Are there any historical examples of changing the status of women from this period?

[Thure]

Don't understand the law ingame as real written law. There was never a historical 'Crown authority' law as well. There was never a law for duchy of kingdom viceroys. There was never a a law to switch between feudalism and imperialism.

The law are there to represent dynamically changes too. And to represent differences in the world. Basques had a different status of Women than the Arabs. And the Tuareg had a different status too. The law is there to represent this and not a historical law.

 

[Pyoro]

Meh, it happened about as much as the Roman Empire was revived or the HRE was unified or the pagan faiths survived. As Will Steel points out, the "status of women" often actually got worse in the period. I don't think India is the only example there.

But I also don't think it's any more outlandish than the examples I mentioned happening. Just needs to be balanced, and if the player then wants to go for it - why not? I almost always had it modded in - have a powerful female ruler with loads of prestige and good stats and you were allowed to change the succession law. Whether it's historic or not, whatever, it could've gone that way. ^^

 

[King Dave]

Apart from a few rare exceptions the medieval world was a man's world. When women were allowed to rule by men (because without the backing of men it wasn't going to happen) it was because there wasn't a man who could command the support of the other men or because a group of men found a convenient women with a tenuous claim to a title.
The inclusion of status of women in the game is completly out of context. In the medieval world, the status of women was only a concern when it impacted the status of men. Women councillors? No way. The only way a female ruler would get her voice heard was by the representations of a man. It was seen as unatural, against gods will even.
The ahistorical status of women should be something for modders to do or possibly it's own DLC (Not that there would be enough takers to make this viable.) It should not be imposed on what is mainly a mans world.

Sorry ladies but I just can't bare history being bastardised.

 

[Thure]

Apart from a few rare exceptions the medieval world was a man's world. When women were allowed to rule by men (because without the backing of men it wasn't going to happen) it was because there wasn't a man who could command the support of the other men or because a group of men found a convenient women with a tenuous claim to a title.
The inclusion of status of women in the game is completly out of context. In the medieval world, the status of women was only a concern when it impacted the status of men. Women councillors? No way. The only way a female ruler would get her voice heard was by the representations of a man. It was seen as unatural, against gods will even.
The ahistorical status of women should be something for modders to do or possibly it's own DLC (Not that there would be enough takers to make this viable.) It should not be imposed on what is mainly a mans world.

Sorry ladies but I just can't bare history being bastardised.

Read a book about noblewomen in the middle ages. There were women who did rule without a man. And don't claim that the middle ages were the same at all times (700-1500 are 800 years! A lot can happen in this years) and all places (India was different than Arabia which was different from the Tuareg which is different from Navarra).

 

[Knotz]

Are there any historical examples of heresies growing to the point of toppling Catholicism?

Are there any historical examples of Viking taking over the world?

Did Holy Orders routinely take over entire countries as a reward for winning a Crusade?

You're asking the wrong question. From my perspective CK2 is much less a historical simulator than it is a possibility/what if/could have been simulator. Were there female rulers who pushed for reforms WRT women? Yes. Was there a lineage of powerful female rulers that aggressively pushed female participation in the running of their kingdom? No. Is it conceivable that something along those lines could potentially (no matter how unlikely) have happened? Yes.

Thus I see no reason for it not to be possible. There doesn't have to be broad based historical precedence, just the possibility of it happening has to be there.

 

[Thure]

As to "a lot can happen in 800 years" Are you trying to tell me that there was a period of feminist enlightenment that somehow faded from history. I don't think so, not when much of the present world practises little to no rights for women. Want to know what the rights of women were like in medieval times? Look at the developing world now.

No. I just want to tell you that 800 years ios a long timespan. If you really think nothing changed in 800 years... you are kinda wrong.

 

[King Dave]

Are there any historical examples of heresies growing to the point of toppling Catholicism?

Are there any historical examples of Viking taking over the world?

Did Holy Orders routinely take over entire countries as a reward for winning a Crusade?

You're asking the wrong question. From my perspective CK2 is much less a historical simulator than it is a possibility/what if/could have been simulator. Were there female rulers who pushed for reforms WRT women? Yes. Was there a lineage of powerful female rulers that aggressively pushed female participation in the running of their kingdom? No. Is it conceivable that something along those lines could potentially (no matter how unlikely) have happened? Yes.

