Having people do something on your behalf is not the same as doing it yourself. As I said before, women do not inflict violence.
So if I pay someone to kill you it's not the same as
personally killing you? Local, state and federal law disagrees with you on that one.
I think you're splitting hairs here as Elizabeth's father Henry VIII ordered several executions in his time but he certainly didn't do it himself personally, nor was he expected to. His other daughter, and Elizabeth's sister Mary was nicknamed Bloody Mary for her fervor in having Protestants burned at the stake. Nobility and commoners were executed differently, and Isabella of France calmly biting into an apple as Hugh Despenser the Younger was drawn and quartered, his entrails burned in front of him while still alive, is the kind of
public political violence women of her class exercised when they had the ambition and ability to do so. Nobility were beheaded, in private, with peers of their choosing, and its a different kind of of violence; a message to other nobles of what happens if they aim for the crown.
Monarchs went into battle, but it was far more common for challengers to do battle. One of the perks of being a monarch is you can get others to do your killing for you.
I don't believe its necessary to be able to kill someone physically to understand
how to exercise political violence. My point was that American women of Victoria Nuland's class don't understand when it's politically expedient to inflict political violence and when to show restraint; they believe having the power to so is the universally accepted default response when challenged, thinking it makes them look strong to others. They believe "
This is what a man would do". It comes from a deep rooted insecurity and inexperience in exercising power as an arm of the government in furtherance of its political goals, and a very distorted view of
how and
why men and women behave.
