Are there any historical examples of changing the status of women from this period?
- Thread starter Druplesnubb
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Agendas are never ok. And I don't want Presentism in this game.
Provide your source please.
It certainly is not well-received, but I am fine with it. There is nothing wrong with saying controversial things.
How exactly is it not context-adjacent if people are using modern feminism as a justification and ideological framework for their arguments on these very forums?
- 6
- 6
What? She's a Saint; a Pope said so, and He can't be wrong. And don't say that it doesn't make sense that she's the patron saint for radio and telegraphy, when those didn't even exist when she was alive.
(see, the Church can go all crazy. Why not for female rulers... ^^).
You know, I could see the "it's not historical!" argument, but then along comes the "feminist conspiracy" lunacy. Good Lord, people.
- 9
Well, on the subject of Mongols, it should be noted that the status of Mongol women in this period was fairly egalitarian- certainly more so than, say, Western Europe. Although women were often simply seen as a commodity, to be bought, sold and inherited, they also had much more agency and influence than in sedentary societies- a typical existence in the survivalist, subsistent steppe. Women had property ownership and divorce rights; Plano Carpini's account mentions girls being trained in some of the same martial ways as boys (and we all know about Khutulun, of course); and women were usually responsible for the running of ordus while the menfolk were away at war.
There were, of course, examples of women in power (especially in the Ilkhanate- the rulers of Shiraz were often women, and in a rather more successful example was the long, prosperous reign of Qutlugh Terkan in Kirman- a Muslim woman coming from a steppe tradition, who was interestingly accepted and praised by the Islamic chroniclers of the day), and women such as Hoelun, Borte and Sorghaghtani Beki played vital roles in the empire's formation and ideologies (particularly the latter, to whom the re-alignment of the Mongols from being purely predatory to pragmatic rulers can be primarily attributed. One (male) chronicler stated that if all women were like her, women would be superior to men).
But particularly interesting in this regard is the fact that there was a way in which female control over the Empire as a whole was a fundamental institution, which was during the Mongol regencies. It became a tradition that the chief wife of the previous Great Khan would rule the empire until a quriltai could be held to decide on a male Chinggisid successor. This happened twice: upon Ogodei's death, leading to the 6-year rule of Toregene, and upon Guyuk's death, leading to the 3-year rule of Oghul Qaimish. The latter's reign was not particularly noteworthy- she spent most of her reign consulting with shamans and getting gradually outmanoeuvred by Sorghaghtani and Batu- but Toregene was frighteningly competent at keeping power, using her rule to manipulate the strings of power to put her son Guyuk on the throne, whom she initially used as a puppet when he finally acceded (until he, being by most acounts a rather intelligent chap, used his superior position to have her taken down). She even had coins minted in her name, of which some examples survive.
Obviously, it is possible to overstate this. Women were still considered property, and were often subordinate to the whims of men. But it was still far better than womens' status in sedentary societies such as China, Iran and Europe, and women were often critical actors in the empire and its future (especially Hoelun, Borte, Sorghaghtani Beki and Toregene Khatun).
- 4
I did work on a Norse-Greek melting pot based on Germanic names in the Alexiade... Do you want it?
It is context-adjacent ... but just barely. CK2 is developed by modern developers, published by modern publishers, and its forum is populated by and moderated by modern people ... most or nearly all of whom have feminism as part of their ideological framework. Suggesting that feminism is a motivator is a conversational nonstarter, a derailing one that ... even if I were wrong about the consumers' leanings ... would and did somewhat hobble our discussion.
We all know the monarchs of France didn't and likely wouldn't have passed a law in the 13th century to give women equal status in all things ... especially without long precedent. However, CK2 operates under the same careful consideration that other Paradox games do. It's why you can't commit genocide in WWII and you can't catch bishops abusing children in this game. We are modern people consuming a modern product. Paradox is doing its best to allow players to interact with female characters more, while attempting to retain their own comfort with the content and the audience's positive reception. There's enough medieval flavor, enough player choice, and enough blowback from other characters to justify its inclusion and the audience apparently agrees.
Yes, equal inclusion of women into CK2 is ahistorical ... but in a game where ahistory begins on Day 1/2 of a campaign and there's some disparaging of PDS's motives and their historical perspective, your protestations don't seem to start from the gameplay vs. simulation vs. historical realism triangle as much as the anti-feminist crowd. For that crowd and that discussion, seek out a political forum.
