• Janet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    9 days ago

    that is just privilege speaking about it’s own privilege…

    it’s unbelievable how bad the patriarchial matrix we now live in has twisted human norms over the course of a couple thousand years

      • Janet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        a man talking about how men should behave in a society that only had room for women as breeding stock and only if they secured your throne.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          While Roman society was MUCH more sexist than anything we would regard as acceptable in modern society, women had many rights at the height of the Roman Empire that later European societies would not keep. The right of women to own property was so strict that gifts from a wife to a husband were not legally recognized - if they divorced, claims that any property of the wife was a gift to her husband would not be recognized, and would be returned to the newly-divorced wife. Women often held significant amounts of property and ran businesses in their own name, and there is ample evidence for women as independent workers in skilled and semiskilled professions.

          There is considerable writing at the time discussing the role of women in society, and while the opinions of Roman men are very far from ‘enlightened’, they also quite clearly regard women as more than breeding stock. The Roman author Musonius Rufus even advocated for women to be trained in the arts of war, and posited than any job a man could do, a woman could do also.

          Women could divorce their husbands without need for any deeper cause beyond “I don’t want to stay in this marriage anymore”, and domestic abuse within marriage was grounds for civil lawsuits. All rape of freeborn persons (within the context of Roman governance; foreigners being conquered were less lucky) was subject to the death penalty. Bloodline descent (‘breeding stock’) was considered much less important, as Romans placed a higher value on a cultural/loyalty familial system in which adoption was widely accepted and direct descent was less important (though not nil) to being recognized as part of the descendants of the family. The idea of ‘securing the throne’ was not really applicable until later in Roman society when the norms of the city of Rome began to be eroded in favor of a more ‘cosmopolitan’ and universal imperial culture.

          /Romaboo moment over

    • Obinice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      A guy comes along and tells us that we should have some self control, patience and a tempered response to difficult situations instead of jumping straight into anger and fury, and your take is that this concept is just privileged sexism?

      Weird o.O

    • ganksy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Marcus Aurelius is a privileged aristocrat speaking blasphemy.

      Also, we’ve totally twisted human norms from the [perfect] society we had thousands of years ago.

      Ok.

      • Janet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        well, agriculture is a relatively fresh discovery. as hunter/gatherers we relied on one another, the concept of one human being having authority over another only developed when we “finally” had something to fight over: fertile land. game used to be divided freely prior to that