Originally posted by cdtmI’d have to agree with this. It’s a hard task to find comparable cases of women-led genocide and wars because women have historically held few positions of power due to their lower societal status. I’m sure if women had always been socially/culturally equal to men, allowing them to rise in the ranks of political hierarchies, they’d have led a similar number of murderous campaigns throughout history. But now that that inequality is mostly remedied in the western world, we’ll likely start to see more egalitarian-represented war crimes in the future. Yay progress! 🙂
That could be because men held the reigns of power, though. One only need have worked under a woman, to see how they're as evil as anyone..
Originally posted by JKBart
Yes, they are.Because women are generally irrelevant in society.
Hope i helped.
This.
And also ; Men invade Women invite.
Masculinity is invasive, femininity is invitational. It's amusing how the most fundamental biomechanical sex differences play out similarly in the bedroom and on the geopolitical world stage. Female leaders are more likely to deride their own nations by inviting a swartheswarm of migrants and opening her country's thighs (and sometimes her own thighs) to receive the impudent cock of a dusky totem.
Originally posted by JMANGO
This.And also ; Men invade Women invite.
Masculinity is invasive, femininity is invitational. It's amusing how the most fundamental biomechanical sex differences play out similarly in the bedroom and on the geopolitical world stage. Female leaders are more likely to deride their own nations by inviting a swartheswarm of migrants and opening her country's thighs (and sometimes her own thighs) to receive the impudent cock of a dusky totem.
You're plagiarizing James C. Weidmann again, Ziggy, the white supremacist teen-chasing incel that runs that shitshow website 'Chateau Heartiste'.
I know your shtick is to always plagiarize as to try and appear smart, but at least plagiarize smart people if you insist on it. YW.
You don't know shit robtard. Jim basically left the red-pill/Manosphere/Game blogosphere almost basically lives a cosy existence in a nondescript home in the tri-state area with his Mid-atlantic Americana wife who drives a volvo with five seats in the back. Jim was the sole writer of "Roissy". The Chateau Heartiste is written by 10-15 (sometimes more) different content aggregators, including yours truly.
Originally posted by JMANGO
You don't know shit robtard. Jim basically left the red-pill/Manosphere/Game blogosphere almost basically lives a cosy existence in a nondescript home in tri-state area with his Mid-atlantic Americana wife who drives a volvo with five seats in the back. Jim was the sole writer of "Roissy". The Chateau Heartiste is written by 10-15 (sometimes more) different content aggregators, including yours truly.
Fact: Your plagiarism has been exposed again and your incel rage is hilarious.
It’s a hard task to find comparable cases of women-led genocide and wars because women have historically held few positions of power due to their lower societal status.
European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently. Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Isabella I of Castile waged war with Muslim Moors and killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands or tormented to death.
Wu Zetian was one of the most ruthless rulers of China who even killed her own infant daughter and killed anyone who threatened her rule. Queen Mary I of England killed thousands of Protestants.
It wasn't that hard of a task to find comparable cases of women-led genocide and wars. I can add to the list if that would help.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently.
Citation? I could not verify that and I only found evidence to the contrary.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population.
I found nothing that supports this and see that she was responsible for the killing of Christians that amounted to probably less than 100.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Isabella I of Castile waged war with Muslim Moors and killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands or tormented to death.
I don't find that factually supported, either:
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=howard&book=isabella&story=moors
The Castilians, after a hard struggle, were at last (February 28th, 1482) victorious; but the scenes that followed in the path of the victors were replete with horrors. Many of the helpless inhabitants were massacred, and of those that were spared, both men and women were taken and held as the slaves of the haughty conquerors, for this was at that time the favorite custom of cruel war.
That's not genocide, that was the contemporary outcome of a multi-year war. But there's nothing in the text to support hundreds of thousands being enslaved and/or tormented to death. And I think you're way way over estimating the population of the Moors in Spain at that time. Considering the Moor population was in the hundreds of thousands during that time period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Spain
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Wu Zetian was one of the most ruthless rulers of China who even killed her own infant daughter and killed anyone who threatened her rule. Queen Mary I of England killed thousands of Protestants.
Right, but where's the genocide? Where's entire cities raised to the ground where every man, woman, and child is slaughtered (my original point)?
Originally posted by ESB -1138
It wasn't that hard of a task to find comparable cases of women-led genocide and wars. I can add to the list if that would help.
Well, since you did not find what I talked about, it seems impossibly hard to find that information.
In addition, you posted factually incorrect information and cited nothing.
You should not add to the list unless you find a citation. I do not trust your word on anything History related after this post.
Edit - Ask Robtard for help. He remembers things like this.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Citation? I could not verify that and I only found evidence to the contrary.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html
https://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/
Originally posted by dadudemon
I found nothing that supports this and see that she was responsible for the killing of Christians that amounted to probably less than 100.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/mad-queen-madagascar-ranavalona/
https://www.historicmysteries.com/queen-ranavalona-i/
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't find that factually supported, either:http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=howard&book=isabella&story=moors
That's not genocide, that was the contemporary outcome of a multi-year war. But there's nothing in the text to support hundreds of thousands being enslaved and/or tormented to death. And I think you're way way over estimating the population of the Moors in Spain at that time. Considering the Moor population was in the hundreds of thousands during that time period:
women-led genocide and wars
The point wasn't addressing just genocide. And even when we're talking about something that was led by a man, like the Holocaust, even women played a huge role in ensuring that the Holocaust happened.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, since you did not find what I talked about, it seems impossibly hard to find that information.In addition, you posted factually incorrect information and cited nothing.
