Raped, then beheaded, if you're refering to the two very open-minded, anti-racist White chicks who went hiking in the Morrocan Atlas.

Sick reference bro

They reject this notion, utterly and entirely. Anita Sarkeesian herself has rejected it, on the record. They don’t care if only 1% of video games are “problematic”. It must be 0%. That’s just how totalitarians operate.

And then hit enter and write out the same sentence on the next line. Repeat five more times. Maybe consider inserting that shouting head in profile emoji at the top. Then ask a friend to reply “YES, I_BENT_MY_WOOKIEE! LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!”

There is very little misogyny in medieval settings, in the modern interpretation of it. Chivalry is a thing, after all. Women and men were valued on different bell curves, with a thinner but higher-median curve for women than men. So the top men, more valued than the top women, but the vast majority... Conscripts to play in war "games" that involve a 50%+ death rate for them AT BEST versus people who have intrinsic value by nature of their genitalia.

The moment you have a slaver raider torch a village and say "kill the men, they're worthless, but keep the women alive and unmarred" you're acknowledging a vast gap in valuation favoring women by even the worst and most villainous of your cast. Perhaps they do not appreciate that increased value, but it is a fact the one has value while the other has none.

I think the word you're looking for, in almost all your descriptors, is "misanthropy". Not liking humans in general.

EDIT: You could have a nice horrific scene in your medieval fiction where the proper feminist village informs the slaver that his actions of keeping the women alive are misogyny, and that the proper thing to do would be to treat them equally with the better treatment given to the men, and have the trained dogs rip her apart or cooked alive with boiling water poured down her throat, common methods used to kill younger men in village raids even in the modern era in Africa. Then her dying scream would be "this is such a better situation, thank you for the equality and raising my standard of living! Auuuurgh!"

What these woke scolds are actually doing is denying the validity of our own reality. If you believe that sexual violence is a consequence of an arbitrary constructed social order, then eliminating sexual violence is as simple as wiping the state clean and starting over with a new, more perfect social order.

If, however, sexual violence is inherent to the species, and an inevitable consequence of evolved social orders based on fixed biological realities, then transporting those same biological realities to a new fictional setting will generate similar consequences.

Medieval fantasy still need to be realistic in the setting

Game of Thrones isn't realistic. It plays up the ugliness and people think it's realistic because it aligns with their false notions of how ugly the past was.

I think it goes deeper than that. I think they choose to deny large swathes of cause and effect. Much of what lefties dislike about the real world is an inevitable consequence of other factors that cannot be eliminated. So it makes sense that a lefty, when faced with the blank slate of a fantasy world, would simply write their most despised behaviors out of existence without accounting for why those behaviors existed in the first place.

Yet thanks to watching Stephen Colbert, they can understand "truthiness" just fine.

Even though verisimilitude and truthiness mean the same fucking thing. "Having the appearance of truth."

They aren’t complaining about historical accuracy. That’s the motte. The bailey is creating fictional universes where leftist fantasies are a reality via dismissal of cause and effect.

Take OP’s example. Why would a fictional fantasy universe need to have any sexual violence whatsoever? The answer is actually very simple: because the existence of sexual violence on a population level is an inevitable consequence of the simultaneous existence of sexual desire, power imbalance, and free will. From these three prerequisites, non-zero sexual violence is inevitable.

If you want to ignore this simple equation to focus on other ideas within your own fantasy setting, by all means, do so. Rape can exist in your world without you feeling compelled to constantly address it in your storytelling. But if you write your story contending that a certain bad thing doesn’t exist, without also addressing the factors that inevitably create that bad thing, then you are writing a bad story without valid internal logic or coherence.

Neither usage is ideal.

The French influences in the nobility would likely have them saying "small meal" or "little dinner" for breakfast (Petit-dejeuner). Breaking away from that though... Breakfast, according to dictionary.com, had recorded and written usage by the more commoner/priestly castes as early as 1425. Which, you know, is well within the 15th-century.

Which I think falls into the "modern British accent paradox" thing, where Americans have closer to the original British accent than British people do, because almost as a nation, Britain changed their accent to distinguish themselves from the colonies, meaning the established colonies had the legacy and original accent remain. But despite that, you'd 100% expect a medieval British castle guard to sound more "oi guvnah" than "Howdy do".

"Broke fast" sounds more medieval, even if "Brekky" or "breakfast" was likely common-enough parlance.

I disagree, simply because you have dragons and magic does not mean you get to have any change you want. Where do you draw the line? Should the people wear sneakers, drink coffee, have cars, have cellphones? Should they have modern makeup and modern haircuts?
You do not need "historical accuracy" but if you can get as close as possible to it then you should definitely do it.

Don't you know women are the real victims of war? They lose their fathers, their children, their husbands.