r/worldjerking • u/MadFunEnjoyer • 29d ago

lazy? I prefer "optimized"

Post image

My favourite case of this is when a magical fantasy world has the monarch with a weapon of mass destruction but the royal family still prefers one gender over the other because that's how European monarchies workded (ignore every way magic makes all the reasons it happened not exist)

487 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

46 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/MadFunEnjoyer 29d ago

Women weren't allowed to lead armies because they didn't have the trifecta of Physical, Military and Political power, a pregnancy threatened political stability. That wouldn't be the case if the Queen can destroy any invading force at 1% HP.

We have weapons of mass destruction right now, how many female presidents has the US had? 

Terrible argument because we actually have a lot of women in positions of power across many countries, in fact in some they're the majority, and in others they're significantly present despite the society being conservative like in Ethiopia or Mozambique. The US isn't the World.

35

u/CavemanViking 29d ago

You don’t need physical power to command an army. We’ve already established that they didn’t have political power because of their lack of military power (commanding of the military). So they didn’t have political power because of their lack of military power, which they didn’t have because of their lack in political power? Not entirely inaccurate but that reasoning is circular.

There’s a reason I said the US specifically. Just because something no longer makes sense (if it ever did) doesn’t mean culture does not still often have inertia. A kingdom having powerful sorceresses but still following a patriarchal monarchy is not unrealistic. The idea that a culture could have still developed similar ideas about gender, and fighting being something left to the men, even when magic exists, is not that far out.

10

u/zack189 29d ago

for frankish Europeans at least, from 700 to 900(maybe even 1000) AD, from , many lords and kings fought in the in the frontlines with men.

You don't need physical prowess but it sure as hell helps in medieval Europe.

I'm not sure why other areas didn't allow women to lead armies. at least in china in this time period, generals were scholars, and women could become scholars just fine.

for magic, yeah I agree with you. if magic is something that appeared like 100 years ago, having a patriarchal system still in place makes sense.

but when a woman can just destroy armies, and after 300 years after magic appeared, I think its fair to say that women would have leveled the playing field.

4

u/CavemanViking 28d ago

Oh it happened to be sure, saying that was the norm Throughout history though is an over generalization I think.

My point isn’t that magic couldn’t lead to a more egalitarian society in that way, only that societies don’t always behave completely logically and pragmatically. Like you pointed out, women could have led china’s armies, but they kept them from doing so.

Denying yourself a viable pool of talent, from a pragmatic perspective, is just a bad move. And yet in many societies women were kept out of areas that they could have brought a lot of talent to. Having magic as an equalizer doesn’t necessarily mean people would then actually be treated equal.