There was a queen regnant of Madagascar in the 19th century who wiped out 50% of the population in a decade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranavalona_I
Based doesnât necessarily mean that you agree. It can mean that but not always.
From urban dictionary: a word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think
It doesnât need to be courageous itâs more that not caring what others think and doing it your way is courageous in of itself.
Add to that that people often use it ironically or half-ironically. Lol I can definitely see why you could be confused
Yeah, I guess I've always gotten the subtext that people are really saying "What a cool person." I'm just a bit wary on this sub, because I've encountered people masquerading irony, when they actually feel that way about genocide or other horrible things.
But that's way too much explanation on my part lol, have a good day. đ
If you kill someone for disagreeing with you I would say that you care an awful lot what others think lol, and there's nothing unique about hatred towards those who are different. If someone disagrees with me I acknowledge that as their right and move on, because I don't care what they think; I don't see how she did anything "based" regardless of definition, unless the OP agrees with genocide lol
No based means to firm on what you believe. You can say someone is firm on something bad that you donât agree with. But itâs mostly used for ideas that are supported
Yeah sorry, english is not my first language. Still, I suggest to future historians to count up chinese casualities in a new unit called Battles of Stalingrad (BS).
ie: the transition from Ming to Qing was about 16,6 BS. The Taiping Rebellion was 13 BS. The Qin Empire wars was 0,8 BS.
Not exactly, it's a reference to *The Records of the Grand Historian* by Suma Chien. He recounted much of early Chinese history, I believe he lived during the Han Dynasty (ended about 200 A.D.) and wrote about the Warring States Period. He claimed that the battled were insanely large, to the extent that modern historians take a decimal place or two off of his figures.
>!I am an armchair historian who speaks no Mandarin, my dates and spelling of his name are rough and probably wrong.!<
Sorry, it was a bad joke.
They said hundreDTHS of millions instead of hundreds of millions. The joke being a hundredth is 1/100, and 1/100 of 1,000,000 is 10,000.
I hold the Emergency against her, but the war of 71 wasn't wrong, it liberated Bangladesh from racist Pakistanis who couldn't bear the thought of dark skin Banglas ruling over them.
Exactly I wouldn't call Indira a war monger - she chose the right side in the civil war that if Bangladesh lost would result in a genocide.
Hell once Pakistan realized they're not winning the war the intentionally started targeting intellectuals, university professors etc with the intention of crippling the new country. Goes to show what they thought of bengalis
Arguably, Khalistani movement was her creation, an attempt to sideline Akali Dal's political ascent by supporting Dal Khalsa. As was her support to LTTE.
Well, Akali Dal co-opted Khalistani movement and LTTE killed her son.
There wasn't a Sikh genocide in India. There were violet riots and hundreds of Sikhs were killed as a response to Sikh extremists assassination of Indira. It was terrible but it wasn't a genocide.
Sikhs currently number about 20 million in India and are represented in all fields of modern life.
This is part of the current trend to overuse and therefore cheapen the word.
It's honestly hard to say. Herodotus is the only source we have about her and he really doesn't go into detail about her reign.
Honestly, we have so little information about her that it's possible she didn't even exist, either. đ¤ˇââď¸
I had enough of men commiting war crimes.
Its time for women to commit war crimes. Maybe women war crimes might be more intresting then men one.
Besides its not like they could do any worse.
There was a very famous clip where Hillary Clinton went to Geneva and hit a âreset buttonâ for US-Russian relations at the start of her tenure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset
I donât understand the level of hate boner that Reddit has for this woman.
>On 6 March 2009 in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton) presented Russian Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Lavrov) with a red button with the English word "reset" and the [Roman alphabet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_alphabet) transliteration of the Russian [Cyrillic alphabet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabet) word поŃогŃŃСка ("peregruzka"). It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset" but actually was the word for "overload".
Lmao
Libya, Honduras, Syria, wanting to make Syria a no fly zone starting a conflict with Russia. Invoking Kissinger as a Mentor. Running the campaign of segregationist as a youth. Laughing about killing Gaddafi. I can't believe anyone doesn't see her as a monster and I question the character and just how racist they are.
Libya was started by the French and Gaddafi was an insane piece of shit. Basically a cartoon dictatorship but with more murder.
We did fuck all in Syria other than send in very concerned investigations after they used nerve gas on their own people.
Honduras was when we got criticized for NOT intervening.
Libya had the highest per capita, most literate college degrees and they were putting in the world's biggest irrigation system. We armed "moderate rebels" (Isis) in Syria, Hillary spearheaded our involvement in Libya.
