however. In 1593, the man who had sent the attacking force – the English Governor of Connaught – led a raid that captured Grace's brother and sons, and he held them for ransom in his prison, demanding that Grace surrender herself. Grace responded by traveling to #ing London and requesting an audience with another tough-ass British woman ruler with an affinity for high seas privateering – Queen Elizabeth of England. O'Malley brought a dagger with her into the royal chamber (it was confiscated), accidentally offended a courtier by throwing his handkerchief into a fireplace, and spoke Latin to the Queen because she didn't want to speak English to her. Despite being a Pirate Queen talking to an Actual Queen, Grace refused to bow, stood tall, and demanded the release of her family. Elizabeth, who was a reasonable enough woman when it came to s*it like this, agreed to fire the jackass Governor, recall him to England, and release the prisoners of O'Malley agreed to stop destabilizing the countryside and supporting the rebellions of petty Irish nobles. That was cool with Grace, and the deal was done. That's one way to get rid of your enemies. Grace O'Malley dominated the shipping lanes and accumulated tons of wealth during her lifetime. She was never conquered, never defeated, and died an old woman living in a giant #ing castle on top of piles of gold coins and 25 year-old studs with rock-hard abs. Her son went on to be the Viscount of Mayo, which sounds like a cartoon character for a fast-food restaurant, and nowadays she's memorialized in plenty of Irish folks songs. I guess she's notable because Joyce wrote about her in Finnegan's Wake, but nobody ever knows what the f*ck Joyce is ever talking about so it's barely worth mentioning.

asterisks added to comply with t and c but to any one thinking ancient women were meek or weak sure didnt take the irish or vikings into account ,and as her famous pirating started by some one offing her mate woman scorned indeed fits the trope pretty well as pretty much every one that screwed with her did not have a fun existence

edit to add links web.archive.org...://www.badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?search=1&tag=Women this covers all the females the guy has done articles on ,used archive link as his old site crashed and the new one isnt updated yet

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Sheye

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: 727Sky

Not triggered, as I said I couldn't care less but if you'd be female and read the shiite that is often written on ATS you may become 'specialised' to notice these things. The same way you can tell racist threads even if OP states clearly that they aren't.

Maybe if you're a weak-spined little twat that doesn't need to be given responsibilities of adulthood yet. Others with a solid head on our shoulders and no victim complex read the OP and go "Huh, that actually makes sense, neat."

Truth is subjective on the ‘solid head’ remark. Honestly with the OP literally starting like this...

I guess the next time you hear someone say if women were running things there would be peace and happiness throughout the world. When you hear that refer back to this linked article.

... it does have a hint of misogyny to it.

Not really, it's simply blunt. Many people, mostly women, have made the claim that if the world was matriarchal instead of patriarchal, that it would be a more peaceful and less violent place. Halfoldman gave two very good examples from more recent African history that showed no, it wouldn't be, they slaughtered just as willingly as men do. Catherine The Great did a particularly good job of it, as well.

I think trying to say that's offensive or denigrating or whatever is just trying to find something to wave a victim card over. Victim cards over pointing out a fallacy are unbecoming, and don't do anyone any favors anyway.

First off I’m not entirely sure that it’s the majority of women who say the world would be a better place if it were more matriarchal. Personally I’ve only heard that twice and both times it was from men.

It seems like you have an issue with women who stand up for other women, Nyiah. Not sure what that is all about , but let it go. You’re not scoring any points with the men despite what you may think. 😏

I'll just be over here, making my own sammich..

a reply to: Sheye

Not sure it's that so much as annoyance at the idea that this article is motivated by woman hatred. Guess what? I explained how it makes sense and last time I pooped ... it stank.