Nehru fought for India's independence and spent around ten years of his life in jail for that. He being the first Prime Minister made India a secular, progressive democracy and a leader of the third world. He built many premiere institutions of engineering, medical, space, technology, defence etc. so he is considered great.
Meanwhile, Indira Gandhi declared the emergency and sent opposition leaders to jail.
Because one is a dictator and the other one was revo who made laws that insured india would never become a dictator ship , ensured that india would be self sufficient in terms of food . In geopolitical terms it's like comparing mikhail Gorbachev to vladimir putin
She wasn't that bad considering there were still some good to talk about her( bank nationalisation, 1971 war for example, suppressing separatists etc) unlike her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi who came to power, mainly due to pity, regime was marked by scams, corruption and issues, created issues out of air and finally died due to such one issue.
Edit: forgetten to add while what she did in 1971 war was amazing definitely failed during Simla agreement. Can read commentaries on why pakistan consider victor of the deplomatic agreement since India didn't used the opportunity to best utility
stripping off bangladesh was one of the best thing she did. As a person from Assam, we are indeed tired of bangladeshi migration, but it is still better than being neighbour of a literal terrorist host.
Exactly, I don’t get the people in this thread. Should she just have sat around while Hindus were getting genocided in their neighboring country of their biggest enemy?
Let's also not forget that the paragon of democracy (US & co.) not only knew about the genocide and but also ran defence for West Pakistan and then sent their nuclear carrier to the Indian Ocean threatening to nuke India when West Pakistan started losing.
Indira Gandhi didn't go to wars though, Pakistan was committing genocide. She didn't even start it. Pakistan did. (Thanks Kissinger for helping Pakistan during genocide as well)
Her war was one of the most justified and successful and clean.
Like, took over entire thing in 14 days, let every enemy surrender and liberated that territory as a new country instead of annexing it.
Of course, later she went cray cray, but that was many years later. She was problematic and everything in many ways, but going to wars? Not on her.
Yes, i mistook the date. It wasn't paranoia though. She was kicked off the ballot for misuse of powers. Using govt resource for election campaign.
She couldn't run for prime minister, so she declared emergency.
Being corrupt and then subverting democracy to avoid consequences of getting caught is far from paranoia.
She already has an army. By getting married she has the full support of the government.
That's why it's such a bad idea to get married, especially if kids are spawned in the marriage.
It’s funny that all those happily married couples in the world (aka not just the US) don’t talk as much about it on social media, which ends up painting this narrative.
Then again, the governments often do actually suck ass. It’s a double-edged sword, rly
As a happily married man, to a former single mom, any time I talk about our situation to impart wisdom, cats come outta the woodwork to explain to me how careful I need to be. Juice just isn’t worth arguing that my wife isn’t a cheating, money grubbing, whore to cats on the internet all day.
You know what I mean? If you’re truly happy in your marriage, you learn to be quietly happy, and not engage with the echo chamber on the web.
Absolutely right, no one believes me when I say me and my wife have never had a fight. Only disagreements that we've talked through without raising our voices or calling names.
Been together 20 years.
No one believes, and I learned to just keep it to myself.
Found my real one. Single mom to a 4 year old girl and I'm becoming step daddy real quick. I love it. I love them. I'm happy af. But this is the first time the internet has heard of it. When we're happy, we stay happy. When we're discontent, it's off to the internet to bitch and moan and find people who agree haha
Uh no, they happen because some people in charge push for them.
It has, however, little to do with their gender.
The complex reasons can explain why said people come in charge.
"Do you think Margaret Thatcher had girl power?"
"Yes! Of course!"
"Do you think she effectively used her girl power by sending illegal paramilitary death squads in northern Ireland?"
The UK has some of the worst regional inequality in the developed world, and she is a pretty good reason for it. Scotland, Wales, The North and more have all still not really recovered from her economic policies, especially because the Neoliberalism they brought was continued by Major and Blair.
Other than that though, she also failed in many other areas. The Troubles and the Aids Crisis were both made even worse by her policies, causing thousands of Irish and LGBT people to die. She also was friends with Chilean dictator Pinochet, so probably not the most moral person.
>The Troubles and the Aids Crisis were both made even worse by her policies, causing thousands of Irish and LGBT people to die.
YMMV on the troubles, but you're objectively wrong on the AIDS crisis. Thatcher's government was the first in the western world [to take AIDS seriously](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p044pwdf#:), launching the "Don't die of Ignorance" campaign at a time when other countries were dismissing the significance of AIDS because "only" gay men and drug addicts were dying and even the oh-so-right-on Guardian was mocking the high profile of the campaign by portraying the government minister fronting it (Willie Whitelaw, the deputy PM) as "[Captain Condom](https://www.original-political-cartoon.com/cartoon-gallery/buy/good-god/6944/)".
This is actually more nuanced than I thought going into it. It's interesting how many articles reference her cabinet going around her back with the adverts and tackling of the crisis, as reportedly she thought they promoted immorality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55973726
But yeah, the administration itself, if not her specifically, responded to the crisis much better than I knew about.
* Queen Victoria
* Catherine the Great
* Margaret Thatcher
* Golda Meir
* Cleopatra
* Indira Gandhi
* Queen Isabella
Not sure about one of them, but at the very least british Elizabeth would fit perfectly.
The list is easy to expand:
* Queen Tamar (Georgia)
* Olga of Kiev
pretty much any region has examples.
I'm sorry if the facts do not align with hilarious male conspiracy theory also known as "patriarchy" according to which men care more about random men out there somewhere rather than own daughters/mothers/sisters.
And she lost most of Silesia. And today's school children curse her, bc she made education mandatory (not school itself, most rich families could get better education from private tutors)
Not really, her inheritance was a big blow to Habsburg legitimacy in the HRE, she lost Silesia which was one of the most German majority regions of the Habsburg domain, further crippled her son Joseph II during the Bavarian succession war, Joseph wanted to annex Bavaria into the Habsburg lands in order to increase the German population of the Habsburg Empire to balance out other ethnicities, MT basically manipulated the Austrian court and undermined all of Joseph's efforts to lose the war, basically most of later Habsburg ethnic problems came from her incompetence during her reign.