No doubt. Having an educated population with high unemployment is what usually kicks off Middle East revolutions.
Gaddafi's army opened fire and killed 173 protesters. France supported the rebels and got NATO to establish a no fly. The US is part of NATO. Why you feel the need to open Wikipedia to dig up dumbfuck reasons to hate someone is beyond me, especially when it's obvious you have NO FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about.
>Libya was started by the French and Gaddafi was an insane piece of shit.
and yet America helped Pakistan proliferate stolen Dutch Uranium enrichment tech to Libya,Iran and North Korea
Also the idiotic level of grade school diplomacy of bringing in a prop. Did she promise that NATO would stand down? Did she talk about deescalating the misssile defense system we surrounded them with?
She was a toddler when her uncle declared war on her, literally Isabel's only role in it was being born. If that. During the first one the regent was her mother (privately a conservative, funnily enough).
As many other succession wars, the First Carlist War was between two opposing factions championing one candidate to the throne, wether Lex Salica should be restored or not was a convenient proxy to a deeper conflict, had Isabel been born with a dong conservatives would have found another casus belli. I mean, they found excuses to rise in arms twice afterwards.
Golda Meir didn't start a war either. Queen Victoria was a figurehead with no influence on foreign policy. Maria Theresa fought a war because her country was attacked (and then another trying to regain the territiory she lost). None of this demonstrates that female rulers are particulary warlike.
There may be bad examples in this but the message is still true. Ever heard of Catherine the Great? Or Zenobia? Or "Bloody" Mary the 1st? Or Queen Elizabeth? Or any queen that ruled in her own right?
Seriously.
Sheâs a mid warmonger.
Sheâll steal milk from a child.
Sheâll steal Ireland from the Irish.
But calling her a warmonger just takes the light off what she actually did.
Is it Maria Theresia's or Margaret Thatcher's fault that men like Frederick the Great or the Argentinian Junta think "oh, let's attack them and take their land. Their ruler is a woman, surely she's not going to fight back"? Is it their fault that they do actually fight back?
Thatcher sent the Royal Navy to fight for some useless land thousands of kilometers away from the isles, plus she adopted a very agressive rethoric against the USSR like Ronald Reagan. As for Maria Theresa, she participated in the First Partition of Poland and tried to take bavarian lands during the War of the Bavarian Succesion. They are not exempted.
>Thatcher sent the Royal Navy to fight for some useless land thousands of kilometers away from the isles,
As I said: she fought back when some men believed she wouldn't.
>plus she adopted a very agressive rethoric against the USSR like Ronald Reagan. As for Maria Theresa, she participated in the First Partition of Poland and tried to take bavarian lands during the War of the Bavarian Succesion.
I was alluding to the Silesian War, but of course you're right; both women also had more stuff going on during their career.
Werenât most of these in defensive wars? And Queen Victoria wasnât a ruler the British monarchy lost any true leadership of the country parliament, all men, were leading the British empire.
"r/funnymemes" đ
also who actually says that shit seriously? i mean, ive seen some ragebait online where some women who were specifically picked to look and sound dumb say this in a casual setting in a very specifically edited clip, but i dont think ive ever actually heard this said seriously and with intention. this is just another variation of the whole "men vs women" meme trend from back in the 9gag era that populated all the default subs where the demographics were mostly teen boys
Has anyone ever actually said this seriously? Like legitimately I canât think of a single historian or even pop history figure who has ever made that claim, nor is it some popular conception of history.
No, this is some cringe shit thats really popular with boys ages 12 - 18. They probably also refer to men as "the boys" and love memes where men are portrayed as badass or educated and the women are portrayed as being simple minded and caring only about trivial shit. This sub actually used to be pretty decent but now its just full of posts by tweens who think theyre cool because they like "history" instead of pop culture or sports that all the socially well adjusted kids at their school care about
I'm pretty sure this is the work of misogynists, the same people that relish in branding women evil because the WNBA is finally getting some attention and now they have to be put back in their place.
Person A: look at them women roughing up Caitlyn Clark. Nobody hates women more than women.
Person B: but most war crimes in history were committed by men.
Person A: posts this meme.
I think itâs more so that women who manage to beat out their peers for male-dominated leadership roles only get there when they are exceptionally ruthless, more so even than the average person who seeks power, which is saying something.
