Hi there, I'm a long-time lurker, first time poster. Great subreddit, I really enjoy reading it!
So, I've got a question:
for most of history (both western and not), women were discriminated and not considered worthy of holding political power. I assume this was because they were considered intellectually inferior or 'irrational'.
But...how does this fit with the fact that queen regnants existed and were no worse than kings at their 'job' ?
In fact, from what I understand quite a few of these queens were actually better at ruling than the average king, and this not just from our modern point of view - I am pretty sure these queens were fairly popular and respected by their subjects.
In addition to history proper, there's also legendary-mythological queens like Dido, the Queen of Sheba, and so on, and they were generally not portrayed as incompetent (even if we can still see how their portrayal was sexist in some other ways)
How do we explain the inconsistency? They believed that women should not be given power because they could not handle it...but they also accepted that a queen could do a good job ruling.
Was that just hypocrisy? Did they believe that these women were the exception and not the rule? Were sex stereotypes different for noble women, so they believed that a royal woman could rule like a royal man, but that the equivalent was not true for lower-ranked people?
EDIT: I realized I did not phrase my post as a direct question. Sorry about that!
Not at all an expert, but from what I've found from research.
In Elizabethan England, for example, there was a distinction made between the 'body natural' and the 'body politic'. In this sense, the Queen regnant was seen as a 'Prince of the female gender'. Her femininity was considered secondary to her bloodline, and it was suggested by many commentators, and herself, that she abrogated her female nature and replace it with a more sturdy, male persona. Indeed, in the case of Elizabeth I, there was a strong belief at the onset she could not rule effectively. There was direct sexism, but it was conveyed as more 'protecting' the frail woman from the stresses of rule as opposed to blatant attacks.
You also highlighted that there is a distinction between the ordinary woman and women of extremely elevated status and wealth. These women, regardless of their gender, were treated with far more respect than counterparts in lower classes. There was a presupposition in many societies that a woman's wealth and ancestry could outweigh the fact that she was a female.
I think a case can also be made that many Queen's who ruled suo jure were really up against extraordinary odds to assert her claim. In this case, a strong character also tempered by astute judgement (or competent advisors) was essential. A woman who could effectively outmanouver the obstacles of patriarchal government would already be well equipped to rule.