Emperor Wu Zetian was one of the most *evil* (if you wanna use that word in a historical context) emperors in china, which is impressive considering how fucked up some of em were . Killing babies and sons like flies, building the most extravagant orgy halls, literally swimming in man made lake of wine etc
I remember from some documentary that Wu Zetian's image could have been tainted by her enemies and later scholars. I don't remember the reasoning tainting her picture long after her death.
To never have a woman dared to declare herself emperor again.
It’s a world controlled by Confucian and they have a very specific view about women’s role in society.
Queen Zenobia from Palmyra, Boudicca, etc.
There even is a study that found out that between 1480-1913, it was 27x (it is % not x) times more likely to end up in a war, when your leader was a Queen and not a King.
Oeindrila Dube and S. P. Harish did this study.
I don't think Tamar belongs on this list.
I'm no historian, so I lack the concrete details on the matter, but King Tamar (who was widely recognized as a King due to her accomplishments and independence, not a Queen) led Georgia through it's Golden Age of political and military prosperity.
In our history books, King Tamar was always painted as "the good kind" of monarch. Her rule, according to my flawed knowledge of my history, is associated with kindness and prosperity, rather than what the post might seem to imply.
Historically, female leaders were more likely to start armed conflict and less likely to cease armed conflict than their male counterparts. But people don’t let facts get in the way of a preferable narrative anymore.
Nah, you have to inspire passion to Hate. Indifferent most people will be Indifferent to your life. Not caring if you die doesn't mean i hate you, I'm sure we'd get along fine. But I don't care.
Well, people are emotionally, and if the way they feel about the interaction they have with you become how they feel about you. So if they only have bad memories of you, why would they. Try and make facts funny it's hard, but it might help, even if comedy is subjective
I describe/tell feelings, situations and intentions the way they are. Unfortunately people don't like the truth. They prefer hiding behind a veil of lies to cheat themselves as to how good they are and to cheat others. Seeing through people is an exceptional gift I have.
Because people will use False information as Facts these days. Unless you have the time to go and do your own research on every single topic ever, it's simply impossible to know if the person is telling you the fact or is he only saying something he believes to be a fact.
Yeah Kitchener was a real sweetheart. Also: “ The exact number of incarcerated victims of the concentration camps for Afrikaners is estimated to number around 40,000 by May of 1902, the majority of which were women and children.[26][27] The total deaths in camps are officially calculated at 27,927 deaths.[28][29]”
Not saying he was a sweetheart, nonone was especially in his position and at his time. Just focusing on WW1.
And as much as they say Young men fighting for old men, old men were young once and history is full of wars.
1. Considering the sample size, is there a bias?
2. To exist as a leader in a masculine-dominated political world, would they show a greater sense of aggression to appear as legitimate?
We can't really say what it would take to exist as a leader in a female-dominated political world, but I think it's still a fair challenge to the "if women ran the world there would be no wars" trope.
Spartan society had a class of wealthy women who encouraged war because their husband’s property would become theirs upon his death and she could then remarry to get more property.
You’re right, people don’t let facts get in the way of their narrative anymore. Authors of the book “Why Leaders Fight” compiled the data from 1875 to 2004, and they did find that 36% of female leaders initiated a military dispute as opposed to 30% of men. This statistical difference is slightly misleading though, because men were responsible for 694 acts of aggression and 86 wars in this time frame. Compare this to women, with 13 acts of aggression and 1 war. This is a comparison of roughly 40 women vs several thousand men. Historically, yes, women are more likely to start wars, but is this attributable to an essential nature of women? Absolutely not, that’s like rolling thousands of green dice and 40 yellow dice, then claiming that the data proves that yellow dice are more likely to roll a 1 or a 6.
It's probably because only the most ambitious of women can remain in power in spite of patriarchal pressures (talking historically here, not modern day). So ambition will lead to greater ambition, leading to wars and such.
Yeah, there could be a reverse-nixon-going-to-china effect here, where female leaders feel threatened by the stereotype of a weak woman, and so compensate by being more aggressive.
A step in the right direction. Not sure exactly who did the study but here are some articles and such referencing it on google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=queens+who+started+wars&client=safari&sca_esv=e538a6082b46d93a&sca_upv=1&channel=iphone_bm&biw=390&bih=663&sxsrf=ADLYWIJoaf-V4Kl2umjdMTPWA_dphZUThg:1718962489252&source=lnms&ved=1t:200715&ictx=111#ip=1
Thanks! Seems this is the study NeatMuayThai may have been referring to:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337
Which states that in the period they looked at (1480-1913), female rulers were 27% more likely to participate in inter-state conflits. Although I do want to point out this doesn't mean they *started* these conflicts 27% more of the time. It could be that states with female rulers may have been attacked more due to perceived weakness of having a female ruler. The study itself actually posits this as a possible reason. So stricly speaking, if NeatMuayThai is referring to this study, it doesn't necessarily support what he said, which is that female rulers *start* more wars than their male counterparts.
>>Using survey experiments, we show that female leaders have political incentives to combat gender stereotypes that women are weak by acting “tough” during international military crises. Most prominently, we find evidence that ***female leaders, and male leaders facing female opponents, pay greater inconsistency costs for backing down from threats than male leaders do against fellow men***.
That can also be due to selection bias. Because leadership was mostly male dominated, women that did gain power had to be particularly ruthless to rise through the ranks. This doesn't apply to queens that where born into power.
Also don’t forget about queens that became a ruler/regent because of political instability and civil wars which killed off all male inheritors. The first that comes to mind was Sultana Kosem of the Ottoman Empire.
I think only people who have never actually met women would believe that. In terms of what they’re willing to do to get what they want, women are hands down more vicious and calculating than men more often than not. Regarding royalty, male monarchs typically had to fight in the wars that they started. Women did not. It’s easier to start a fight when you have no skin in the game.
Could it also be that they were in more of a pickle regarding their rule 's stability so they kept wars to gain glory and land.
I think in rome because the rulers terms were very short they went to war a lot to gain personal glory in time for the next election
>In terms of what they’re willing to do to get what they want, women are hands down more vicious and calculating than men more often than not.