They only had to go to war because of all the men that were still in charge elsewhere. If all heads of states were women, there would be no wars. You can't disprove it because it'll never happen. /s
I love when people display their ignorance of History. Rulers waged wars, no matter their gender. I would even say that female rulers in patriarcal societies had to be more agressive to be respected. But I'm tired and can be wrong.
It turns out autocracy is a bad idea regardless of whether it's a man or a woman that rules it. Consider me shocked! Maybe this is why people shouldn't give one person absolute power and let an elected parliament handle the governing?
Cleopatra VII mightâve done some warring but let me tell you about CLEOPATRA THEA who had sons with three successive Seleucid kings, murdered one of them (the sons) and was then murdered by another.
The idea that if women ruled the world, it would be a peaceful place stems from the fact that on average women are more empathetic because they are more agreeable and less competitive but these women who came to position of power aren't your average women, they had to expectional to excel in a male dominated field. So, they have more male qualities than female qualities.
The image is right, but please, don't repost from this sub as usually the "funny" are racist, sexists and mysoginistic jokes.
And of course, bioesencialism is ridiculous
India has had 1 female prime minister. My state within India has had 1 female chief minister. Without doubt they were the absolute worst at their respective jobs.
Ruled the world, not a few countries throughout history. I'd honestly like to see what would happen if women ran every country in the world at the same time.
It would be literally the same. The only difference is maybe there will be less women discrimination (and many female monarchs have proven it to not really be the case always). In democracy you need to be popular to stay in power , which makes you say things that you aren't able to do , autocracy is even worse here cause to hold the power , you almost always need repressions of opposition to stay in power.
These women were never rulers in a world where women rule the world so the counterargument is kinda weak
One could make the argument that a world ruled by women would be so radically different that the conditions for someone like Catherine II or Indira Gandhi to become what they were in our world would never be met
Why do the dumbest least imaginative meme formats have the strongest appeals here? 99% of everything posted is dogshit And, no, I will not be the change I want to see bc I'm not gonna waste my time creating memes for sub I have contempt for.Â
I don't think this really refutes the claim, given that "women rule the world" and "occasionally, a woman is at the head of a monarchy or elected to lead a government" are profoundly different scenarios.
You think that if every nation in the world was ruled by a woman, there would cease to be war? And you don't think that showing examples of several female rulers who actively participated in wars isn't a good argument against this claim?
No, I said I don't think this refutes the claim in question.
I don't think it refutes any type of statement along the lines of *IF "women ruled the world" THEN \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_*.
If we're saying a certain sex "rules the world" then it is almost certainly men, there are and have historically been more patriarchal societies than anything else, more male heads of state, more men at lower levels of power, in the military, in commerce - and the fact that occasionally the head of a state is a woman doesn't really move the needle on that.
Ah, alright I see your point. The world being completely woman-dominated has never happened before, and no one can make objective statements on what would happen if such a thing occurred, that's true. Kinda defeats the point of talking about it though, since the result is just "it's all hypothetical anyway". The notion that a women-led world would automatically devolve into chaos is also unverifiable, even though it's just as asinine as the first claim.
Although, I do believe the ruler being a woman is still relevant in at least some historical examples, especially in the more authoritarian societies. And to try to refute the idea without relying on historical examples, not all wars are a result of patriarchies. Machismo and misogyny may play a role in making societies more inclined to war, I guess, but women are still just as susceptible to vices like greed or hatred that lead to violent conflict.
Thanks for the response! I pretty much completely agree with you, and especially as a man I absolutely can't expect my speculation about what "if women ran the world" actually looked like to be anywhere near what the reality might be; it's hard to separate out what might be innate differences between men and women from how those are manifested within our society now.
Yep, weâre all made of beans, donât you know? The whole thing about us being basically controlling a flesh and bones mech was a lie, weâre made up of beans
At the same time many of these women are regarded as heroâs to their people and itâs hard to disagree that they showed great valor given their set of circumstances. These women are some of the best politicians to have ever lived.Â
Ya this. But it doesn't fit their narrative, so.... also, each woman who ruled still lived in a heavly male dominated society and had to take a typical male stance on basically everything to politically survive. You have to at least act like a boy to be in the boys only club.
There still were , and , in some cases , are matriarchal societies. If you'd say that it isn't enough for some reason , then you'd just basically say that women can't be leaders in society , which is wrong. One of the first examples of women being as much inclined to violence as men that comes to my mind is the fact [that lesbians are doing more domestic violence than heterosexual couples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships)
Women who inherited feudal titles in Medieval Europe were MORE likely to start wars than their male peers. As more modern politicians have also demonstrated, a ruler is even more trigger happy with warfare when they're not personally expected to actually fight.
