RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings

RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (4/30/2017 6:05:58 AM)
Perhaps you might tell us just what you think this paper proves...or disproves.

Aylee -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (4/30/2017 6:57:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So which ones would they be? The one that first came to mind was Elizabeth 1. You have the death of Henry VIII, the early death of Edward, Lady Jan Grey, then Bloody Mary, and then Good Queen Bess, in a fairly short time. Along with this was a huge religious fight going on. In 1570 the Pope declared her illegitimate. There was also the hoofrah going on with her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots and Spain wanted war. This is not a calm, peaceful time. Boudica, did not become queen in a particularly peaceful, calm time either. The locals were not real happy with Rome. Catherine the Great came to power after a coup d'état.

Awareness -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (4/30/2017 8:21:16 PM)
It's also worth mentioning that Elizabeth imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots for a couple of decades before finally murdering her.

blnymph -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/1/2017 1:05:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness ... The original paper can be found here: http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Queens_Oct2015.pdf ... Thanks for the link. Found and read. A quantitative study for "proving" a qualitative theory. Despite whatever degrees the authors might have acquired this a classical failure of method. Would be for undergraduates, is even more so for postdocs. Not to mention further their disregard of certain relevant historical facts (like eg treaties, alliances asf) that would distort the results they wanted to get. And of course the dailymail review embellished it with unrelated bedtime stories. No science, nothing new, just pure nonsense in method and result, in pseudo-scientific cover.

PeonForHer -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/1/2017 1:58:34 AM)
It seemed to me to be some pretty standard argument in favour of constructionism and against essentialism, re women and female national leaders particularly. Per Simone de Beauvoir - 'one is not born, but becomes a woman'. Roughly speaking: 'There's nothing essentially softer and fluffier about women than there is about men. A woman, whose character has been formed by certain sorts of social forces, will end up being and doing what a man would be and do, given the same social forces'. The problem is that it's next to impossible to evidence your case one way or another because you're rarely able to compare like with like - and of course the researchers are going to fail in that respect if they're out to do more than suggest something tentative. Nothing much can be said conclusively and we're left wondering, as always. Not a greatly interesting piece for anyone who knows even a bit about social theory and history. As for the Daily Mail and its 'decorations' of the piece ... well, what does anyone expect? The editors will play to absolutely the most ill-informed and nuttily right wing prejudices there are, because that's what constitutes the general outlook of its readership. "'Women are inherently nicer than men?' So say the feminists. But, by Jove, I don't believe it!"

longwayhome -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/1/2017 6:37:03 PM)
This is a classic case of using quantitative methods to explore a topic which is probably best not addressed using such methods. You would really have to question trusting any seemingly appropriate statistical significance scores you could derive from using such methods when female reigns were so rare in comparison to male reigns and often came about as a result of unusual political circumstances. Correlation and causation are very different things which is of course why common sense and sound historical and political reasoning are required when deciding to use more "accurate" or "scientific" mathematical modelling to present an analysis. To be fair the article itself is not quite as definite about conclusions as the other media commentary, but you have to question the whole approach given the nature of the subject matter. Peon's point about constructionism and essentialism, and the difficulty in using this kind of analysis to make any meaningful point, seems entirely appropriate. There is certainly room for learned monographs on individual female leaders, the need for defensive wars and the use of war offensively as part of foreign policy, but any qualitative comparative analysis is probably best carried out with reference to other concurrent regimes or those immediately preceding or following. In other words the immediate historical perspective is probably more enlightening than the long historical sweep over which meaningful reference points are less likely. In other words you can have all sorts of arguments about "female" gender characteristics (in a far as they exist) and where they come from but this article, as well as being questionable history, isn't a particularly helpful contribution to such a debate.

thompsonx -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/1/2017 6:47:19 PM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness It's also worth mentioning that Elizabeth imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots for a couple of decades before finally murdering her. What would you do to someone who tried to snuff you just to steal your shit?

Awareness -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/1/2017 10:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness ... The original paper can be found here: http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Queens_Oct2015.pdf ... Thanks for the link. Found and read. A quantitative study for "proving" a qualitative theory. ROFL! Oh good Lord, here we go again. The feminist hatred of evidence. Yes, of course, it'd make far more sense to investigate a topic by ignoring statistics and evidence and focusing on "feelings" wouldn't it. You and longwayhome are fucking morons who have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Really. quote: Despite whatever degrees the authors might have acquired this a classical failure of method. Would be for undergraduates, is even more so for postdocs. Not to mention further their disregard of certain relevant historical facts (like eg treaties, alliances asf) that would distort the results they wanted to get. And of course the dailymail review embellished it with unrelated bedtime stories. You're clueless to an astonishing degree. quote: No science, nothing new, just pure nonsense in method and result, in pseudo-scientific cover. You're describing 'gender studies' dear, not this paper. Ye Gods, the Luddite fear of science is strong with this one.