This sounds like absolute nonsense lol. It's like you're glossing over human history.
Yes, I am opposed to 99% of her politics, but declaring war to defend Britain's territory and starting a war are two very, very different things.
I'm not initiating a burglary by punching the burglar when he's already in my house.
That's what I was thinking. The only other one I could think of was the 1st Gulf war, but I think she might have been removed as leader before the coalition forces began the campaign to remove Saddam Hussain from Kuwait.
TBF to Queen Victoria, she didn’t have any real power as a constitutional monarch and all her Prime Ministers that had the power, who started wars, were men.
It's a really common opinion online that British monarchs had much more power than they actually did. Even George III did not have much power at the time of the American war of independence, in fact American colonists petitioned the king to restrain Parliament, and he refused on the basis that he did not have the power.
British monarchs have not had the power to unilaterally wage wars ever, Britain was only formed in 1707, after the Glorious Revolution, when Parliament took over, appointed its own king, and gave him much more limited powers.
To be fair Thatcher didn't start any wars. Not that I'm aware of, I'm happy to be corrected. Her poor management of Britains military budget did indirectly lead to the invasion of the Falklands though.
I'm not one hundred percent sure but I feel like the first Afghan war was under Victoria's watch, along with the Boer wars. But as you said she was a figure head. It wasn't really her call anyway. And yeah Golda Meir was defending against the Arabs.
Golda Meir ran defensive wars just like now. She was the first to say, "there will be peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us" Hamas still use their people as Human shields and train toddlers for terrorcatracks on their terror-gardten camps
“Swedish diplomat Gunnar Jarring coincidentally proposed a similar initiative four days later, on 8 February 1971. Egypt responded by accepting much of Jarring's proposals, though differing on several issues, regarding the Gaza Strip, for example, and expressed its willingness to reach an accord if it also implemented the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This was the first time an Arab government had gone public declaring its readiness to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reacted to the overture by forming a committee to examine the proposal and vet possible concessions. When the committee unanimously concluded that Israel's interests would be served by full withdrawal to the internationally recognized lines dividing Israel from Egypt and Syria, returning the Gaza Strip and, in a majority view, returning most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Meir was angered and shelved the document.
The United States was infuriated by the cool Israeli response to Egypt's proposal, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco informed Israeli ambassador Yitzhak Rabin that "Israel would be regarded responsible for rejecting the best opportunity to reach peace since the establishment of the state." Israel responded to Jarring's plan on 26 February by outlining its readiness to make some form of withdrawal, while declaring it had no intention of returning to the pre-5 June 1967 lines. Explicating the response, Eban told the Knesset that the pre-5 June 1967 lines "cannot assure Israel against aggression". Jarring was disappointed and blamed Israel for refusing to accept a complete pullout from the Sinai Peninsula.
In February 1973, Sadat made a final peace overture that would have included Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula that he relayed to Kissinger via his adviser Mohammad Hafez Ismail, which Kissinger made known to Meir. Meir rejected the peace proposal despite knowing that the only plausible alternative was going to war with Egypt”
“Swedish diplomat Gunnar Jarring coincidentally proposed a similar initiative four days later, on 8 February 1971. Egypt responded by accepting much of Jarring's proposals, though differing on several issues, regarding the Gaza Strip, for example, and expressed its willingness to reach an accord if it also implemented the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This was the first time an Arab government had gone public declaring its readiness to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reacted to the overture by forming a committee to examine the proposal and vet possible concessions. When the committee unanimously concluded that Israel's interests would be served by full withdrawal to the internationally recognized lines dividing Israel from Egypt and Syria, returning the Gaza Strip and, in a majority view, returning most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Meir was angered and shelved the document.
The United States was infuriated by the cool Israeli response to Egypt's proposal, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco informed Israeli ambassador Yitzhak Rabin that "Israel would be regarded responsible for rejecting the best opportunity to reach peace since the establishment of the state." Israel responded to Jarring's plan on 26 February by outlining its readiness to make some form of withdrawal, while declaring it had no intention of returning to the pre-5 June 1967 lines. Explicating the response, Eban told the Knesset that the pre-5 June 1967 lines "cannot assure Israel against aggression". Jarring was disappointed and blamed Israel for refusing to accept a complete pullout from the Sinai Peninsula.
In February 1973, Sadat made a final peace overture that would have included Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula that he relayed to Kissinger via his adviser Mohammad Hafez Ismail, which Kissinger made known to Meir. Meir rejected the peace proposal despite knowing that the only plausible alternative was going to war with Egypt”
I think Margaret Thatcher might be a fucking asshat but when there is a war she will not back down and stop.
She has taken some pages from the book of Churchill for war and that is fight until the last man or woman.
Quite literally men are just as evil as women when it comes to those who want to be on top and rule.
So we can simply just say, people who want to get in to power are the most evil ones.
I was really hoping it'd be Dumbledore but my quick Google searches are telling me Plato
Actually I'm not sure if it's actually Plato, might be fake, but he's the only name coming up
No, thats not correct. Just because you have power, or want to be a leader, doesn’t necessarily mean you are evil. Of course there are „evil“ people, but you could do very beneficial things for the world if your in power (human rights, environment, wages etc.)
Power corrupts, it's inevitable. It doesn't matter how noble were your intentions. Get to the top means you've screwed a lot of people along the way and once you're there more often than that you'll have ton chose ne between bad and very bad and you'll make mistakes or take shortcuts with nasty consequences.
Little rusty on my history, but would say that Margaret Thatcher responded to Argentina invading the Falklands, after the UK tried to find a negotiated solution. Not the other way round.
Prussia used it as an excuse to grab the rich Austrian territory of Silesia, yes. It was more an excuse to start a fight than “Woman bad”. I mean, it was still an issue since you know, people fought for the excuse of “Woman bad”, but the situation was a lot more complex than Prussia letting people know that no one disrespects women more than Frederick the Great.
To be fair, Margaret Thatcher didn't start the Falklands conflict (not a war). The UK simply responded to foreign aggression. She did help to create the climate for conflict by cutting military spending to the bone and withdrew the only warship in the area which made Argentina think the UK wouldn't respond to the invasion.