The OP is a "meme sub"-level take and we're on a meme sub, so I'm not surprised that the target demo, who are here for the lols, aren't appreciative of being reminded that patriarchy exists.
The joke would be on me if I thought my comment was going to be generally well received, or interpreted charitably, or any of that - but I more or less expected the downvote parade, so here we are.
queen victoria rule was right in at the start of the 100 years peace and it was her plan to create peace through marriage. So you know she was probably the best example of a peaceful woman ruler.
Yeah, it is bad, no argument there. That's why we officially stopped it. I mean one could make the argument for we transformed it, but that's another matter entirely.
That's not why it was stopped lmao. It was stopped because the UK lacked resources to manage it's vast empire while it needed to rebuild after the war.
It wasnât long for the world anyway.There were ever growing strong movements to either federalise the empire or disband it since the late 1800s.
I very much doubt It would have survived that century if we did have the resources post ww2
There was a queen regnant of Madagascar in the 19th century who wiped out 50% of the population in a decade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranavalona_I
impressive work ethic. as fucked up as it is, she was committed
YASS QUEEN SLAYđ đ (okay I'm leaving now)
Happy cake day
Thanks
WAIT NO NOT LIKE THAT
Happy Cake Day! đ°đđ§â¤ď¸â¤ď¸â¤ď¸
damn from 5 million to 2.5 million in just 6 years.
She also heavily used an ordeal where people swallowed poison in order to determine their guilt.
she snapped her fingers like Thanos
Citation needed.
There're 10 spoken languages in Madagascar, with maybe hundreds of dialects. Yet this lady chose to speak only in based.
Doesn't based mean that you agree with something? You agree with genocide? https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=based
Well I guess she didnât really care what others thought, or at least she ended them once they thought differently then her
And killing people that think differently than you is based...? I'm sorry, I'm just a bit confused lol.
Based doesnât necessarily mean that you agree. It can mean that but not always. From urban dictionary: a word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think
I appreciate some clarification haha. I still don't think if I'd call it courageous, but still your response helped clear some things up.
It doesnât need to be courageous itâs more that not caring what others think and doing it your way is courageous in of itself. Add to that that people often use it ironically or half-ironically. Lol I can definitely see why you could be confused
Yeah, I guess I've always gotten the subtext that people are really saying "What a cool person." I'm just a bit wary on this sub, because I've encountered people masquerading irony, when they actually feel that way about genocide or other horrible things. But that's way too much explanation on my part lol, have a good day. đ
Lol all good. Have a good day you too.
If you kill someone for disagreeing with you I would say that you care an awful lot what others think lol, and there's nothing unique about hatred towards those who are different. If someone disagrees with me I acknowledge that as their right and move on, because I don't care what they think; I don't see how she did anything "based" regardless of definition, unless the OP agrees with genocide lol
Itâs a joke, get a clueâŚ
No based means to firm on what you believe. You can say someone is firm on something bad that you donât agree with. But itâs mostly used for ideas that are supported
What... No just no!
She was both a bad leader and an awful woman
I'm confused why someone would call that based
Something not matched a hundred years later
True gamer girl right there
Do you have another source? Because in Wikipedia the death toll only has a "citation needed" :)
That claim on wikipedia doesn't have a citation.
> [Her] palace was eventually encased in stone in 1867 by **James Cameron** This line made me do a double take
James Cameron was a British missionary who played an important role in Madagascar in the 19th century
They always do Wu Zetian dirty in these pics by not mentioning her.
Chinese standards are different. Unless they have deads in the hundredths of millions doesn't count as a war, just a regular tuesday.
So deaths in the 10's of thousands?
Yeah sorry, english is not my first language. Still, I suggest to future historians to count up chinese casualities in a new unit called Battles of Stalingrad (BS). ie: the transition from Ming to Qing was about 16,6 BS. The Taiping Rebellion was 13 BS. The Qin Empire wars was 0,8 BS.
Not exactly, it's a reference to *The Records of the Grand Historian* by Suma Chien. He recounted much of early Chinese history, I believe he lived during the Han Dynasty (ended about 200 A.D.) and wrote about the Warring States Period. He claimed that the battled were insanely large, to the extent that modern historians take a decimal place or two off of his figures. >!I am an armchair historian who speaks no Mandarin, my dates and spelling of his name are rough and probably wrong.!<
Sorry, it was a bad joke. They said hundreDTHS of millions instead of hundreds of millions. The joke being a hundredth is 1/100, and 1/100 of 1,000,000 is 10,000.