Last edited:
- 4
No she didn't. Theodora died in 548, over 200 years before the earliest start date (and over 500 years before the vanilla start date).
-Starts argument that it doesn't matter that its not historical.
-Literally says there really were historical rulers who really did push for reforms WRT women, thus rendering previous argument moot because it really was historical.
-Ignores what you've just said to go on some weird alt-history tangent about some all-female lineage instead.
Your post seems pretty incoherent to me.
@Groogy: Can you confirm that the "traditional" law isn't actually the most restrictive? It's just the regular rules for women in your specific culture/religion, right?
I really don't see why people are making a big deal out of this. It's for you to decide. You can IGNORE it, you can be a Patricarchal Pig OR a Ferocious Feminist. Or you can, as stated, sit on your hands.
- 1
- 1
Not... really? It goes like this: it doesn't matter if it's ahistorical --> even if it did it isn't --> in CK2 you can create scenario's that are implausible according to our history but can happen in the game and thus you should be able to build on the results of that.
Are rights for women more or less likely to happen than Cathars taking over Catholicism? More or less likely than a reformed Norse that take over the world? More or less likely than a holy order independently ruling France after a Crusade?
My point with that was that CK2 is full of historical inconsistencies, ergo it is not a 'historical' simulator. It's a possibility simulator.
Is it possible that reforms WRT women would have happened? Well, we have actual examples that it did so it's most assuredly not impossible. Implausible? Maybe, but like we've covered before we have a lot of that.
So does that leave any tangible objection?
I think it does, the next one is probably going to be: men (apparently all men, forever, everywhere) would object to implementing feminism (apparently here meaning modern day feminism) in the medieval ages because it does not jive with their mindset.
Well. Yes. Yes, they would. This is modelled in the game. Your vassals object to a female heir, it's been said these laws are hard to pass presumably by your all male council.
But here's a shocking idea: minds change. There is certainly not a big enough gap, evolutionarily speaking, to say that medieval human brains vs current human brains differed so massively that they were somehow incapable of adapting to new concepts or ideas. There was most assuredly a cultural, religious and social milieu that would make it difficult to accept laws such as this (modeled clumsily in the game in the form of opinion maluses) but that does not mean that if you saw one woman do a competent job, and then you saw another woman do a competent job, and then you saw another woman doing a competent job that your mindset would somehow just flatout refuse to shift. I dunno about you guys but when I'm presented with enough counter evidence to my stupid assumptions my mind magically adapts to it and I change how I perceive things. YMMV.
And we're not taking about 'all' women here, we aren't kicking down peasant hovels and shoving the barefoot pregnant women away from their cowpie ovens or whatever, we are, by necessity, talking of women with power. Yes, in medieval times this authority was often obviated in favor of the husband or the council but not always. And here we tie it back to the initial point of CK2 being a possibility simulator. You can play the exceptional instead of the generic if you so choose.
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
- 1
- 1
It doesn't matter what political agenda is inserted in the game and it doesn't matter how many people support it. Inserting modern political ideology in a historical grand strategy game set in Medieval Ages is not justifiable and everyone who disagrees with such inclusion should have an ability to voice their displeasure. Your post comes across like: "Majority of people have such and such political leanings so it's ok to put that leanings into the game and disagreeing minority should not dare to protest the will of the collective because it's a taboo to even mention it".
You are making a severe mistake here by equalizing your mindset with that of the Medieval person. It took centuries before nobles accepted that commoners were competent enough to hold certain positions despite tons of evidence for it. Same thing with racial, religious and gender differences. Why? Not only because of a bias, but also because noone wants competition. It's hard to accept for a modern person, but it was absolutely normal for a person of the past.
- 6
- 5
All art is first steeped in the beliefs and politics of its creator(s).
- 3
- 2
Does not make it logically or morally justifiable.
- 9
- 2
There are several characters in the history files who lived around the beginning of the first century. They're there for flavor, not play. They're way out of the era.
- 2
Can you me one ruler who made a law 'Now I'm allowed to creat viceroy duchies, but not kingdoms'?
The laws ingame don't represent litteral laws. Crown authority, viceroy laws, administration laws, status of women don't represent really laws. They represent changed which are not on paper too.
- Status