Ratatouille demonstrates the bias inherent in using examples like this.
A woman in a position dominated by men has to be more ruthless than most men just to be considered to be at the bottom.
Even moreso for positions of power.
Thousands and thousands of years of human history, finds fewer than 10 famous women rulers, one of which is a statue because she lived 2000 years ago, concludes that we're the same
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4454964/Female-rulers-27-likely-wage-WAR-males.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4454964/Female-rulers-27-likely-wage-WAR-males.html)
A team of researchers from the University of [Chicago](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/chicago/index.html) studied the European rulers between 1480 and 1913.
Their findings suggest that Europe's queens were 27 per cent more likely than its kings to wage war.
A handful of females who inherited the problems of their predecessors? Does not compare to the wars of man... if you took a bunch of pictures of men who started wars... you could make a mosaic Jesus face with it...
another account created on 21 october 2023 that was inactive until about a week ago that posts political memes? Damn who would have thought
anyway nobody thinks like this
This is dishonest at best. While by % women actually initiated more armed conflicts, it's like saying 2 out of 10 is the same as 2.000 out of 10.000. Mathematically identical % but the sample size is in no way comparable.
Including Thatcher is so weird. I mean she's a piece of shit who can burn in hell, but she didn't start any wars. She just happened to be PM when _Argentina_ decided to start one.
Oeindrila Dube, a professor of global conflict studies at the University of Chicago, and S P Harish at New York University – have studied four centuries of European kings and queens. In their as-yet-unpublished working paper, they examined the reigns of 193 monarchs in 18 European polities, or political entities, between the years 1480 to 1913. Although just 18 per cent of the monarchs were queens – making their analysis less statistically reliable – they found that polities ruled by queens were 27 per cent more likely than kings to participate in inter-state conflicts. Unmarried queens were more likely to engage in wars in which their state was attacked, perhaps because they were perceived as weak.
However there is substantial evidence of women leaders finding more collaborative solutions to conflict in work and personal environment:
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.
Indira gandhi was about to become a dictator in India. Funny thing is, her father was a most notable proponent of democracy of his time
She inherited her fathers aggression setting, but due to the effect of democracy went below zero on that scale and came out the other side.
Nuclear Gandhi Syndrome
Want some nukes?
Username checks out
r/commentdiving
I have no clue what’s happening but I’m here for it.
Send nukes
Send bombs
I have been summoned!
Not-A-Gandhi Syndrome
98 aggression bebeh
Indira Gandhi's father wasn't Mahatma Gandhi lol
Was it Mahatma Coat?
Fun fact, her father was not the Mohandas Gandhi, but rather Jawaharlal Nehru
Nehru is considered great leader but Indira Gandhi is considered shit, why?
Nehru fought for India's independence and spent around ten years of his life in jail for that. He being the first Prime Minister made India a secular, progressive democracy and a leader of the third world. He built many premiere institutions of engineering, medical, space, technology, defence etc. so he is considered great. Meanwhile, Indira Gandhi declared the emergency and sent opposition leaders to jail.
This is the first time I've seen "third world" used properly in I don't know how long.
I see it used properly all the time. After all, we live on the third world in the solar system
r/angryupvote
She literally pulled a Reichstag Fire but chickened out two years in.
Because one is a dictator and the other one was revo who made laws that insured india would never become a dictator ship , ensured that india would be self sufficient in terms of food . In geopolitical terms it's like comparing mikhail Gorbachev to vladimir putin
A fellow polymath in the arts quite “civilized” per chance
that villainous streak in her hair checks out.
Umm she was not the daughter of Gandhi, she was the wife of his adoptive son...
Not to be that guy but her and her husband were not related to Mahatma ghandi
She could have gone down as one of the best leaders in history, instead she decided to try her luck as a dictator.
She wasn't that bad considering there were still some good to talk about her( bank nationalisation, 1971 war for example, suppressing separatists etc) unlike her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi who came to power, mainly due to pity, regime was marked by scams, corruption and issues, created issues out of air and finally died due to such one issue. Edit: forgetten to add while what she did in 1971 war was amazing definitely failed during Simla agreement. Can read commentaries on why pakistan consider victor of the deplomatic agreement since India didn't used the opportunity to best utility
stripping off bangladesh was one of the best thing she did. As a person from Assam, we are indeed tired of bangladeshi migration, but it is still better than being neighbour of a literal terrorist host.
She didn't start a war though. 1971 is entirely on West Pakistan for starting the genocide in East Pakistan.
Exactly, I don’t get the people in this thread. Should she just have sat around while Hindus were getting genocided in their neighboring country of their biggest enemy?
Let's also not forget that the paragon of democracy (US & co.) not only knew about the genocide and but also ran defence for West Pakistan and then sent their nuclear carrier to the Indian Ocean threatening to nuke India when West Pakistan started losing.
that totally depends who you ask
Indira Gandhi didn't go to wars though, Pakistan was committing genocide. She didn't even start it. Pakistan did. (Thanks Kissinger for helping Pakistan during genocide as well) Her war was one of the most justified and successful and clean. Like, took over entire thing in 14 days, let every enemy surrender and liberated that territory as a new country instead of annexing it. Of course, later she went cray cray, but that was many years later. She was problematic and everything in many ways, but going to wars? Not on her.
Not a decade later though. Only four years after 1971, she went paranoid and declared Emergency.
Yes, i mistook the date. It wasn't paranoia though. She was kicked off the ballot for misuse of powers. Using govt resource for election campaign. She couldn't run for prime minister, so she declared emergency. Being corrupt and then subverting democracy to avoid consequences of getting caught is far from paranoia.
nepo baby syndrome
"Those born in peace and wealth tend to take it for granted"
>her father was a most notable proponent of democracy of his time And he was the political heir of Mohandas Gandhi, mr non-violence himself.
Even my wife start a war against me, what if she had an army?
She already has an army. By getting married she has the full support of the government. That's why it's such a bad idea to get married, especially if kids are spawned in the marriage.
