When studying the Roman pater familias, for example, I noticed that some Christian authorities made some negative comments regarding the system for being "exaggerated," and many commentators talk about how Christianity gave greater freedom and rights to the foids. **Note**: This is not an attack on "Christianity" i.e. obsessed idiots can leave the thread.
Roman paganism was way more patriarchal, yes.
>>18450785>womenThe question of "woman" is restricted to a purely material, not theological, analysis. Therefore, it goes beyond the dichotomy between religion A, B, or C.Timelessly, in cultures of diverse races and languages, an honest analysis of the feminine is shared by all where women have been considered inherently carnal, destructive beings to spiritual richness, and in the Christian case, sometimes a distraction from monastic chastity—this is the opinion of Odo of Cluny:>to embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of excrement
>>18450790Why? Could you explain?>>18450792>to embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of excrementOh my gosh lol lol lol Not even Aristotle went that far kek
>>18450794Yes.
>>18450792>to embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of excrementThis applies to humans in general
>>18450814Mainly women, yes.
>>18450794I can't
>>18450785These tradcucks commentators want to please their wives and Christian followers, but in general the "equality in dignity" they tout says more about humanity as an abstract concept than about sex, and even Aristotle had a similar view.>>18450790>way moreI'm not so sure about that the Romans were already complaining about the rise of roasted meats in society.
>>18450785catholicism is not as patriarchal as protestantism
.Mary carried Christ..Esther saved a nation..Deborah led Israel..Ruth shaped a lineage..Mary Magdalene proclaimed the resurrection.
>>18450785No. If anything, Christianity liberated menstruating people, bcause before Christianity people who menstruate were literally merchandise and property of men, and as I said>>18450835 developed within the general European mentality that what you call "women" possess an innate "equality of dignity," so things like marriage, which was previously purely about male guardianship and mediation, now consider people who menstruate input in the decision of whether or not to marry
Wow, why are you guys treating women so badly here? I know their mentality is quite destructive and they must be under guardianship and all that, but treating them like that is also sad. It's not necessary to do that; we should love them, shouldn't we?
Well Christian Europe had quite a few notable female monarchs even though they were decidedly a small minority of the total. Pagan Europe had, what, Boudicca?
>>18450785"Pagan" Europe was way more "sexist"See>Women held no powerful positions among the Old Prussians and, according to Peter von Dusburg, were treated like servants, forbidden to share the husband's table. Commercial marriage was widespread and after the husband's death, the widow fell to the son, like other inheritance. Polygyny, up to three wives, was widespread. Adultery was a serious crime, punishable with death. After the submission, commercial marriage and polygyny were forbidden
>>18450847jews and christians .... one of a kind.
>>18450929Like your mother, yes
>>18450884>>18450877>>18450790You guys paint an incomplete picture, yes women had less overt leadership roles, but in day to day life they were way more liberal with women.Women had more agency in making decisions, and especially in rome, were very powerful.After Christianity this was scaled back to the point some places wives got sold when men were bored of them.Women were also made to veil in christian europe.Similarly women were more liberal and unveiled in arabia and africa pre-islam, even though post Islam they had some more overt political roles that are more well known such as the powerful conqubines in the latter two caliphates.Abrahamic faiths allowed overt roles, but restricted the day to day and gave men more agency.Pagans were basically cucks in comparison.
>>18450785>ancient greecechristianity was a step up for women's rights, ancient greece was basically taliban-level>ancient romeabout 50-50, some things increased, others decreased>celts, iberians, vikangz, spartansthose were practically matriarchies
>>18450940There's Much text here, lady.
>>18450978>those were practically matriarchiesShitty post.
