Sexist Game or Sandbox?

[Zardnaar]

Not true, this is what male bias in history teaches you. There were at least a few women who ruled Rome, even if some were for brief periods (women rulers such as Fulvia even had their likenesses printed on coins) I know there were at least one or two emperors whose mothers ruled as regents when they were young.

Regenets not Emperor.

Not claiming there wasn't powerful Roman women or powerful women around Rome.

Even Rome for more liberal over 500 years though.

If you like reading look up Queen Zenobia and Tamar of Georgia.

 

[red_elk]

She was speaking about Catherine de Medicis, regent in France, not Catherine the Great, empress in Russia ^^

Ah, ok. In Civ4 context I automatically assumed it's about Catherine the Great.

 

[MaryKB]

Again, you know what a regent is?

Calling it a different name doesn't mean anything. There were women who ruled Rome, no matter how much you want to deny it.

 

[Zardnaar]

You people do know what a regent is, right?

Yes it's an adult who runs the show on behalf of a child or incapacitated ruler.

They don't have the full range of power or benefit much from the Divine right of Kings concept.

France had agnatic succession after a English king tried claiming the throne via his mother iirc.

Agnatic means women can't inherit full stop, England had male preference hence you had Queen Elizabeth when there was no male heir.

Letting females inherit was also a peaceful way of changing dynasties. German and Russian monarchies had issues with succession sometimes with the throne sometimes going back two or 3 generations to find an heir.

 

[MaryKB]

Female is an adjective, please refer to people as women.

And you're still completely missing the point (and I assume willfully so)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Garbage. Empathy is extremely important for being able to relate to other people. Remember, "logic is the beginning of wisdom and not the end." But calling your biased opinions "logic" doesn't make it so.

Can't have functional empathy while ignoring reality. People are part of reality too. If you want to reach the "end" of anything, it is useful to at some point set foot at that starting point as described.

You won't relate to most sane people while making "X = Not X" propositions to them. Maybe if you are using quantum mechanics for small talk, but otherwise no.

 

[Zardnaar]

Female is an adjective, please refer to people as women.

And you're still completely missing the point (and I assume willfully so)

I'll use the English language any way I see fit.

People will at least understand what I'm talking about. And yes I looked at succession law at University. Yes they were sexist by modern standands but they usually had reasons. In Frances case it was to avoid war.

It was an attempt for stability, see the civil wars of Rome for example over succession or wars of Spanish Succession.

 

[Synobun]

In the semantics game of deciding if someone is worth being put in the role of ruler in a video game, it seems a seat of regency fits that bill relatively well? I mean, even the most long-lived of rulers being represented in the games didn't rule for the 6000 years of a Civ play-through IRL. So poking at how long they ruled and in what capacity seems mostly irrelevant. They ruled.

 

[MaryKB]

I'll use the English language any way I see fit.

People will at least understand what I'm talking about. And yes I looked at succession law at University. Yes they were sexist by modern standands but they usually had reasons. In Frances case it was to avoid war.

It was an attempt for stability, see the civil wars of Rome for example over succession or wars of Spanish succession.

Wow, your reply was extremely gross.

And you're still pathetically wrong. You've proven my point several times over.

You keep trying so hard to rationalize your raging sexism.

 

[MaryKB]

In the semantics game of deciding if someone is worth being put in the role of ruler in a video game, it seems a seat of regency fits that bill relatively well? I mean, even the most long-lived of rulers being represented in the games didn't rule for the 6000 years of a Civ play-through IRL. So poking at how long they ruled and in what capacity seems mostly irrelevant. They ruled.

But if you give women rulers a different name, you don't have to acknowledge their rule.

 

[Imaus]

This thread reeks of bait and is a ongoing dumpster fire. Should it be closed?

 

[Farm Boy]

Omission of the implied "persons" or subcategory thereof, such as "children" or "patients" does not insist upon the lack thereof.

Gotta admit though, the novelty factor is actually there in the insistence.

 

[MaryKB]

This thread reeks of bait and is a ongoing dumpster fire. Should it be closed?

Considering who started it, I'm quite sure it's bait. I need to stop falling for it.

 

[Zardnaar]

In the semantics game of deciding if someone is worth being put in the role of ruler in a video game, it seems a seat of regency fits that bill relatively well? I mean, even the most long-lived of rulers being represented in the games didn't rule for the 6000 years of a Civ play-through IRL. So poking at how long they ruled and in what capacity seems mostly irrelevant. They ruled.

They kind of had to, in some cases women couldn't inherit the throne.

And marrying the King doesn't make you a Queen, correct term is Queen Consort.
. Some women did rule either due to make preference or they didn't have a formal succession law preventing it.

Isabella was a queen in her own right along with her husband Ferdinand.

Agnatic succession though is why finding French Queens is going to be difficult. At least from the 14th century to 18th.

I think after Catherine the Romanovs locked women out but iirc she was in Civ 3.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This thread reeks of bait and is a ongoing dumpster fire. Should it be closed?

Claiming this is bait w/o supportive reasoning comes off as disingenuous, and goes against what little evidence exists either way.

 

[Zardnaar]

Wow, your reply was extremely gross.

And you're still pathetically wrong. You've proven my point several times over.

You keep trying so hard to rationalize your raging sexism.

History degree part of that does involve looking at eras where women's rights didn't exist in the modern sense.

Women were barred by law from inheriting.

Yes it's sexist but it's what it was like in certain parts of Europe.

Liberal Europe was the UK.

My head if state us female along withy PM I voted for.

QEII looks great by comparison I'm turning into a monarchist (but Charles is next )

 

[Manfred Belheim]

To be fair it is a bit weird to start a thread specifically about CKII. Yeah it's a gaming forum, but in OT?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To be fair it is a bit weird to start a thread specifically about CKII. Yeah it's a gaming forum, but in OT?

Would you put a question about whether it's sexist in the "all other games" subforum? That seems to make less sense than discussing it here.

 

[AdamCrock]

Tsarica Katherine were , IS among world greatest rulers.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Would you put a question about whether it's sexist in the "all other games" subforum? That seems to make less sense than discussing it here.

No I'd put it in the "Questions that aren't worth their own thread" thread (or whatever it's called). It doesn't feel to me that whether or not CKII is sexist is some pressing and timely question. Unless it came up in some other thread or something and that spawned this thread, but then the OP would usually mention that.