“For myself, I want no advantage over my fellow man, and if he is weaker than I, all the more is it my duty to help him.” —Eugene V. Debs
"They are a society that we know hasn't had marriage for a thousand years, and they've been able to raise kids successfully," said Stephanie Coontz, family studies professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.
Queendom of Women.
Do not diminish the woman! King!Okay, the implications of the word go both ways. I was just quoting the source. But I do think ruling women should be called kings. Yes, there are the Queens Elizabeth, but they're seen as exceptions to the general principle that kings are male.
Queen is certainly NOT a diminishment! I'd rather be a queen than a king. I believe in taking back the language. When someone thinks "king" they think male. I don't use "men" when I mean people and I don't use mankind when I mean humankind. Language is a political statement. That said, I was joshing with you. I do have a novel called Queendom (in the embryonic stage), and no woman is diminished by being called a queen rather a king.
Oh, writers and words! I just checked one dictionary, and got this:Queen comes from Old English cwēn, pronounced (kwān), “queen, wife of a king,” and comes from Germanic *kwēn-iz, “woman, wife, queen.” For king, from Old English cyning, the first two definitions were "1. A male sovereign.2. One that is supreme or preeminent in a particular group, category, or sphere."Ultimately, of course, what sounds right to you is just fine. Queen Elizabeth I made it pretty clear that a queen is just as good as a king, at least so long as she doesn't marry. And QEII showed that once the institution is mostly ceremonial, marriage is legit, too.Queendom sounds like an excellent novel title to me. It's intriguing.