Men are kings~

i thought it was an inversal of the whole "yasss queeen" type of phrase
you know like "Indeeed my king"

I think that’s the intent, but on much introspection it just doesn’t hold up for me. I mean, part of the whole “queen” thing cake about because: 1. Women are often referred to as “princess” and similar to calling women “girls” that somewhat infantizes women; not to mention that the idea of “princess” serves into a narrative of being “kept” and of course the classic “prince/brave knight” that is obligatory in the traditional princess narrative. And 2. That a queen as opposed to a princess” is symbolic of self sufficiency and a measure of authority and autonomy. In context to the time period and the role of women, Queen is both widely known and related to princess, but was one of few female roles associated with power and some measure of equality.

So the term “queen” isn’t just a placation to make women feel “Royal” But is a mechanism of gender politics and language. Society doesn’t impart the same self worth upon women traditionally. A man’s self worth has traditionally been rooted in things like the ability to lead, command respect from others, earn, excel in his career, fight or compete physically or in their ways against men in contests of skill, integrity, stamina, resilience, and accomplishments. Women traditionally have been told to be proud of being pretty, looking their best, finding a “good man,” making babies and raising and caring for a family and home. Cooking, and of course being “lady like” in manners which traditionally- means being pretty submissive and non confrontational or “difficult.”

In that regard- the use of “queen” is a way to remind women of their value and ability beyond those things in a society that still holds strong ideas that is female value. So there isn’t a proper reversal of “queen” for men so to speak since men in society DO face challenges but those aren’t the challenges faced by women. One of kens major challenges in society are similar to women’s- which is that modern men struggle against the expectations and pressures of traditional gender roles and ideas for men- but the idea of “being a king” as opposed to fighting those roles and expectations reinforces them.

In the case of men- the idea of a “king” embodies the traditional notions of a man who is powerful, wealthy, strong, a leader, a decider, who puts his emotional needs asides for the good of those he “keeps” and “protects” and who doesn’t show “weakness” in a traditional sense pertaining to males.

At is worst- “a king” could also be interpreted as a figure head for the ideas of “toxic masculinity,” a man who always gets his way, who’s primary concern is his interests and not those of any other, who doesn’t ask but takes what he wants by force or compulsion, an inept baby who requires others to care for him but is deluded into believing he is the head of all things, who by virtue of birthright cannot be wrong and his word is law. So all in all- especially with context from the post- I don’t believe the idea of a “king” is apt not necessarily an ideal one to use for the empowerment of the modern man. Perhaps a monk? One who isn’t bound by materialism and want but seeks greater purpose and to enjoy life? One who’s self worth isn’t tied to title or wealth or feats of prowess but is rooted in knowing themselves and discovering the beauty of life unfettered by politics and position?

“King” is generally not equal to “queen” and you’d be hard pressed to find many instances in monarchy where a king and queen held equal position. Depending upon the circumstances one or the other tended to be the person in power and the other, if they had any official function, served either in a social capacity or had some sub set of lesser responsibility similar to a “First Lady” where they may sit on certain committees or through their position champion certain causes etc. using the authority of the king/Queen at the rulers pleasure.

So I mean, there’s more complexity to it but just for the simple fact of what a king actual is and symbolizes, and the fact that it is quite muddied as an analogy; especially when we consider “queen” has already been in use by women as a symbol of self empowerment- I just don’t quite feel it works. Consider also that “king” generally was a higher position than “queen” and when women adopted “queen” specifically in response to a social structure where females were considered lesser and as a response to the infantization and subservient role of the common “princess” that men now attempting to ape that using “king” is perhaps insensitive to the issues that led to the adoption of the term “queen.”

But as said- even taking women out of it, “King” is symbolic of the traditional expectations and gender identity thrust upon men. And we must remember- one of those “traditional” ideas of masculinity is the idea of the “tall” man and height being a factor in masculinity. Napoleon was an emperor, a conqueror, and not even actually so “short” especially for the time and place. Yet- when enemies and history wanted to taint his name, what did they do? They called him short. So in that light alone it seems silly to use “king” as a way to tell men not to worry about their height. Kings commonly worried about their height and ways to make themselves look bigger because “king” is a symbol of traditional masculinity and that same school of thought says “bigger is better.” It just doesn’t work for me.