Thus I see no reason for it not to be possible. There doesn't have to be broad based historical precedence, just the possibility of it happening has to be there.

There haven't been any instances of aliens invading from space but I don't see you calling for that to be included.

It has to be possible, and in a time period when the people holding the reigns of power (men) didn't even think about womens rights, it seems totaly inconcievable that it would have been on anyone's agenda.

 

[Monphat]

Sorry ladies but I just can't bare history being bastardised.

Haven't you heard that politically agitated people on this forum implicitly said that they don't care about history and only want their fantasies to be played out regardless of logic and plausibility. More importantly they have no qualms about forcing the same mindset on everyone through vanilla instead of making their own fantasy mods. Last thread about the topic was closed after it became apparent that these people prefer to operate on their ideology-based feelings and emotions instead of engaging in meaningful debate.

 

[King Dave]

No. I just want to tell you that 800 years ios a long timespan. If you really think nothing changed in 800 years... you are kinda wrong.

I don't dispute that plenty things changed during 800 years but I doubt any of it changed the status of women.

Anyway, I'm going to say no more on this subject because it's been said already on another thread.

 

[Knotz]

There haven't been any instances of aliens invading from space but I don't see you calling for that to be included.

It has to be possible, and in a time period when the people holding the reigns of power (men) didn't even think about womens rights, it seems totaly inconcievable that it would have been on anyone's agenda.

I do not agree with this statement. For one, it might have been on a queen's mind. But you also said the words 'feminist agenda' unironically so I don't really see a conversation between the two of us leading anywhere productive.

 

[Summercat]

And I don't want to discuss again with some people who claim every source which disagree with them is feminist...

"All books on medieval noble women are written by people with feminist agenda." Wow. Such meaningful debate. So not a ideology-based feelings and emotions.

I do not agree with this statement. For one, it might have been on a queen's mind. But you also said the words 'feminist agenda' unironically so I don't really see a conversation between the two of us leading anywhere productive.

As I said, whooooooo boy.

Some people get so upset at just options, even ones that would make historical sense as things developed in game. It'd be as if Paradox overhauled the culture system to allow for all sorts of theorhetical melting pots. Yes, a Greco-German Melting Pot culture never existed in the real world, but it could happen in game and would make sense if the ERE conquered German territory.

 

[Ranjid]

As I said, whooooooo boy.

Some people get so upset at just options, even ones that would make historical sense as things developed in game. It'd be as if Paradox overhauled the culture system to allow for all sorts of theorhetical melting pots. Yes, a Greco-German Melting Pot culture never existed in the real world, but it could happen in game and would make sense if the ERE conquered German territory.

Oh, I so want my Geek melting pot now!

 

[Summercat]

Oh, I so want my Geek melting pot now!

I know it's a typo, but now I'm just envisioning the new DLC, "Nerdic Invasion".

 

[Afinati]

As long as it's a controversial issue with opposition from the church, as long as it has to be voted on by a council, I'm for it. Sure, the religious leaders and religious heads should be wary and some enemies of the liege should use it as a wedge issue ... but it should be possible. Again, it's gonna be rare, it's hard to pass, it's incremental, and it finally allows players to interact more fully with female characters ... something I and my only other CK2 player friend (a female) both want.

I've had the Status of Women mod installed for a while. Glad to see this reach the light of vanilla day. ... Or is it a Conclave feature and not a patch feature?

 

[Afinati]

You're asking the wrong question. From my perspective CK2 is much less a historical simulator than it is a possibility/what if/could have been simulator. Were there female rulers who pushed for reforms WRT women? Yes. Was there a lineage of powerful female rulers that aggressively pushed female participation in the running of their kingdom? No. Is it conceivable that something along those lines could potentially (no matter how unlikely) have happened? Yes.

Thus I see no reason for it not to be possible. There doesn't have to be broad based historical precedence, just the possibility of it happening has to be there.

Agreed.

 

[Zoob]

I think this is great for everyone, because it gives more options to players who want it without imposing it on those who for whatever reason do not.

Women do play Crusader Kings 2, and I think it would be good for them to be fully represented and empowered in game, whether historical or not.