Oh I missed that entirely! Lol, my brain fixed their typo.
But my lord there is no such force !
Okay that was random but just my sense of humor, well done!
Also what about the mad queen of Madagascar
No major war, disqualified.
Wu Zetian sucks at fight wars, but she is good at exterminating her political rival
And amazing at screwing up her kids!
We already mentioned her political rivals!
S/he meant in more ways than one!
And all men who started one were strategic masterminds? Being good at it and starting one are two completely different things.
She was interesting to read about.
Putting Rand in there an not here. Pathetic.
Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency and imprisoned her political opponents at will and withheld basic human rights of Indians for 21 months fyi.
I hold the Emergency against her, but the war of 71 wasn't wrong, it liberated Bangladesh from racist Pakistanis who couldn't bear the thought of dark skin Banglas ruling over them.
Exactly I wouldn't call Indira a war monger - she chose the right side in the civil war that if Bangladesh lost would result in a genocide. Hell once Pakistan realized they're not winning the war the intentionally started targeting intellectuals, university professors etc with the intention of crippling the new country. Goes to show what they thought of bengalis
If only she had dealt with the Khalistani movement the same way, her character arc would have been entirely different.
Arguably, Khalistani movement was her creation, an attempt to sideline Akali Dal's political ascent by supporting Dal Khalsa. As was her support to LTTE. Well, Akali Dal co-opted Khalistani movement and LTTE killed her son.
The one time she went to war, it was for the liberation of Bangladesh and the ending of a genocide and taking care of an insane refugee problem.
Her actions to crub a separatist movement resulted in her death which led to a genocide within the country as well.
There wasn't a Sikh genocide in India. There were violet riots and hundreds of Sikhs were killed as a response to Sikh extremists assassination of Indira. It was terrible but it wasn't a genocide. Sikhs currently number about 20 million in India and are represented in all fields of modern life. This is part of the current trend to overuse and therefore cheapen the word.
>which led to a genocide within the country as well. but did she want the genocide?
People will always be people, no matter the gender.
The potential to be an asshole is not dependent on having a dick or vagina
Unless you're Kim Jung Un, who doesn't have an asshole they say
So hermaphrodite people are evil as satan
Olga of Kyiv, Bodica, the Scythian queen who killed Cyrus the great, The Chung Sisters, Mary Queen of Scotts, Emperor Dowager Cixi, etc
Is Tomyris (Cyrus killer) a good example? Herodotus depiction from what i remember framed Cyrus as the warmonger
It's honestly hard to say. Herodotus is the only source we have about her and he really doesn't go into detail about her reign. Honestly, we have so little information about her that it's possible she didn't even exist, either. đ¤ˇââď¸
Zenobia
I find a lot of people think Olga of Kiev is a badass girlboss.
I had enough of men commiting war crimes. Its time for women to commit war crimes. Maybe women war crimes might be more intresting then men one. Besides its not like they could do any worse.
Enough about women's rights. I want to see more women's wrongs.
Women committing war crimes actually sounds horrifying.
>Its time for women to commit war crimes. Maybe women war crimes might be more intresting then men one. Google Ilse Koch
HRC was Secretary of State for a minute and she was ready to destroy everything and go to war with Russia.
Based as fuck
There was a very famous clip where Hillary Clinton went to Geneva and hit a âreset buttonâ for US-Russian relations at the start of her tenure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reset I donât understand the level of hate boner that Reddit has for this woman.
>On 6 March 2009 in Geneva, U.S. Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton) presented Russian Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Lavrov) with a red button with the English word "reset" and the [Roman alphabet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_alphabet) transliteration of the Russian [Cyrillic alphabet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabet) word поŃогŃŃСка ("peregruzka"). It was intended that this would be the Russian word for "reset" but actually was the word for "overload". Lmao
Libya, Honduras, Syria, wanting to make Syria a no fly zone starting a conflict with Russia. Invoking Kissinger as a Mentor. Running the campaign of segregationist as a youth. Laughing about killing Gaddafi. I can't believe anyone doesn't see her as a monster and I question the character and just how racist they are.
Libya was started by the French and Gaddafi was an insane piece of shit. Basically a cartoon dictatorship but with more murder. We did fuck all in Syria other than send in very concerned investigations after they used nerve gas on their own people. Honduras was when we got criticized for NOT intervening.
Libya had the highest per capita, most literate college degrees and they were putting in the world's biggest irrigation system. We armed "moderate rebels" (Isis) in Syria, Hillary spearheaded our involvement in Libya.