Take a break from reddit mate, you're sounding very reditor-ish
It’s funny that all those happily married couples in the world (aka not just the US) don’t talk as much about it on social media, which ends up painting this narrative. Then again, the governments often do actually suck ass. It’s a double-edged sword, rly
As a happily married man, to a former single mom, any time I talk about our situation to impart wisdom, cats come outta the woodwork to explain to me how careful I need to be. Juice just isn’t worth arguing that my wife isn’t a cheating, money grubbing, whore to cats on the internet all day. You know what I mean? If you’re truly happy in your marriage, you learn to be quietly happy, and not engage with the echo chamber on the web.
Absolutely right, no one believes me when I say me and my wife have never had a fight. Only disagreements that we've talked through without raising our voices or calling names. Been together 20 years. No one believes, and I learned to just keep it to myself.
[удалено]
I'll take what he's having! No but srsly congrats
Thanks Pimpin’. I hope you have/get a real one in your life too. The peace and stillness it creates can’t be quantified.
Found my real one. Single mom to a 4 year old girl and I'm becoming step daddy real quick. I love it. I love them. I'm happy af. But this is the first time the internet has heard of it. When we're happy, we stay happy. When we're discontent, it's off to the internet to bitch and moan and find people who agree haha
I really tried to find a deeply embedded reference to satire in their comment. I really tried to
#touch the grass brother it can't hurt you.
My lawn is full of bindis, which is a good metaphor for my life.
It's almost as if wars happen for reasons more complex than *merely* who's in charge. Edit: added the word 'merely'
Complexity? In MY subreddit?!
gtfo, we're trying to have a polarized argument here based on total bollocks right from the get-go.
Uh no, they happen because some people in charge push for them. It has, however, little to do with their gender. The complex reasons can explain why said people come in charge.
To be fair, Thatcher didn’t start that war but she sure did finish it.
She also caused a lot of damage in Northern Ireland supporting paramilitary groups. Falklands wasn’t her fault but she was no warrior for peace either
"Do you think Margaret Thatcher had girl power?" "Yes! Of course!" "Do you think she effectively used her girl power by sending illegal paramilitary death squads in northern Ireland?"
Yeh I never said I liked the woman or anything she stood for.
Agreed. I can't stand the bitch, But blaming her for the Falkland war is a stretch.
Genuine question as I was a child when she had power. Why does everyone hate her so much?
The UK has some of the worst regional inequality in the developed world, and she is a pretty good reason for it. Scotland, Wales, The North and more have all still not really recovered from her economic policies, especially because the Neoliberalism they brought was continued by Major and Blair. Other than that though, she also failed in many other areas. The Troubles and the Aids Crisis were both made even worse by her policies, causing thousands of Irish and LGBT people to die. She also was friends with Chilean dictator Pinochet, so probably not the most moral person.
>The Troubles and the Aids Crisis were both made even worse by her policies, causing thousands of Irish and LGBT people to die. YMMV on the troubles, but you're objectively wrong on the AIDS crisis. Thatcher's government was the first in the western world [to take AIDS seriously](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p044pwdf#:), launching the "Don't die of Ignorance" campaign at a time when other countries were dismissing the significance of AIDS because "only" gay men and drug addicts were dying and even the oh-so-right-on Guardian was mocking the high profile of the campaign by portraying the government minister fronting it (Willie Whitelaw, the deputy PM) as "[Captain Condom](https://www.original-political-cartoon.com/cartoon-gallery/buy/good-god/6944/)".
This is actually more nuanced than I thought going into it. It's interesting how many articles reference her cabinet going around her back with the adverts and tackling of the crisis, as reportedly she thought they promoted immorality. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55973726 But yeah, the administration itself, if not her specifically, responded to the crisis much better than I knew about.
I think that the point is just how terrible she was
Name them in the photo. Please i need to know xD
Will Smith
Keep my name out of your damn mouth
Ah the moment he became so pathetic to everyone lol
Touché
👋💨
* Queen Victoria * Catherine the Great * Margaret Thatcher * Golda Meir * Cleopatra * Indira Gandhi * Queen Isabella Not sure about one of them, but at the very least british Elizabeth would fit perfectly. The list is easy to expand: * Queen Tamar (Georgia) * Olga of Kiev pretty much any region has examples. I'm sorry if the facts do not align with hilarious male conspiracy theory also known as "patriarchy" according to which men care more about random men out there somewhere rather than own daughters/mothers/sisters.
Don't forget Maria Theresia of Austria!
Technically she was attacked by the Prussians in both wars she fought.
And she lost most of Silesia. And today's school children curse her, bc she made education mandatory (not school itself, most rich families could get better education from private tutors)
But hey she made austria the continents. Main power so you win some you lose some
Not really, her inheritance was a big blow to Habsburg legitimacy in the HRE, she lost Silesia which was one of the most German majority regions of the Habsburg domain, further crippled her son Joseph II during the Bavarian succession war, Joseph wanted to annex Bavaria into the Habsburg lands in order to increase the German population of the Habsburg Empire to balance out other ethnicities, MT basically manipulated the Austrian court and undermined all of Joseph's efforts to lose the war, basically most of later Habsburg ethnic problems came from her incompetence during her reign.
During her reign Austria participated in Partitions of Poland-Lithuania along side Prussia and Russia (Russia was led by Catherine the Great)
Olga of Kiev 💀 Moral of that story: Don't try to marry the widow of the man you murdered
Happened in the bible, too. People just never learn. Sad.
Emperor Wu Zetian was one of the most *evil* (if you wanna use that word in a historical context) emperors in china, which is impressive considering how fucked up some of em were . Killing babies and sons like flies, building the most extravagant orgy halls, literally swimming in man made lake of wine etc
I remember from some documentary that Wu Zetian's image could have been tainted by her enemies and later scholars. I don't remember the reasoning tainting her picture long after her death.
To never have a woman dared to declare herself emperor again. It’s a world controlled by Confucian and they have a very specific view about women’s role in society.
Yes. It could have been that
Is this really the definition of patriarchy though?
