All the Abrahamic religions have a low opinion of women, but certainly women enjoyed many more rights in medieval Europe than in greece or the roman empire.
Status of Woman
- Thread starter ruzen
- 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
No. Because "Status of Women" (capitalized) with a slider going from "traditional" to "full" and the whole concept of women's rights inserted into this timeframe is as ridiculous and politicially charged as inserting Marxist theory of history into the game. Don't you really see an issue here?
- 11
- 2
Your faulty argument betrays simple ideological fear and hatred. Because of your ideological myopia, you have not considered that people who want a more gender-equal CK2 might not want it just because they're feminist. It's primary impact is on gameplay. You could play as your genius 30 diplomacy daugther without being Basque etc.
Conversely, I'm a feminist, but am not particularly hyped for Status of Women. I think gender bias is one of the game's intrinsic challeges. I do appreciate it since other people want it and it's useful for mods. It's a good addition to the game. And since it does not use modern political language as a "Marxism slider" would, it does not affect the game's medieval aesthetic.
The historicity of CK2 is a pretence for a game, and serves gameplay purposes and not vice versa. Your fear of pandering to feminists is irrational and illogical. You view the historicity of CK2 as a comforting shield that protects from the "poison" of feminism. NewbieOne is more honest and admits that they simply don't want to acknowledge feminism or feminists existing. It breaks the comforting escapist illusion.
Your argument betrays your own principles. If you value free speech, debate, and rational discussion, why do you hate being reminded of opposing viewpoints? You yourself want to shut out what you find inconvenient and uncomfortable.
Last edited:
- 8
- 3
Guys have you even thought that maybe all the final button does is get rid of the negative opinion modifier for being a female ruler maybe its as simple as that.
- 6
While I'm still unsure what I feel about this, it saddens me a little that opposition to this is universally in the hands of rabid anti-feminists/thinly-veiled sexists, often with a strange understanding of history. I'd have thought that it would be feminists and scholars of medieval gender history who'd be most opposed to this, given how it's something of a whitewashing of the real and terrible problems women faced in the period.
- 5
- 3
Really? An incredibly minor solar cult that we have basically no record of and as such is almost completely invented for the game, and when it did exist it only belonged to one family in Afghanistan, going on to explosively expand and reform and retake its holy sites in Babylon and Egypt...that is more historical than France letting women serve as councilors? You sure?
As for the historicity of female rulers improving the lot of women in their realms, look to the Empress Theodora.
As for the historicity of female rulers improving the lot of women in their realms, look to the Empress Theodora.
- 8
Oh dear, how could I not see that point of view, when I wrongly assumed that we were talking about a game made for entertainment when someone [sobbing, tears flowing down my face] could feel shattered in his/her/it´s very soul that a game about a historical period would be [oh god] trying to be historical and not cater to an audience used to have absurd issues and feel threatened in their current existance by a game.
I fear that next we might see violent protest that cars shift lever is just a phallic symbol made to subjugate liberated women and all new cars must have the option built-in (and paid by everyone) to have a voice-control where the driveperson can politely ask what speed it would like to drive and the car then responds with "not now dear my oilpressure gives me headaches".
- 8
- 5
Oh dear, how could I not see that point of view, when I wrongly assumed that we were talking about a game made for entertainment when someone [sobbing, tears flowing down my face] could feel shattered in his/her/it´s very soul that a game about a historical period would be [oh god] trying to be historical and not cater to an audience used to have absurd issues and feel threatened in their current existance by a game.
I fear that next we might see violent protest that cars shift lever is just a phallic symbol made to subjugate liberated women and all new cars must have the option built-in (and paid by everyone) to have a voice-control where the driveperson can politely ask what speed it would like to drive and the car then responds with "not now dear my oilpressure gives me headaches".
Um. What?
- 9
I tried to respond to your claims of "rabid anti-feminists/thinly-veiled sexists opposition" and "whitewashing problems for feminists " in an entertainment game with humour as I felt arguments would be lost on you.
- 6
Oh drop the holier (humbler) than thou rutine.
Ey, that got me the donkey in the first place. Another post and i get a horse as well, but i like me donkey, thanks.
I accept the fact that this is a game and that everyone has a right to play it if they purchased it. I understand that this means that there will be people with horrible social beliefs that are contrary to my own. I never try to ruin their fun however. I won't deny though, that sometimes when I visit these forums I vomit a little when I read some posts and thank goodness that I live in a nation that respects me as an equal(or somewhat equal lol). Its hard to tell if a person is legitimately an asshole in the forums or just trying to be pedantic/knowledgeable sometimes. Happens ALOT more in the Hoi3/4 forums about a larger variety of barely ok things to be excited or enthusiastic about but I just pretend when I read some comments that its being said by Spongebob Squarepants and I strangely don't feel that awful or dirty about the statements after. Don't like it, don't buy it, or mod it, or don't use it.
