So much for male oppression. Once again Britain has a Queen and her Lady of the National Chamber in charge. And I say appointed as while it is usual for a Democratic place like Britain for the People to vote a leader and his/her Party into power, here we have a woman simply getting the nod by a few hoity toities around her rather than asking the hoi poloi. Nevertheless there was a lot of laughter in the UK Bar.
Not many chaps seemed to want the job being as significant change was afoot. So Theresa May got the job. Having watched a little of her walking to and from No 10 just before and after the accession it occurred to some in the Tavern that perhaps she had been Monty Python's Minister of Funny Walks. A tad rude I thought but heck.
It remains to be seen just what a job she makes of it. She has said enough and often enough for us to get at least an 'impression' if not a prediction.
The first female Prime Minister a while back, Maggi T, took the nation to war, and the time is ripening for Terri M to do it again. Maggi did not have much warning of President Galtieri's intentions but we have all got a strong wiff of Mohammed's. Will she or won't she? Theresa May or may not. Either way she has a big task ahead of her and will need a strong bunch of Ministers around her. Not much chance of that, I'm afraid, So she wasted no time in appointing a Court Jester.
Dealing with 'internal' matters and external matters has always been the most un-noticed aspect of Female Rule, it seems.
A recent study has come forward - it lobbed onto the top of the US Room bar from somewhere - looking at the war-like qualities of women leaders whom, we are told over and over by the feminists, would rule with empathy and nurtuting and far superior communications skill and conflict resolution.
As if !!
So Terri appointed Boris to deal with the furriners. I shall come to him later.
But first let us look at that study. Tanya Basu spoke to it for us.
Hah !European Queens Waged More Wars Than KingsThere’s an assumption about women in power that you may have heard: that women who lead tend to be more diplomatic than their male counterparts, resulting in a more peaceful world.
Psychologist Steven Pinker, for instance, wrote in his 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, “Over the long sweep of history, women have been and will be a pacifying force.” But how much of that is true?
After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it’s more complicated than that.
In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 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.
“People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.
Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled.
Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.).
As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.”
Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen.
And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”Here’s Dube and Harish with more on that:Female reigns may have had higher capacity to carry out war since queens often put their spouses in charge of official state matters. This division of labor would then have freed up time and resources for queens to pursue more aggressive war policies. In contrast, kings typically were less inclined to put their spouses in official positions through which they could aid in managing the polity.
This asymmetry in spousal division of labor emerged in several realms. Since women didn’t serve as heads of militaries, queens would often appoint their husbands to this role, though kings of course, did not do the same with their wives.. As an example, when Queen Dona Maria II of Portugal married Prince Augustus Francis Anthony in 1836, their marriage contract stated that he would serve as commander in chief of the army.And when husbands of queens managed state affairs, the success of the country was strong. The authors point to Francis Stephen, who revamped the Austrian economic system while his wife, Queen Maria Theresa, used that cash to bolster the army. “Spousal support,” in other words, was a win-win for these royal couples, allowing queens to not only be more invested but also more successful than their peers who acted alone. (Modern couples, take note.) That doesn’t mean that queens and kings always agreed — qualitative data suggests that, in fact, queens and kings often disagreed, and virulently, with some queens marching onto the battlefield without their spouse’s approval. And a few kings weren’t too happy with being “king-consort,” bickering with their wives over the title.
The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write, “among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings.”
Hmmmm. Fair assumption, I suppose. Although Elizabeth 1st must have queered their stats a bit.If a queen were single — which was the case with 13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.
But let us not dwell on the past. We have Boris to lead international relations into a new wirld of gaffe possibilities. If you think Denis Thatcher and Prince Phil's remarks weren't diplomatically pertinent any more, just wait for a few years of Boris. Ex- Lord Mayor of London, Boris Johnson is the son of a Turkish immigrant but he has a vocabulary that can outstrip anything anyone anywhere can bring to the table. My dear friend the Southern Gal is just amazed at how the British can give a 'put down' that the recipient only understands ten minutes later. Boris is a master. He will take on anyone, no matter how 'high'.But the authors emphasize that the increase in wars on a queen’s watch is not likely explained by an attempt by the female leaders to signal their strength. Were that true, you’d expect a spike in war participation earlier in the queens’ careers, and that wasn’t the case according to the data analyzed here. Dube and Harish also argue that the queens were not actively seeking to fight more wars. But here are a few more relevant commonalities of queenly reigns: Queens didn’t tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.It’s just a working paper, which means that Dube and Harish may uncover more as they continue to research this subject. But so far their findings have already begun to poke a few holes in some commonly held assumptions.
James Higham gave the heads up to a report by the BBC some years back.
Beeb, September 8th, 2006:Tory MP Boris Johnson – famed for apologising to the city of Liverpool – appears to have gone one better and offended an entire country.
Mr Johnson has been forced to apologise to Papua New Guinea after he linked it to “cannibalism and chief-killing”.
The flamboyant frontbencher made the comments in his newspaper column.But Papua New Guinea’s High Commissioner in London failed to see the funny side and Mr Johnson had to issue an apology for causing offence.The spat was caused by remarks made in Mr Johnson’s Daily Telegraph column about the Labour leadership crisis.Mr Johnson wrote: “For 10 years we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing, and so it is with a happy amazement that we watch as the madness engulfs the Labour Party.”But Jean L Kekedo, Papua New Guinea’s High Commissioner in London, reacted angrily to the remarks.She said: “I consider the comments, coming from a senior British MP very damaging to the image of Papua New Guinea and an insult to the integrity and intelligence of all Papua New Guineans.“I wish to state that I am shocked and appalled by such comments from a seemingly well-educated person of very high standing, in fact the alternative minister for higher education in the House of Commons.
“How far removed and ill-informed can Mr Johnson be from the reality of the situation in modern-day Papua New Guinea?”Ms Kekedo told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme she hoped Mr Johnson would visit her country, although he might be refused a visa because of his comments.‘Blameless domesticity’Mr Johnson sent an apology for any offence caused within minutes of the story emerging, adding that he might embark on apology world tour.“I would like to thank the High Commissioner very much for her clarification,” he said. “I meant no insult to the people of Papua New Guinea who I’m sure ...
lead lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity in common with the rest of us.”Mr Johnson told PM he was not retracting his comments, he thought they were accurate, but not meant to be about modern Papua New Guinea.
Hahaha. The Foreign Office will have a busy schedule. (Pronounced as in 'shed').He said he had seen a “fantastic” Time Life book which showed photographs of tribesman in Papua New Guinea in the 1950s or 1960s engaged in “primitive warfare and killing”. It seemed a “perfectly fair, florid, flowery metaphor for what’s going on in the Labour Party”.Mr Johnson said he would be happy to “add Papua New Guinea to my global itinerary of apology”.
I can just see the flurry of excited foreign correspondents, especially American ones, lining up to put Boris in the seat. Here is Boris being interviewed by a British chap. Paxman.
Theresa's court jester will have them in the A&E in stitches.
By the way, This is what he said about Hilary.... ""She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital."
He apologised of course.
I wonder what he makes of Theresa's eyes !!
Drink up and don't ride home by yourself.