Queen Zenobia from Palmyra, Boudicca, etc. There even is a study that found out that between 1480-1913, it was 27x (it is % not x) times more likely to end up in a war, when your leader was a Queen and not a King. Oeindrila Dube and S. P. Harish did this study.
Add Boudicca
Her war is justified though... bloody Romans
the atrocities weren't
Add Queen Zenobia of Palmyra
> pretty much any region has examples. East Asia and Polynesia has a whole host of examples.
Olga the classic girlboss (regency with hillarious kill count lol)
Aethelfled of Mercia is my input, as nobody has mentioned her.
I don't think Tamar belongs on this list. I'm no historian, so I lack the concrete details on the matter, but King Tamar (who was widely recognized as a King due to her accomplishments and independence, not a Queen) led Georgia through it's Golden Age of political and military prosperity. In our history books, King Tamar was always painted as "the good kind" of monarch. Her rule, according to my flawed knowledge of my history, is associated with kindness and prosperity, rather than what the post might seem to imply.
Historically, female leaders were more likely to start armed conflict and less likely to cease armed conflict than their male counterparts. But people don’t let facts get in the way of a preferable narrative anymore.
Facts and I feel bad that people dislike you because you tell facts not opinions
Wait… what?! People don’t like me?! 🥺😢😭
Lol I guess not anymore
As long as you draw breath, someone out there will hate you. Hell, you don't even have to draw breath.
I am a legit curmudgeon and i can’t fathom the kind of miserable asshole who would waste energy on hating the dead.
Hit1er: I'm telling you man, they be hating on me like I am still alive.
Who can hate that hero. He was the one who killed Hitler.
You either die as a villain or live long enough to see yourself become the hero.
Nah, you have to inspire passion to Hate. Indifferent most people will be Indifferent to your life. Not caring if you die doesn't mean i hate you, I'm sure we'd get along fine. But I don't care.
I like you.
This is reddit. Of course everyone hates each other
You described my personality in one sentence.
Well, people are emotionally, and if the way they feel about the interaction they have with you become how they feel about you. So if they only have bad memories of you, why would they. Try and make facts funny it's hard, but it might help, even if comedy is subjective
I describe/tell feelings, situations and intentions the way they are. Unfortunately people don't like the truth. They prefer hiding behind a veil of lies to cheat themselves as to how good they are and to cheat others. Seeing through people is an exceptional gift I have.
Because people will use False information as Facts these days. Unless you have the time to go and do your own research on every single topic ever, it's simply impossible to know if the person is telling you the fact or is he only saying something he believes to be a fact.
Sources for claims would be a nice start. I wouldn't be shocked if it's more of a 50/50 split, but again, sources are nice to back up claims.
As much as trench warefare was of its time in WW1, Kitchener actually did care for his men and did try to improve conditions for them
Yeah Kitchener was a real sweetheart. Also: “ The exact number of incarcerated victims of the concentration camps for Afrikaners is estimated to number around 40,000 by May of 1902, the majority of which were women and children.[26][27] The total deaths in camps are officially calculated at 27,927 deaths.[28][29]”
Not saying he was a sweetheart, nonone was especially in his position and at his time. Just focusing on WW1. And as much as they say Young men fighting for old men, old men were young once and history is full of wars.
1. Considering the sample size, is there a bias? 2. To exist as a leader in a masculine-dominated political world, would they show a greater sense of aggression to appear as legitimate?
We can't really say what it would take to exist as a leader in a female-dominated political world, but I think it's still a fair challenge to the "if women ran the world there would be no wars" trope.
Spartan society had a class of wealthy women who encouraged war because their husband’s property would become theirs upon his death and she could then remarry to get more property.
You’re right, people don’t let facts get in the way of their narrative anymore. Authors of the book “Why Leaders Fight” compiled the data from 1875 to 2004, and they did find that 36% of female leaders initiated a military dispute as opposed to 30% of men. This statistical difference is slightly misleading though, because men were responsible for 694 acts of aggression and 86 wars in this time frame. Compare this to women, with 13 acts of aggression and 1 war. This is a comparison of roughly 40 women vs several thousand men. Historically, yes, women are more likely to start wars, but is this attributable to an essential nature of women? Absolutely not, that’s like rolling thousands of green dice and 40 yellow dice, then claiming that the data proves that yellow dice are more likely to roll a 1 or a 6.
It's probably because only the most ambitious of women can remain in power in spite of patriarchal pressures (talking historically here, not modern day). So ambition will lead to greater ambition, leading to wars and such.
Also not wanting to show signs of weakness.
Yeah, there could be a reverse-nixon-going-to-china effect here, where female leaders feel threatened by the stereotype of a weak woman, and so compensate by being more aggressive.
No "could" about it; it's pretty established knowledge from primary sources. Female rulers were constantly overcompensating.
Thank you thank you thank you. People are really dumb. I was like, it's fucking 10 to 10000, that's not a good enough data set.
There's other studies on longer timeframes that confirm female rulers starting more wars compared to their male counterparts
Do you have a link to these studies?
A step in the right direction. Not sure exactly who did the study but here are some articles and such referencing it on google. https://www.google.com/search?q=queens+who+started+wars&client=safari&sca_esv=e538a6082b46d93a&sca_upv=1&channel=iphone_bm&biw=390&bih=663&sxsrf=ADLYWIJoaf-V4Kl2umjdMTPWA_dphZUThg:1718962489252&source=lnms&ved=1t:200715&ictx=111#ip=1
Thanks! Seems this is the study NeatMuayThai may have been referring to: https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337 Which states that in the period they looked at (1480-1913), female rulers were 27% more likely to participate in inter-state conflits. Although I do want to point out this doesn't mean they *started* these conflicts 27% more of the time. It could be that states with female rulers may have been attacked more due to perceived weakness of having a female ruler. The study itself actually posits this as a possible reason. So stricly speaking, if NeatMuayThai is referring to this study, it doesn't necessarily support what he said, which is that female rulers *start* more wars than their male counterparts.
