Why is it that women never led nations or made art?

Why is it that women never led nations or made art?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wGPZWUNwLG0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Honestly more and more threads these days sound like they're written by fucking four year olds posing questions to their Dads.

Either you're stupid or this is a loaded question, ready to incite some sort of political agenda.

Except they did.

Like Boudecia, one of the greatest generals in history

It reminds me of when I was a TA and there'd be that smug fat kid in every history class who would interrupt the teacher to be contrary and then act like he'd won when the teacher ignored him.

the second part of this question makes me think it is nothing than bait, none can be this retarded ironically-

Id estimate
About 1% of nations we're led by women
About 5% of great art has been made by women
About 25% of contemporary art and literature of note worthiness has been made by women

Just my guesses

oh excuse me, like 0.5% of artists and leaders of historical significance maybe have been women.

Why is this?

For leading nations, I suppose it is heavily connected to their smaller bodily strength as well as most heriatory based systems having a male preferences.

And you wouldn't have used "never" if you didn't want to start a shit flinging contest.

The Fatimids had a brief period where Shajar Al-Durr, As-Salih Ayyub's wife, ruled Egypt in 1250

And then I don't know if you can count queen Victoria and Queen Isabella.

But I don't think you mean examples like these.

To answer your question it could have to do with reproduction and bloodlines. To produce an heir men would usually go around fuckin their wives and some concubines just to make sure that their seed would hit something that would stay around long enough to produce an heir. With a woman you can only produce a limited amount of potential heirs. Men also tended to lead the military and throughout history, since monarchies have been so important, the military is usually where the first member of a dynasty came from.

Don't take my word for it, it's just a hunch.

Wife of Ogadai Khan, the Nestorian christian who ruled have the world for half a decade (After Ogadai's death). Mongol familial issues, one of the brothers didn't want to attend the Kuraltai to elect a leader because he knew they'd kill him if he attended so he basically cucked an empire for a few years and woman had to rule.

Nice bullshitology statistics there

muh dick senpai

In terms of art....
Art has become increasingly meaningless and relativistic in terms of impression.
This coincides with women becoming art teachers and giving themselves the label "artist".
Coincidence..? maybe, probably not though.
she led a few dude for a very short time, she didn't lead a nation, she didn't levy taxes or attend to matters of statecraft.
She was just a leader, and a bad strategist.
Horrid general, got all her men killed.

hence
>my guesses

To create any art you need to suffer, to lead a nation you need to take a risk. Who would be better for that than a most disposable gender? Same reason why men died in battles while a women was a primal victims of war.

It's unfair to call Boudicca a general or suggest that she had a proper army with her. Most of her "force" was made up of unarmed men, women and children. It's a miracle that they managed to kill any Romans at all.

>Art has become increasingly meaningless and relativistic in terms of impression
What does "impression" mean exactly in this context? I want to understand why I find modern art shit, and this probably might make sense of it.

Is this real bait or summerfag short bus bait?

> I want to understand why I find modern art shit
Mostly because you aren't smart enough to find the good modern art while ancient classics are spoon fed to everyone at this point. Blame your consumerist mentality more than anything else.

I know there is some good modern art, you moron. I just mean that as a movement it is generally shit.

You need to be high to get it

This is an 18+ website

I'm pretty sure both have been done. In regards as to why woman in general were not in charge though, it is because a lot of leaders were front-line military leaders and since woman are generally weaker than men, they could not compete in this regard. A woman also could have her reign compromised at times due to pregnancy, whereas a man could continue to lead while his wife was pregnant/raising a child.

>Why is it that women never led nations
Are you serious about that first part? Do you have any idea how powerful and influential people like Queens Elizabeth and Victoria, and Catherine the Great were?

women are too busy making babies to make anything else

we don't need them to produce art or lead nations

Because women in general were too busy having children.

That's it.

Everyone leave.

...

A woman composed this and it's pretty great

youtube.com/watch?v=wGPZWUNwLG0

>who was Hapshepshut
>a woman who was Pharoah and was a good pharoah and shit
>built temples
>led an expedition to Punt and got shit done
>got so much shit done her son was forced to claim her achievements either for his offspring or his own and had to vandalize most of her monuments because she really did them all and holy shit no one would believe him

Biology is a huge part. Women are more or less incapacitated for the duration of their pregnancies, and when they aren't pregnant they're still out of commission for a certain amount of time every month, and simply make garbage combatants even in the best of times, there is no other way around it. Military might has transferred to political might for the vast, vast majority of human civilization. Then when the mentality of "women are basically garbage we have to put up with to get babies out of" it is basically set in stone that not just that women can't be leaders, they literally aren't allowed to be. Women were literally not allowed to own property, how the fuck would they get the foothold to lead others?

