no
also 1. women did not control guilds as they did not have "middle class" jobs, 2. home management is not equivalent to being part of a reigning nobleman's council, 3. controlling a country =/= administration being run by women, and 4. monarchs serving on the front lines does not mean they would allow random women, even if talented, to control armed forces
The reason why is that 1. it was best for all of the nobility that people kept to their areas and 2. posts in things like councils were considered, often, to be prestige posts which afforded status. there is no way that the man-controlled societies of this period would have allowed such important jobs to be controlled by people outside their circles, especially as women were quite secluded in this time period.
This agenda which states that women must be portrayed equally and which takes 5 or 6 examples and extrapolates them to be the norm is ridiculous.
There were often women in charge of guilds, some of which were wholly dominated by women, the goldsmiths guild of London was for the most part of its medieval history run by women, their needlework and expertise in gold threading and embroidery was something which was envied throughout European trade. Gynocratic societies go back a lot further than medieval history, there were fairly frequent times where policy has been conducted by women, you surely must have heard of enough queen regents? Queen regents tended to appoint more women to positions of power than is reflected in historical documents.
Furthermore, trades like bookkeeping, weaving and healing were also fairly dominated by women, while their professions weren't quite as varied as men and there were some restrictions the state of things was rarely as bad as how modern history projects it. It wasn't just home management they often had control over entire estates, sometimes even royal estates, these highly regarded positions gave them entry to councils. The misconception is more to do with the fact women tended not to receive as much education as men so there was a significantly smaller pool to choose from when it comes to things like classical education. Sure expectations were slightly different but the noble classes weren't stupid enough to pass on the skills of a talented person just because of gender.
Women were not secluded, there are plenty of tales of women often enjoying life with less limitations than men, there are a lot of stories behind history where women have been more sexually aware and taken the more active role in sexuality and banqueting, where as men were more bound by restrictions of chaste and temperance. It certainly wasn't equal but there was none of this flat out gender based denial, the history is just more hidden partly due to the church influence, although the impact of women on history did vary quite strongly from country to country.
.png){kind=avatar}