🙄 🙄
Originally posted by ESB -1138
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.htmlhttps://qz.com/967895/throughout-history-women-rulers-were-more-likely-to-wage-war-than-men/
From the study itself:
Among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.Among unmarried monarchs, queens were more likely to be attacked than kings.
So let's make a couple of things clear:
1. You are moving the goalposts. You're discussing a red herring with me that I did not bring up, originally. This is your topic. Your argument. So I'm helping you argue with yourself.
2. A more accurate interpretation is what I quoted. Based on that, a much more accurate statement would be that female monarchs' states were more likely to be attacked if they were unmarried and if they were married, they were more likely to participate as attackers. That's not your orginal point. Here is your original point:
"European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently."
False. 👆
Originally posted by ESB -1138
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/mad-queen-madagascar-ranavalona/
Your first link does not support your claim. Your second link provides no citation and has questionable truth to it. Likely, you're a victim of the pro-Christian European propoganda that was flying around about her because of her anti-Christian stance.
A far more credible source has this to say:
...there is general agreement that she was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people whom she suspected of opposing her, and her level of paranoia increased as she grew older.
http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Ranavalona-I-Queen-of-Madagascar.html
Nothing in there says she was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Thankfully, you cannot go back and edit your post. But this is what you said:
The direct ordering of deaths or indirectly through executions that violated her decrees? Thousands, for sure. But no where near 75% of the population as you claimed. That's still not genocide and that's still not razing an entire city to the ground, murdering the entire population.
To remind you, this is what you said:
"Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population."
That's a massive False. 👆
You're 0 for 2.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
The point wasn't addressing just genocide. And even when we're talking about something that was led by a man, like the Holocaust, even women played a huge role in ensuring that the Holocaust happened.
So, again, what I said is correct. And you're 0 for 2 on proving your points.
Not only did you not prove your points, your points were proven false.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
🙄 🙄
Roll your eyes, but now I have a much better grasp of the type of person you are. You cannot be trusted. And you go out of your way to lie. Thanks for letting me and the rest of the forum know that you're dishonest and not a credible person to have any sort of discussion with. 👆
Your new-nickname: False.
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. You are moving the goalposts. You're discussing a red herring with me that I did not bring up, originally. This is your topic. Your argument. So I'm helping you argue with yourself.
2. A more accurate interpretation is what I quoted. Based on that, a much more accurate statement would be that female monarchs' states were more likely to be attacked if they were unmarried and if they were married, they were more likely to participate as attackers. That's not your orginal point. Here is your original point:"European queens waged more wars than the kings and more frequently."
No. I'm not moving the goal post. From the study:
28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king.
But I guess you just bypassed that bit of information and tried to misinterpret what exactly was being said. I'm not sure how you do math, but when something increases percentage wise, that means there's more of that thing happening. Woman in power saw a 27% increase in wars compared to the reign of a king.
Your second point, I fail to see how that's mutually exclusive. "Women rules say 27% increase in wars!" "YES! But if they were married they were the attackers!" And that's disproving the point....because?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your first link does not support your claim. Your second link provides no citation and has questionable truth to it. Likely, you're a victim of the pro-Christian European propoganda that was flying around about her because of her anti-Christian stance.A far more credible source has this to say:
http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Ranavalona-I-Queen-of-Madagascar.html
Nothing in there says she was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Thankfully, you cannot go back and edit your post. But this is what you said:
The direct ordering of deaths or indirectly through executions that violated her decrees? Thousands, for sure. But no where near 75% of the population as you claimed. That's still not genocide and that's still not razing an entire city to the ground, murdering the entire population.
To remind you, this is what you said:
"Ranavalona I who ruled Madagascar was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population."
That's a massive False. 👆
You're 0 for 2.
From the link:
During Queen Ranavalona I’s 33-year reign, experts have conservatively estimated that between 50-75% of Madagascar’s population met untimely deaths due to war, disease or the Queen’s barbaric and ruthless system of justice. With at least 2.5 million deaths attributed to Ranavalona I, she has earned the title of the “World’s Most Murderous Woman.”
Not hard to read. Sources
Klein, Shelley. (2003). The Most Evil Women in History. London, England: Michael O’Mara Books Limited.
Laidler, Keith (2005) Female Caligula: Ranavalona: the Mad Queen of Madagascar. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Stradling, Jan. (2008). Bad Girls: The Most Powerful, Shocking, Amazing, Thrilling and Dangerous Women of all Time. New York, New York: Metro Books.
Originally posted by dadudemon
you're dishonest and not a credible person to have any sort of discussion with. 👆
We'll that's convenient for you.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
No. I'm not moving the goal post.
What was my point, then, and why do you feel your point is relevant to my point?
Originally posted by ESB -1138
"YES! But if they were married they were the attackers!" And that's disproving the point....because?
Because they were married and were not the sole rulers of the nations. There were almost no King Consorts in the "study" which directly invalidates your point.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
From the study itself:Not hard to read.
Already countered with this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your first link does not support your claim. Your second link provides no citation and has questionable truth to it. Likely, you're a victim of the pro-Christian European propoganda that was flying around about her because of her anti-Christian stance.A far more credible source has this to say:
http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Ranavalona-I-Queen-of-Madagascar.html
Nothing in there says she was responsible for the murder of 75% of her population. Thankfully, you cannot go back and edit your post.
As to your other sources, it does not state what the blogger claimed about the millions. You're wrong. At best, you fell for some unsubstantiated hyperbole. At worst, you're falling victim to centuries old propaganda that came from Christian-European states in the 1800s. Similar propaganda machines that made us think Napoleon was short.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
We'll that's convenient for you.
Yes, quite convenient that you posted false information to support your agenda and you actually still did not address my points. You've proven you don't even understand my points.