Let's remove all your rights and literally cripple you physically, then see how far you get in premodern society.

The thing is if women spent the majority of their lives in the majority of history being child-bears how do you think they will evolve?

The women that are best at raising children will be the one's that pass on their genes, while the women that are good at leadership, philosophy, or art will be less likely to pass on their genes.

I think this is why even today women tend to suck at a lot of things. Reality is fucking harsh, sorry if you're triggered.

...

How is this picture relevant at all?

Is that not the reason women couldn't do much in the past?

Because women pass their genes only to women and men pass their genes only to men? It seems that you doesn't even know how evolution work in practice. Men and women are the same species, not the two different one and it is hardly true that all of leadership and philosophy coded at a male part of genes. The only harsh reality here is that some of us need to study genetics better, mate.

Because they're inferior to men.

That's not how genetics work my retarded famalam

It's stupid to say Mozart's daughters would suck at writing music because their mom was a housewife, because they inherit both of their genes, and I'm not sure genes groups play such a huge factor on brilliance, it's a combo of nature v nurture imho

>he'd won
Won what? What did he win?
Are you saying he lost?

Is it just me or is every second question on this board just rehashes of:
>When did you stop beating your wife, user?

Because throughout the vast majority of history in most cultures women were expected to explore other avenues like tend to the children and stay at home.

There are certain genes that only get past to men. You should have learned this in school.

Mozart's daughters do not have Y chromosomes. And before you say 1 chromosome doesn't make a difference, I will tell you this. The genetic difference between XY and XX is about the same amount of difference between a monkey and a human. So yes, being born a woman literally means you start out different than being born a man.

>
To add to both these replies it's not just that skills might be in the Y chromosome it's that entire approaches to life are contained in that. It's the reason that men are more competitive than women and having a competitive attitude is going to make you develop into a completely different type of person. While you CAN teach women to adopt masculine ways of thinking it's very hard because it's working against their natural mechanism. This is why even though men and women are given identical educations men and women still end up with very different outcomes.

No amount of social engineering will change that fact that we are each biologically geared towards different tasks. And frankly I think it's obvious genetics are more powerful than environment. As a thought experiment if you were to take someone who was genetically set up to be mentally retarded the finiest education in the world would still not let him succeed. While history is filled with examples of people being born in poor conditions and succeeding through some great innate talent.

As far as art goes, you can pretty much sum it up in a couple of points:
1) socialization - boys were pushed more to become artists than girls, especially in the very young, critical years of life.
2) lack of equality of opportunity - it wasn't always possible for women to become artists.
3) biases in the Western canon - for example, major 19th century composers are either opera composers or symphonists, but the majority of female composers in the 19th century wrote almost exclusively chamber music and art songs. Other biases exist as well, for example, why don't we consider quilting or embroidery as mediums for fine art?

The Y chromosome holds little data my friend. The great majority of our inherited genes are in the X chromosome.

Some mentally handicapped people have graduated college. They may not have had the """""finiest""""" education like you obviously had, though.

I'm talking severely retarded. There are some people that will not even learn to read no matter why education get.

The thing about genetics is that it doesn't take much to make a huge difference. The genetic difference between an Ashknazi Jew and a regular Jew isn't much different nor is the difference between a Jew and non-Jewish Europian. Yet this produces massive differences.

The big thing is there is no way Y chromosome DNA can intermix with women while Jewish DNA can intermix with non-Jewish DNA blurring the lines.

Children at extremely young ages (like toddler or even below that) show preference in activity, favorite toys, and conduct based on their gender. This is not based on environment but based on genetics. These bias for how to conduct themself will be with their biology their whole life and affect all manner of things.

>A man born with no legs will never be able to run a marathon, therefore genetics is the strongest determiner of long distance running skill
>A man born with no arms will never be on Iron Chef, therefore genetics is the strongest determiner of cooking skill

I have worked with someone that is mentally retarded enough so they could never read a recipe, they literally would be incapable of making pancakes.

I don't care how much fucking education you throw at the guy he will never be good at cooking because of his genetics.

And yes genetics IS the strongest fucking factor in running. That's why the people that win the Olympics are from that one region in Kenya that has the best genes for running.

Jesus Christ, you just had to fucking reply to that obvious Boudicca bait didn't you you retarded autist? Fucking gas yourself.

>who was Toregene Khatun
>who was Queen Elizabeth (I) of England
>who was Isabella of Castille

Women have led plenty of nations.

babies aren't gonna birth themselves