- 8
Oh, I got that part, I just didn't understand why you were trying to do that via a series of rambling, incoherent stereotypes of... something, which entirely misrepresented what I was saying.
It looks a little like you say the words "gender" and "feminist" and immediately jumped to certain odd conclusions.
- 2
I meant noblewomen, obviously (or wealthy burghers, in the case of MRs). And I also said that I think it will be unlikely to happen without player intervention or special circumstances (e.g. Cathars/Bogomilists/Basques in charge).
Given how ahistorical CK2 can get at times, some realm (particularly one that lacks a formal religious head or that controls its own reformed religion) might be far more tolerant than others. Of course, it should be fairly unlikely to happen in many places and should face a lot of opposition for a couple of generations or so, but it should be possible to be progressive to some extent if you want to be.
I used Joan as an example as there is a similar character who can pop up with SoA. If someone like her showed up and spoke out in favour of women to some extent (e.g. "Your daughter wants to fight by my side? I don't see a problem with that."), it would not feel entirely out of place to me. I am not saying that this should be guaranteed to happen if "Joan" pops up, or that her liege should listen (in fact, it could be the point at which the liege decides that she has outlived her usefulness), but a more successful "Joan" (who survives the war, becomes widely respected in her country, etc.) might have some impact if some other woman wants to fight or wants more rights during her lifetime.
I think you must have misunderstood me, as that was basically what I was suggesting. There should be some resistance from the Pope and others who don't like what you are doing, which you will have to take into consideration.
Given that you won't be forced to use the laws (unless you want whatever benefits they give you) and that the AI likely won't move the laws very much towards giving women rights, I don't see an issue.
- 3
- 2
Some people do not want this because they are feminist. Still does not make it right. We've already discussed it before.
It is politically charged. NewbieOne already explained how.
1) Feminism during this timeframe is historically improbable and simply does not belong.
2) It's a poisonous ideology, we've alredy discussed this as well..
Serving as councilors? No. Wide-spread enforcement of women rights? Yes.
Sure. What exactly should I look to?
- 10
- 3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zunbils#Religion
At least we have something that historically existed to be in that area before the islamic conquest and the change of the area to suni islam.
You think Empress Theodora (the wife of Justinian) of the Byzantine Empire lived in the time period of CK to be relevant here?
Rather Theophanu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophanu
Last edited:
I would not normally want to talk to you after the ad-hominems (in which, I believe, you call it fascism to enforce equal pay for women), but there's a point that really needs discussion because it's relevant to the subject, and the post generally seems well balanced and courteous:
You left out the AI. I have no problem with a female chancellor or steward here or there, or even general, but this shouldn't be too frequent unless the AI is basically a monoblob that controls most of the continent and is making its own rules. In fact, I'd be using female councillors myself, but I still wouldn't like the AI to spontaneously push the slider as far to right as possible, like it does with Crown Authority, resulting in about half of the commanders or patricians in the late game being female. At that point it doesn't matter whether than happens inside or outside your realm, you're still surrounded by it.
(I would agree that 1-2 instances among the AI definitely don't count as imposing anything on the player, as that's just about the proportion at which it actually happened in real life, without even needing to venture into the problem of credibility of alternative history. A world with 0 female commanders, 0 female councillors etc. would be a historically incorrect world. But still, a world with 30-50% of them being female would be even more inaccurate, unless something drastic happened such as Charlemagne conquered all of Europe and said it was his will and the Pope concurred.)
Being a former journalist myself, not like this is a hugely relevant fact, but you seem to care, I see the problem we're discussing here as an issue of anachronism, not really feminism… Except that feminism may perhaps be the force driving people toward anachronism. But it's still about anachronism, not feminism really.