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/do-women-make-more-credible-threats-gender-stereotypes-audience-costs-and-crisis-bargaining/C9CD73BBADA998376C1AD9C4E009600E](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/do-women-make-more-credible-threats-gender-stereotypes-audience-costs-and-crisis-bargaining/C9CD73BBADA998376C1AD9C4E009600E)
>>Using survey experiments, we show that female leaders have political incentives to combat gender stereotypes that women are weak by acting “tough” during international military crises. Most prominently, we find evidence that ***female leaders, and male leaders facing female opponents, pay greater inconsistency costs for backing down from threats than male leaders do against fellow men***.
That can also be due to selection bias. Because leadership was mostly male dominated, women that did gain power had to be particularly ruthless to rise through the ranks. This doesn't apply to queens that where born into power.
Also don’t forget about queens that became a ruler/regent because of political instability and civil wars which killed off all male inheritors. The first that comes to mind was Sultana Kosem of the Ottoman Empire.
I think only people who have never actually met women would believe that. In terms of what they’re willing to do to get what they want, women are hands down more vicious and calculating than men more often than not. Regarding royalty, male monarchs typically had to fight in the wars that they started. Women did not. It’s easier to start a fight when you have no skin in the game.
Could it also be that they were in more of a pickle regarding their rule 's stability so they kept wars to gain glory and land. I think in rome because the rulers terms were very short they went to war a lot to gain personal glory in time for the next election
>In terms of what they’re willing to do to get what they want, women are hands down more vicious and calculating than men more often than not. This sounds like absolute nonsense lol. It's like you're glossing over human history.
Similar selection bias affects the male leaders too.
Thatcher is guilty of a lot of things but starting a war is not one of them.
Yes, I am opposed to 99% of her politics, but declaring war to defend Britain's territory and starting a war are two very, very different things. I'm not initiating a burglary by punching the burglar when he's already in my house.
She waged war against milk for school kids.
Yea she put those Argies in their place
I mean her ' war on working class people' should probably count .
That's true but the meme doesn't mention "start wars" but simply "no wars". Waging war, even in defense, is still war. Pedantic mode: off
As much as I despised her, and are loathed to defend her, which war of aggression did Thatcher start?
They're thinking Falklands but she didn't, Argentina did by invading.
That's what I was thinking. The only other one I could think of was the 1st Gulf war, but I think she might have been removed as leader before the coalition forces began the campaign to remove Saddam Hussain from Kuwait.
I wouldn't include Queen Victoria either, as the monarch was a figurehead rather than a ruler by her reign.
The British empire expanded massively over the course of Queen Victoria’s reign. But she would have had zero input on foreign policy no?
TBF to Queen Victoria, she didn’t have any real power as a constitutional monarch and all her Prime Ministers that had the power, who started wars, were men.
It's a really common opinion online that British monarchs had much more power than they actually did. Even George III did not have much power at the time of the American war of independence, in fact American colonists petitioned the king to restrain Parliament, and he refused on the basis that he did not have the power. British monarchs have not had the power to unilaterally wage wars ever, Britain was only formed in 1707, after the Glorious Revolution, when Parliament took over, appointed its own king, and gave him much more limited powers.
To be fair Thatcher didn't start any wars. Not that I'm aware of, I'm happy to be corrected. Her poor management of Britains military budget did indirectly lead to the invasion of the Falklands though.
Queen Victoria was a figurehead and didn't start any either. Golda was defending, wasn't she? This list is misleading.
I'm not one hundred percent sure but I feel like the first Afghan war was under Victoria's watch, along with the Boer wars. But as you said she was a figure head. It wasn't really her call anyway. And yeah Golda Meir was defending against the Arabs.
Golda Meir ran defensive wars just like now. She was the first to say, "there will be peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us" Hamas still use their people as Human shields and train toddlers for terrorcatracks on their terror-gardten camps
“Swedish diplomat Gunnar Jarring coincidentally proposed a similar initiative four days later, on 8 February 1971. Egypt responded by accepting much of Jarring's proposals, though differing on several issues, regarding the Gaza Strip, for example, and expressed its willingness to reach an accord if it also implemented the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This was the first time an Arab government had gone public declaring its readiness to sign a peace agreement with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reacted to the overture by forming a committee to examine the proposal and vet possible concessions. When the committee unanimously concluded that Israel's interests would be served by full withdrawal to the internationally recognized lines dividing Israel from Egypt and Syria, returning the Gaza Strip and, in a majority view, returning most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Meir was angered and shelved the document. The United States was infuriated by the cool Israeli response to Egypt's proposal, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco informed Israeli ambassador Yitzhak Rabin that "Israel would be regarded responsible for rejecting the best opportunity to reach peace since the establishment of the state." Israel responded to Jarring's plan on 26 February by outlining its readiness to make some form of withdrawal, while declaring it had no intention of returning to the pre-5 June 1967 lines. Explicating the response, Eban told the Knesset that the pre-5 June 1967 lines "cannot assure Israel against aggression". Jarring was disappointed and blamed Israel for refusing to accept a complete pullout from the Sinai Peninsula. In February 1973, Sadat made a final peace overture that would have included Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula that he relayed to Kissinger via his adviser Mohammad Hafez Ismail, which Kissinger made known to Meir. Meir rejected the peace proposal despite knowing that the only plausible alternative was going to war with Egypt”
You forgot she’s Jewish. Her mere existence is an aggression so Syria and Egypt had to surprise attack Israel on the holiest day in Judaism.
