Tagged in another review saying the male characters in PRIORY are ‘poorly developed’ and overshadowed by the women. I still find this kind of response to the male characters really interesting.

It's not the ‘poorly developed’ part that piques my interest – that's subjective. It's just when there's an implication that the development of the women somehow damages or detracts from that of the men.

It reminds me of when I get reviews saying PRIORY is ‘weighted towards female rule’ or overtly matriarchal.

Actually, at the beginning of the book, the majority of the monarchs in the world of PRIORY are male. Out of the eight countries, only two have female rulers.

If anyone has a link to that study where men perceived women as talking much more than they actually do, I'd appreciate it, because I feel that misconception is definitely at play here.

One quarter of rulers being female = ‘weighted towards female rule’

There is only one actual matriarchy in the whole of PRIORY – that being the Priory itself, where only women may rule. Inys is a ‘matriarchy’ only by necessity.

In all the other countries, leadership and inheritance are gender-blind.