I was originally one of those people who called for a loosening of the restrictions on females, to the point where the player could do thing that AI wasn't supposed to do, and where 'what the AI was supposed to do' wasn't construed too narrowly either. I certainly think it already is male-centric to absolutely exclude female councillors and essentially confine title grants to unlanded females to the Basque culture (unlike CK1, where I used to grant duchies to queens), to exclude women from commanding siege defences (which they did quite a lot, historically), or even leading armies into the field where the ruler doesn't seem to matter or where she's totally in charge. Once again, I have no real problem with those laws. In fact, I'm happy they're in. I'm just not in agreement with their presentation, which I find to be problematic, as well as with feminist statements being included in the interface, which I'd rather see free of ideological injections. I'll certainly use those laws. I already have two AARs depicting women in the process of commanding in the field, sword in hand, in vaguely plausible circumstances (one a Celtic princess, the other a renaissance Italian Genius Spymaster with a penchant for trouble and an open-minded husband who was too busy to notice to begin with). But I don't like the interface putting emphasis on the 'Status of Women', as if we're examining history through the lens of gender studies (which I'm not totally bored by, but which isn't really my primary historical interest or perspective), and the judgement about 'traditional' smuggled into the interface, or the potential for abuse by the AI with realism-breaking results. Or even the illogicality of 'traditional' ignoring whatever the relevant culture, time and place considers to be traditional (even if that means almost full equality, which is traditional to that particular realm, in which case restricting women's rights would be untraditional, not the other way round). Distant last, I simply have a problem with design being swayed by political biases and away from realism.
You left out the AI. I have no problem with a female chancellor or steward here or there, or even general, but this shouldn't be too frequent unless the AI is basically a monoblob that controls most of the continent and is making its own rules. In fact, I'd be using female councillors myself, but I still wouldn't like the AI to spontaneously push the slider as far to right as possible, like it does with Crown Authority, resulting in about half of the commanders or patricians in the late game being female. At that point it doesn't matter whether than happens inside or outside your realm, you're still surrounded by it.
(I would agree that 1-2 instances among the AI definitely don't count as imposing anything on the player, as that's just about the proportion at which it actually happened in real life, without even needing to venture into the problem of credibility of alternative history. A world with 0 female commanders, 0 female councillors etc. would be a historically incorrect world. But still, a world with 30-50% of them being female would be even more inaccurate, unless something drastic happened such as Charlemagne conquered all of Europe and said it was his will and the Pope concurred.)
(Skipping the rest because I'd just be rewording a similar reply.)
Being a former journalist myself, not like this is a hugely relevant fact, but you seem to care, I see the problem we're discussing here as an issue of anachronism, not really feminism… Except that feminism may perhaps be the force driving people toward anachronism. But it's still about anachronism, not feminism really.
I was originally one of those people who called for a loosening of the restrictions on females, to the point where the player could do thing that AI wasn't supposed to do, and where 'what the AI was supposed to do' wasn't construed too narrowly either. I certainly think it already is male-centric to absolutely exclude female councillors and essentially confine title grants to unlanded females to the Basque culture (unlike CK1, where I used to grant duchies to queens), to exclude women from commanding siege defences (which they did quite a lot, historically), or even leading armies into the field where the ruler doesn't seem to matter or where she's totally in charge. Once again, I have no real problem with those laws. In fact, I'm happy they're in. I'm just not in agreement with their presentation, which I find to be problematic, as well as with feminist statements being included in the interface, which I'd rather see free of ideological injections. I'll certainly use those laws. I already have two AARs depicting women in the process of commanding in the field, sword in hand, in vaguely plausible circumstances (one a Celtic princess, the other a renaissance Italian Genius Spymaster with a penchant for trouble and an open-minded husband who was too busy to notice to begin with). But I don't like the interface putting emphasis on the 'Status of Women', as if we're examining history through the lens of gender studies (which I'm not totally bored by, but which isn't really my primary historical interest or perspective), and the judgement about 'traditional' smuggled into the interface, or the potential for abuse by the AI with realism-breaking results. Or even the illogicality of 'traditional' ignoring whatever the relevant culture, time and place considers to be traditional (even if that means almost full equality, which is traditional to that particular realm, in which case restricting women's rights would be untraditional, not the other way round). Distant last, I simply have a problem with design being swayed by political biases and away from realism.
- 5
Why is it not right? Your argument is that Status of Women admits the existence of 21st Century feminists. You are not arguing in good faith, because you are not arguing on the basis of game design. You are arguing on the basis of imagined concessions to the wrong people. You blame Paradox of breaking the game's aesthetic with anachronistic influences, but you readily admit that you yourself are projecting these onto the game.
Yes.
- 4
- 2
I'm not even getting into this, this debate is clearly retarded.
What does feminism even have to do with CK ffs, you people are just dumb.
The treatment of females in current Crusader Kings is just fine and balanced consider the concerned time frame AND our current mentality. This shouldn't turn into some GGer vs feminists or something.
Get your shit together.
What does feminism even have to do with CK ffs, you people are just dumb.
The treatment of females in current Crusader Kings is just fine and balanced consider the concerned time frame AND our current mentality. This shouldn't turn into some GGer vs feminists or something.
Get your shit together.
- 6
But have you considered that it might trigger players by reminding them of liberal feminism? A very serious issue.
- 6
- 1
- Status