Awareness -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/1/2017 10:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Awareness It's also worth mentioning that Elizabeth imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots for a couple of decades before finally murdering her. What would you do to someone who tried to snuff you just to steal your shit? After being imprisoned for 19 years for no legitimate reason, I'd probably want to kill someone too. Regardless, Elizabeth was paranoid about Mary and there's a suspicious lack of evidence linking her to any plot.

thompsonx -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/2/2017 4:12:35 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: thompsonx It's also worth mentioning that Elizabeth imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots for a couple of decades before finally murdering her. What would you do to someone who tried to snuff you just to steal your shit? After being imprisoned for 19 years for no legitimate reason, I'd probably want to kill someone too. Regardless, Elizabeth was paranoid about Mary and there's a suspicious lack of evidence linking her to any plot. Quite a few history books say that you are once again full of shit. Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

blnymph -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/2/2017 10:11:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness ... The original paper can be found here: http://odube.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Queens_Oct2015.pdf ... Thanks for the link. Found and read. A quantitative study for "proving" a qualitative theory. ROFL! Oh good Lord, here we go again. The feminist hatred of evidence. Yes, of course, it'd make far more sense to investigate a topic by ignoring statistics and evidence and focusing on "feelings" wouldn't it. You and longwayhome are fucking morons who have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Really. quote: Despite whatever degrees the authors might have acquired this a classical failure of method. Would be for undergraduates, is even more so for postdocs. Not to mention further their disregard of certain relevant historical facts (like eg treaties, alliances asf) that would distort the results they wanted to get. And of course the dailymail review embellished it with unrelated bedtime stories. You're clueless to an astonishing degree. quote: No science, nothing new, just pure nonsense in method and result, in pseudo-scientific cover. You're describing 'gender studies' dear, not this paper. Ye Gods, the Luddite fear of science is strong with this one. I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first.

thompsonx -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/2/2017 10:18:52 AM)
ORIGINAL: blnymph I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first. Don't you think he should finish grammar school first?

WhoreMods -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/2/2017 10:53:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: blnymph I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first. Don't you think he should finish grammar school first? I'm just disappointed that his conviction that Liz one was an evil misandrist feminist bitch means that he's barred the drag queen conspiracy theory for her reign...

blnymph -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/2/2017 11:19:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Awareness .... ... Regardless, Elizabeth was paranoid about Mary and there's a suspicious lack of evidence linking her to any plot. That "lack of evidence" might exist, only, if one ignores this of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babington_Plot

longwayhome -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/3/2017 2:36:13 AM)
It seems likely that the Babington Plot was a piece of complex entrapment on the part of Elizabeth, who was either growing increasingly tired of imprisoning Mary or becoming more paranoid or both, but Mary almost certainly responded to the bait which sealed her fate. There is no lack of evidence linking Mary to the plot, although some of the testimony against her was as a result of torture so essentially unreliable. It was classic Elizabethan overkill where the authorities manufactured almost too much evidence, especially when Mary who not have encouraged the plot but certainly colluded with it which was enough to have her executed. It can be argued that once the coded letter was sent to her, Mary's fate was sealed and Walsingham would have found a way to pin it on her by implication, even if she had ignored it. However once Mary responded to the initial letter she was doomed. It is somewhat suspicious that the correspondence even made it in and out of Mary's chambers without being intercepted but Mary was able to send other letters so that is not entirely surprising. Walsingham probably made sure that the correspondence would make it both ways to make sure that Mary's involvement was clear. So no lack of evidence linking Mary to the plot, but clear evidence of entrapment, even if it would have been difficult for Mary to avoid. Mary's imprisonment can be viewed as an unjustified act of international politics, and she may have died in captivity so her willingness to give her blessing to the plot was understandable, but she was certainly involved and the evidence of that exists to this day.

Awareness -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/3/2017 10:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first. Here's an idea: Start by having the faintest fucking idea of what you're talking about. The idea that the social sciences have no use for mathematical methods or that social phenomena are unable to be measured simply demonstrates your ignorance and lack of understanding. Honestly, this is just fish in a barrel stuff. It really is. You're pathetic.

Awareness -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/3/2017 10:45:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: longwayhome It can be argued that once the coded letter was sent to her, Mary's fate was sealed and Walsingham would have found a way to pin it on her by implication, even if she had ignored it. However once Mary responded to the initial letter she was doomed. There's no way of knowing what Mary's actual response to the letter was, since the cipher had been broken and at least one part of the letter was forged. In terms of evidence, there's nothing remotely resembling a chain of custody - those supposedly bringing evidence of her guilt were also the people responsible for the forgery and consequently there's every possibility that her entire response was forged.

blnymph -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/3/2017 3:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first. Here's an idea: Start by having the faintest fucking idea of what you're talking about. The idea that the social sciences have no use for mathematical methods or that social phenomena are unable to be measured simply demonstrates your ignorance and lack of understanding. Honestly, this is just fish in a barrel stuff. It really is. You're pathetic. Qualitative study - qualitative methods Quantitative study - quantitative methods Whether social or other sciences ... Learning what method makes sense for what research purpose is basic undergraduate level.

PeonForHer -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/3/2017 3:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first. Here's an idea: Start by having the faintest fucking idea of what you're talking about. The idea that the social sciences have no use for mathematical methods or that social phenomena are unable to be measured simply demonstrates your ignorance and lack of understanding. Honestly, this is just fish in a barrel stuff. It really is. You're pathetic. A, please stop this. Just learn to stand back when you're in the presence of someone who actually knows the subject at hand at an expert level. You're tiring everybody out, for feck's sake.

tamaka -> RE: Don't mess with a queen! Female rulers over the past 500 years have waged war more often than kings (5/3/2017 3:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: blnymph I guess you never heard about certain different methods in science. My advice: Get a basic methodology course, undergraduate level, first. Here's an idea: Start by having the faintest fucking idea of what you're talking about. The idea that the social sciences have no use for mathematical methods or that social phenomena are unable to be measured simply demonstrates your ignorance and lack of understanding. Honestly, this is just fish in a barrel stuff. It really is. You're pathetic. A, please stop this. Just learn to stand back when you're in the presence of someone who actually knows the subject at hand at an expert level. You're tiring everybody out, for feck's sake. Qualitative vs quantitative research methods are not 'expert' level stuff Peon. Geeze.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.3291016