Nobody is saying there weren't and Jewish empires, so a Jewish state shouldn't be able to create Kingdoms or Empires. So why the same logic shouldn't say that players should be able to do what they want, historical or not without resorting to mods, I don't know.

Once the historical argument has been discarded, because frankly, CK2 stops being historical the moment time starts ticking, the question that really remains is, why does the inclusion of this voluntary feature rankle people so very much?

I think the answer to that question probably says a lot about the person.

 

[Monphat]

"All books on medieval noble women are written by people with feminist agenda." Wow. Such meaningful debate. So not a ideology-based feelings and emotions.

Everyone has emotions and everyone makes mistakes. Difference is in how much is someone emotional and mistaken. Not all books on noblewomen are written by feminists of course. A lot of them certainly are, though.

I do not agree with this statement. For one, it might have been on a queen's mind. But you also said the words 'feminist agenda' unironically so I don't really see a conversation between the two of us leading anywhere productive.

1. As I've said in a previous, now closed thread, the notion that wide-spread feminism is possible in a Medieval feudal realm is historically implausible (impossible) compared to various ahistorical (unlikely but plausible) scenarios that this game offers. How would any female ruler force feminism on her realm if almost every single men of the period, including whole standing armies and peasants, would be against it. The only argument people find for this is that somehow a line of successful genius empresses would sway public opinion in female favour. This is wrong because such a line of rulers would make that line of rulers seem good and would not correspond in any way with public opinion of female gender in general. Matilda was cool? Well, in public opinion that means that Matilda is cool, not anything else. Why do people think that mindset of a Medieval man (and woman for that matter) would correspond with "tolerant" and "open" mindsets of modern people? Mind patterns of people of the past and present are so vastly different that, to be honest, this whole debacle is laughable. I'd actually advise people to read books on psychology of Medieval people: nobles, burghers, peasants etc. of both genders and all ages.

2. If you don't think that there are a lot of people with feminist agenda in the Western world today, then you are simply mistaken. Anyway discussion is really moot, everything about the topic has already been said. Devs have already made their minds. Although I am glad that the law is not as extreme as it initially sounded, restrained only to cognatic inheritance and council/general positions, not to mention cultural/religious barriers, I'd still prefer to not see it in vanilla at all.

The Status of Women law is mostly there to allow player to customize their realms more. The AI won't really change it and councilors are mostly against the law (even women councilors might object).
Each step enables more council positions to be held by women and the higher ones enable some succession laws that might be banned by culture/religion.

 

[DMcCool]

One thing that people have touched upon here, that I really hope Paradox will look at before Conclave but now probably sadly won't, is the fact that the status of women, on the whole, when dramatically backwards in this period, not "forward". Its bad to make almost any generalisations in history, but if you had to say whether the lot of women improved or got worse in this period for the main place the map is focused on, you'd have to say the latter.

The main issue here being the "Tradition" name for the most repressive of women laws being woefully mistitled.

 

[Thure]

One thing that people have touched upon here, that I really hope Paradox will look at before Conclave but now probably sadly won't, is the fact that the status of women, on the whole, when dramatically backwards in this period, not "forward". Its bad to make almost any generalisations in history, but if you had to say whether the lot of women improved or got worse in this period for the main place the map is focused on, you'd have to say the latter.

The main issue here being the "Tradition" name for the most repressive of women laws being woefully mistitled.

No I wouldn't say the latter. It was more worse than today... But I don't know much cases were the status of women gor worse in this period of Europe than before. Actually the status of women did improve in some places. Like the cities in Germany.

 

[Carmilla]

Women do play Crusader Kings 2, and I think it would be good for them to be fully represented and empowered in game, whether historical or not.

We do and its quite nice to have the option. Even better to have an option to lead history down a different path altogether as the last thing I want to do when playing CK2, is be in the same position in the 1400s as it was historically regardless of the startdate I've started on. That sort of railroading can be exceptionally annoying.

The fact that republics and muslim realms are so rigid in this regard is why I only keep the former only to make me money(because I quit any republic game due to being locked into agnatic within the first generation no matter what I do despite enjoying the gameplay) and don't even touch the latter, sticking to norse, christians and zoroastrians instead.