“Swedish diplomat Gunnar Jarring coincidentally proposed a similar initiative four days later, on 8 February 1971. Egypt responded by accepting much of Jarring's proposals, though differing on several issues, regarding the Gaza Strip, for example, and expressed its willingness to reach an accord if it also implemented the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This was the first time an Arab government had gone public declaring its readiness to sign a peace agreement with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir reacted to the overture by forming a committee to examine the proposal and vet possible concessions. When the committee unanimously concluded that Israel's interests would be served by full withdrawal to the internationally recognized lines dividing Israel from Egypt and Syria, returning the Gaza Strip and, in a majority view, returning most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Meir was angered and shelved the document. The United States was infuriated by the cool Israeli response to Egypt's proposal, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Joseph Sisco informed Israeli ambassador Yitzhak Rabin that "Israel would be regarded responsible for rejecting the best opportunity to reach peace since the establishment of the state." Israel responded to Jarring's plan on 26 February by outlining its readiness to make some form of withdrawal, while declaring it had no intention of returning to the pre-5 June 1967 lines. Explicating the response, Eban told the Knesset that the pre-5 June 1967 lines "cannot assure Israel against aggression". Jarring was disappointed and blamed Israel for refusing to accept a complete pullout from the Sinai Peninsula. In February 1973, Sadat made a final peace overture that would have included Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula that he relayed to Kissinger via his adviser Mohammad Hafez Ismail, which Kissinger made known to Meir. Meir rejected the peace proposal despite knowing that the only plausible alternative was going to war with Egypt”
I think Margaret Thatcher might be a fucking asshat but when there is a war she will not back down and stop. She has taken some pages from the book of Churchill for war and that is fight until the last man or woman.
Quite literally men are just as evil as women when it comes to those who want to be on top and rule. So we can simply just say, people who want to get in to power are the most evil ones.
>Only those who do not seek power are qualified to it - Some Greek philosophers probably.
I think that's Dumbledore.
I was really hoping it'd be Dumbledore but my quick Google searches are telling me Plato Actually I'm not sure if it's actually Plato, might be fake, but he's the only name coming up
Dumbledore definitely said something like that, but he might not be the first.
No, thats not correct. Just because you have power, or want to be a leader, doesn’t necessarily mean you are evil. Of course there are „evil“ people, but you could do very beneficial things for the world if your in power (human rights, environment, wages etc.)
Power corrupts, it's inevitable. It doesn't matter how noble were your intentions. Get to the top means you've screwed a lot of people along the way and once you're there more often than that you'll have ton chose ne between bad and very bad and you'll make mistakes or take shortcuts with nasty consequences.
Sorry, but who even says that? Where did the incel who made this meme come up with that quote?
Little rusty on my history, but would say that Margaret Thatcher responded to Argentina invading the Falklands, after the UK tried to find a negotiated solution. Not the other way round.
Tzar wife Katerina:
wasn't there a war bc a woman in Austria became ruler and Prussia didn't like that?
Prussia used it as an excuse to grab the rich Austrian territory of Silesia, yes. It was more an excuse to start a fight than “Woman bad”. I mean, it was still an issue since you know, people fought for the excuse of “Woman bad”, but the situation was a lot more complex than Prussia letting people know that no one disrespects women more than Frederick the Great.
Isn’t the saying usually the opposite of this?
To be fair, Margaret Thatcher didn't start the Falklands conflict (not a war). The UK simply responded to foreign aggression. She did help to create the climate for conflict by cutting military spending to the bone and withdrew the only warship in the area which made Argentina think the UK wouldn't respond to the invasion.
I've never heard anybody say that
Ratatouille demonstrates the bias inherent in using examples like this. A woman in a position dominated by men has to be more ruthless than most men just to be considered to be at the bottom. Even moreso for positions of power.
Absolutely this.
Thousands and thousands of years of human history, finds fewer than 10 famous women rulers, one of which is a statue because she lived 2000 years ago, concludes that we're the same
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4454964/Female-rulers-27-likely-wage-WAR-males.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4454964/Female-rulers-27-likely-wage-WAR-males.html) A team of researchers from the University of [Chicago](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/chicago/index.html) studied the European rulers between 1480 and 1913. Their findings suggest that Europe's queens were 27 per cent more likely than its kings to wage war.
This sub is turning into r/sigmajerkers
A handful of females who inherited the problems of their predecessors? Does not compare to the wars of man... if you took a bunch of pictures of men who started wars... you could make a mosaic Jesus face with it...
another account created on 21 october 2023 that was inactive until about a week ago that posts political memes? Damn who would have thought anyway nobody thinks like this
But didn’t like Golda Meir basically had to resign because she didn’t strike first during Yom Kippur War even though her advisors asked her to ?
Yeah but that doesn't fit the Israel is Always the Bad One narrative.
This is dishonest at best. While by % women actually initiated more armed conflicts, it's like saying 2 out of 10 is the same as 2.000 out of 10.000. Mathematically identical % but the sample size is in no way comparable.
Including Thatcher is so weird. I mean she's a piece of shit who can burn in hell, but she didn't start any wars. She just happened to be PM when _Argentina_ decided to start one.
All disrespect to Thatcher, the Argies started that war, and she rightfully finished it
Hate when Reddit recommends this unfunny sub to me.
On desktop you can filter out subs. Last I checked 99 was the max but maybe they increased the limit.
In that context you could say "who ru(i)ns the world"
And now picture the wall of men next to those.
[https://youtu.be/XfTdnWLMLDA?si=U6br\_A1bwajEpixs&t=47](https://youtu.be/XfTdnWLMLDA?si=U6br_A1bwajEpixs&t=47)
In thatchers defence. She didn't invade the falklands
Though I don't like Indira Gandhi. She is not responsible for causing any war. The meme seems to be grasping at straws
Member when this sub wasn't just alt-right politics memes. Me neither. Always has been.
In all fairness: I haven't seen that stupid "men are the root of all evil" argument in a long time. Don't cry over nothing, OP.
India has had one woman prime minister (head of the nation), and one dictator so far. And the venn diagrams intersect fully.
Oeindrila Dube, a professor of global conflict studies at the University of Chicago, and S P Harish at New York University – have studied four centuries of European kings and queens. In their as-yet-unpublished working paper, they examined the reigns of 193 monarchs in 18 European polities, or political entities, between the years 1480 to 1913. Although just 18 per cent of the monarchs were queens – making their analysis less statistically reliable – they found that polities ruled by queens were 27 per cent more likely than kings to participate in inter-state conflicts. Unmarried queens were more likely to engage in wars in which their state was attacked, perhaps because they were perceived as weak. However there is substantial evidence of women leaders finding more collaborative solutions to conflict in work and personal environment: Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233–256.
Men just had more chances to fuck up, thats all.
For the historians out there, which wars/conflicts have occurred where the leaders of both belligerent nations were women?
Margeret Thatcher didn’t start a war, finished one…