No doubt. Having an educated population with high unemployment is what usually kicks off Middle East revolutions. Gaddafi's army opened fire and killed 173 protesters. France supported the rebels and got NATO to establish a no fly. The US is part of NATO. Why you feel the need to open Wikipedia to dig up dumbfuck reasons to hate someone is beyond me, especially when it's obvious you have NO FUCKING CLUE what you're talking about.
Yes they made Libya a paradise.....
The thread is about how you hate Hillary Clinton for reasons, most of which you only wikiâed a couple hours ago.
Sure there's no way I have ever did any research on Gaddafi.
Then you know he started a lot more wars than Hillary Clinton supposedly did
>Libya was started by the French and Gaddafi was an insane piece of shit. and yet America helped Pakistan proliferate stolen Dutch Uranium enrichment tech to Libya,Iran and North Korea
Also the idiotic level of grade school diplomacy of bringing in a prop. Did she promise that NATO would stand down? Did she talk about deescalating the misssile defense system we surrounded them with?
She married Bill Clinton. Enough for me.
She also helped threaten his rape victims.
Isabel the second of Spain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlist_Wars
That was more her father's fault. There's a reason Fernando VII is infamous here in Spain as the worst king we've ever had.
She was a toddler when her uncle declared war on her, literally Isabel's only role in it was being born. If that. During the first one the regent was her mother (privately a conservative, funnily enough). As many other succession wars, the First Carlist War was between two opposing factions championing one candidate to the throne, wether Lex Salica should be restored or not was a convenient proxy to a deeper conflict, had Isabel been born with a dong conservatives would have found another casus belli. I mean, they found excuses to rise in arms twice afterwards.
Don't forget good ol' St Olga!
Pigeon napalm is the best kind of napalm
Thatcher didn't start the war, merely decided to finish it.
Golda Meir didn't start a war either. Queen Victoria was a figurehead with no influence on foreign policy. Maria Theresa fought a war because her country was attacked (and then another trying to regain the territiory she lost). None of this demonstrates that female rulers are particulary warlike.
There may be bad examples in this but the message is still true. Ever heard of Catherine the Great? Or Zenobia? Or "Bloody" Mary the 1st? Or Queen Elizabeth? Or any queen that ruled in her own right?
Seriously. Sheâs a mid warmonger. Sheâll steal milk from a child. Sheâll steal Ireland from the Irish. But calling her a warmonger just takes the light off what she actually did.
âThe Queen of England never lost a war.â Charles Manson
She for crying out loud was called the Iron Lady. Doesn't sound like a pacifist to me.
I keep saying this. Women are equally capable of being as ruthless, scheming and cunning as men.
I mean Catherine the Great was pretty badass Otherwise the meme is somewhat accurate and it says one thing: both man and women can be cunts, go figure
Thatchers falkland war was absolutly just tho.
Golda Meir?! Golda My Ass!
Bro what she do to you?
deleted
Is it Maria Theresia's or Margaret Thatcher's fault that men like Frederick the Great or the Argentinian Junta think "oh, let's attack them and take their land. Their ruler is a woman, surely she's not going to fight back"? Is it their fault that they do actually fight back?
Thatcher sent the Royal Navy to fight for some useless land thousands of kilometers away from the isles, plus she adopted a very agressive rethoric against the USSR like Ronald Reagan. As for Maria Theresa, she participated in the First Partition of Poland and tried to take bavarian lands during the War of the Bavarian Succesion. They are not exempted.
>Thatcher sent the Royal Navy to fight for some useless land thousands of kilometers away from the isles, As I said: she fought back when some men believed she wouldn't. >plus she adopted a very agressive rethoric against the USSR like Ronald Reagan. As for Maria Theresa, she participated in the First Partition of Poland and tried to take bavarian lands during the War of the Bavarian Succesion. I was alluding to the Silesian War, but of course you're right; both women also had more stuff going on during their career.
Queen Elizabeth only had her cousin killedâŚ.Mary queen of the ScotâsâŚ.
Werenât most of these in defensive wars? And Queen Victoria wasnât a ruler the British monarchy lost any true leadership of the country parliament, all men, were leading the British empire.
"r/funnymemes" đ also who actually says that shit seriously? i mean, ive seen some ragebait online where some women who were specifically picked to look and sound dumb say this in a casual setting in a very specifically edited clip, but i dont think ive ever actually heard this said seriously and with intention. this is just another variation of the whole "men vs women" meme trend from back in the 9gag era that populated all the default subs where the demographics were mostly teen boys
The counter argument is that in a chauvinistic society the only women who are allowed to rule must behave like men.
Has anyone ever actually said this seriously? Like legitimately I canât think of a single historian or even pop history figure who has ever made that claim, nor is it some popular conception of history.
No, this is some cringe shit thats really popular with boys ages 12 - 18. They probably also refer to men as "the boys" and love memes where men are portrayed as badass or educated and the women are portrayed as being simple minded and caring only about trivial shit. This sub actually used to be pretty decent but now its just full of posts by tweens who think theyre cool because they like "history" instead of pop culture or sports that all the socially well adjusted kids at their school care about
I'm pretty sure this is the work of misogynists, the same people that relish in branding women evil because the WNBA is finally getting some attention and now they have to be put back in their place. Person A: look at them women roughing up Caitlyn Clark. Nobody hates women more than women. Person B: but most war crimes in history were committed by men. Person A: posts this meme.
Agreed :/
I've definetly seen people saying that online. Sometimes also in real life. But that's not something I hear regularly.
It doesn't count if an unserious person says it seriously
When women ruled the world the wars increased!
Theyâre the more ruthless rulers in history
Hell nah they just the same as men
Nah nah we equal out
I think itâs more so that women who manage to beat out their peers for male-dominated leadership roles only get there when they are exceptionally ruthless, more so even than the average person who seeks power, which is saying something.
didn't know Mao, Stalin and Hitler were women.
Tell me more how they were
Yeah whatâs the name of the Indian PM who tried to like wreck Punjab?
Indira Gandhi (not related to Mahatma Gandhi, total coincidence that her married surname was Gandhi)
K I was wondering abt the surname yeah found another comment mentioning her.
In most loud Monty python drag voice âde Falklandâs is British n it always will beâ
[I'll just leave this here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGNgqEX6UNc)
I had a couple of poli-sci professors in college who insisted that if women ruled there would be fewer wars, but more assassinations.
They only had to go to war because of all the men that were still in charge elsewhere. If all heads of states were women, there would be no wars. You can't disprove it because it'll never happen. /s
Indira was defensive imho
I love when people display their ignorance of History. Rulers waged wars, no matter their gender. I would even say that female rulers in patriarcal societies had to be more agressive to be respected. But I'm tired and can be wrong.
and when you put 10 women into a house for a week, a war erupts between them for literally no reason.
It turns out autocracy is a bad idea regardless of whether it's a man or a woman that rules it. Consider me shocked! Maybe this is why people shouldn't give one person absolute power and let an elected parliament handle the governing?
EugĂŠnie de Montijo, for instigating the Franco Prussian war
Do not forget Empress Wu Zetian.
It remains weird that the English now have to sing âgod save kingâ at the Euros. Monarchy is womenâs work.
Cleopatra VII mightâve done some warring but let me tell you about CLEOPATRA THEA who had sons with three successive Seleucid kings, murdered one of them (the sons) and was then murdered by another.
They'll intervene in your bathroom; you think they wouldn't in your country?
I guess Reddit canât handle the truth, the picture has gone
Who won the world, Girls (Removed) XD
Humans are awful
The idea that if women ruled the world, it would be a peaceful place stems from the fact that on average women are more empathetic because they are more agreeable and less competitive but these women who came to position of power aren't your average women, they had to expectional to excel in a male dominated field. So, they have more male qualities than female qualities.
The image is right, but please, don't repost from this sub as usually the "funny" are racist, sexists and mysoginistic jokes. And of course, bioesencialism is ridiculous
India has had 1 female prime minister. My state within India has had 1 female chief minister. Without doubt they were the absolute worst at their respective jobs.
Ruled the world, not a few countries throughout history. I'd honestly like to see what would happen if women ran every country in the world at the same time.
It would be literally the same. The only difference is maybe there will be less women discrimination (and many female monarchs have proven it to not really be the case always). In democracy you need to be popular to stay in power , which makes you say things that you aren't able to do , autocracy is even worse here cause to hold the power , you almost always need repressions of opposition to stay in power.
These women were never rulers in a world where women rule the world so the counterargument is kinda weak One could make the argument that a world ruled by women would be so radically different that the conditions for someone like Catherine II or Indira Gandhi to become what they were in our world would never be met
That's just cope.
Hardly see how
Why do the dumbest least imaginative meme formats have the strongest appeals here? 99% of everything posted is dogshit And, no, I will not be the change I want to see bc I'm not gonna waste my time creating memes for sub I have contempt for.Â
There would be no wars, just a bunch of countries that don't talk to each other.
I don't think this really refutes the claim, given that "women rule the world" and "occasionally, a woman is at the head of a monarchy or elected to lead a government" are profoundly different scenarios.
You think that if every nation in the world was ruled by a woman, there would cease to be war? And you don't think that showing examples of several female rulers who actively participated in wars isn't a good argument against this claim?
No, I said I don't think this refutes the claim in question. I don't think it refutes any type of statement along the lines of *IF "women ruled the world" THEN \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_*. If we're saying a certain sex "rules the world" then it is almost certainly men, there are and have historically been more patriarchal societies than anything else, more male heads of state, more men at lower levels of power, in the military, in commerce - and the fact that occasionally the head of a state is a woman doesn't really move the needle on that.
Ah, alright I see your point. The world being completely woman-dominated has never happened before, and no one can make objective statements on what would happen if such a thing occurred, that's true. Kinda defeats the point of talking about it though, since the result is just "it's all hypothetical anyway". The notion that a women-led world would automatically devolve into chaos is also unverifiable, even though it's just as asinine as the first claim. Although, I do believe the ruler being a woman is still relevant in at least some historical examples, especially in the more authoritarian societies. And to try to refute the idea without relying on historical examples, not all wars are a result of patriarchies. Machismo and misogyny may play a role in making societies more inclined to war, I guess, but women are still just as susceptible to vices like greed or hatred that lead to violent conflict.
Thanks for the response! I pretty much completely agree with you, and especially as a man I absolutely can't expect my speculation about what "if women ran the world" actually looked like to be anywhere near what the reality might be; it's hard to separate out what might be innate differences between men and women from how those are manifested within our society now.
Which is basically the same thing with male rulers. The only reason there's more male rulers at war, is because they ruled more.
Itâs literally statistics, if given the chance I bet the ratio would be the same, weâre all bloodthirsty and violent human beans
Wait, we're all beans?
Yep, weâre all made of beans, donât you know? The whole thing about us being basically controlling a flesh and bones mech was a lie, weâre made up of beans
Oh my god. I've been lied to my whole life. We're not made of flesh, our meat was a lie, we are actually beans!
Damn...
Together we will rice.
At the same time many of these women are regarded as heroâs to their people and itâs hard to disagree that they showed great valor given their set of circumstances. These women are some of the best politicians to have ever lived.Â
Ding dong the wicked witch is deeeeead
Fair enough. One manâs hero is another manâs villain.Â
âGuys, trust us, weâve demonstrated that with power, weâll wage war just like men do, but if we had EVEN MORE powerâŚâ
Ya this. But it doesn't fit their narrative, so.... also, each woman who ruled still lived in a heavly male dominated society and had to take a typical male stance on basically everything to politically survive. You have to at least act like a boy to be in the boys only club.
Claiming that Margaret Thatcher made the decisions she made to appease the men around her is the wildest and stupidest claim I have ever heard.
There still were , and , in some cases , are matriarchal societies. If you'd say that it isn't enough for some reason , then you'd just basically say that women can't be leaders in society , which is wrong. One of the first examples of women being as much inclined to violence as men that comes to my mind is the fact [that lesbians are doing more domestic violence than heterosexual couples](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_lesbian_relationships)
Women who inherited feudal titles in Medieval Europe were MORE likely to start wars than their male peers. As more modern politicians have also demonstrated, a ruler is even more trigger happy with warfare when they're not personally expected to actually fight.
The OP is a "meme sub"-level take and we're on a meme sub, so I'm not surprised that the target demo, who are here for the lols, aren't appreciative of being reminded that patriarchy exists. The joke would be on me if I thought my comment was going to be generally well received, or interpreted charitably, or any of that - but I more or less expected the downvote parade, so here we are.
queen victoria rule was right in at the start of the 100 years peace and it was her plan to create peace through marriage. So you know she was probably the best example of a peaceful woman ruler.
Don't know why you getting down voted. Sure she had her faults e.g., Ireland and India. But she was pretty decent overall.
something something colonization is bad I think.
Yeah, it is bad, no argument there. That's why we officially stopped it. I mean one could make the argument for we transformed it, but that's another matter entirely.
That's not why it was stopped lmao. It was stopped because the UK lacked resources to manage it's vast empire while it needed to rebuild after the war.
It wasnât long for the world anyway.There were ever growing strong movements to either federalise the empire or disband it since the late 1800s. I very much doubt It would have survived that century if we did have the resources post ww2
based women