>>18450884that is just one tribe
>>18450785Women were fully property of their father/husband and could be legally killed if they dared oppose their authority: husband could also had sex with any of the family slaves and the wife wasnt allowed to whine about ItChristianity did improved their situation: at least they could no longer be legally murderer for trivial stuff
>>18450940The veil was already there in Rome. Unvelied women were usually prostituta or slavesAnd while formally Roman women could divorce, de facto it was impossible unless she was from a powerfull family and had her relatives backing her
>>18451264Old prussians, retard
>>18450785Greco-Roman pagans were more patriarchal. They had the same "stay in the kitchen" attitude as Christians, but also had more rights for men on top of that:>the father was allowed not to accept a child born by his wife and simply let it die of exposure as a kind of after-birth abortion>the Roman father of the family in general had absolute power over his children, being theoretically allowed even to sell them into slavery or kill them. The mother had no such privileges.>men were allowed to have concubines and bang whores while wives were expected to be faithful to their husbands>rape of enemy women at war was completely legal and encouraged>No alternative lifestyles available for a woman who didn't want to be a fucktoy. At least a Christian woman could become a nun.The only thing that was easier for women in pagan time was getting a divorce.
From a Christian >In the same way that the more burdens a man takes under his authority, the more masculine he becomes; the more a woman submits to her man and relinquishes control over her life, the more feminine energy she embodies.>And that feminine energy can move mountains, because men are instinctually wired to serve women who believe in them. Men become the vectors of female manifestation. Good men become better men based on a woman's faith in them and their potential. They show their confidence in him by allowing him to make mistakes, giving him space and grace.>SERVE You tell me
>>18450792I wonder if he could be made the patron saint of incels, since Roger is off the table
>>18451274>husband could also had sex with any of the family slaves and the wife wasnt allowed to whine about ItWhy can't we bring this back?
>>18451421Looks based actually
>>18451427I m a woman btw
>>18450884So yeah pagans were more patriarchal
>>18450785The Byzantines, like feminists of the 1970s, took much of the power away from the pater familias and allowed women to move beyond domestic life.
>>18450785Pagans.Why cuz Wives and children had no legal right to separate property, something guaranteed in Christianity, and women were, literally, largely controlled by their fathers or husbandsChristians elevated the female figure as a human being and granted them many rights, thereby raising the status of women by condemning the absolute power of the father and demanding that men "respect their wives," but this respect generally came with restrictions that were previously common.
Don't Christians use their own term, "Christian patriarchy"? They claim to possess the most polished (mild) patriarchy compared to misogynistic patriarchies.
>>18451447Yes, I noticed that. In that case, we can say that patriarchy is an ancient pagan concept, not a Christian one. Nowhere is it presented as an organizing principle of the kingdom of God. The principles and image of the family presented there contrast sharply with the patriarchal model of first-century Greco-Roman pagan culture.children are instructed to obey their parents, not just their fathers; told to love their wives, and to nourish and cherish them as they do their own bodies; Wives are told to “submit” to their husbands (Roman fathers would have nodded in agreement), but this comes in the next sentence after Paul has instructed all Christians to “submit yourselves one to another.” So “submit” here is not a synonym for “obey.” Patriarchy, as in the Greek and Roman systems, was not a Christian element.
>>18450785WOWA GENUINE FUCKING QUESTION IN THIS BOARDUnfortunately, I can't give a completely productive answer.Read "Body and Society" by Peter Brown. It's a book about the concepts of the body, nature and materiality (which is to say, carnal sin), gender, family in Late antiquity and what stayed the same and changed with the rise of christianity and the transformations on Rome. What I can say:No sects gave liberty to women outside of their traditional role of the family (which is to say, birthing and educating children as a way to postpone the society's death through the newer generations. The exception, and small at that, are the Gnostics and Enkratikas. Two radical sects of christianity which, unlike the majority, abandoned the ancient greco-roman attitude towards death to, instead, look forward to it. To them, the "regeneration" of the society was an sinful act. Death was preferable, so the family, and traditional structures of power of life (patriarchy, government, nobles) were useless.So women, like the men, were tasked with being ascetics and abandoning those institutions to preach and leave those institutions, which they wouldn't need, because they would be martyrs, or rapture. It wasn't complete equality. Women were seen as lesser than men, associated with the emotions of flesh that these sects so despised. The regeneration of society, let's remember, was made through the flesh, so the imperfect and sinful material world was an "feminine creation" through their bodies.Women were only respect if they acted like a man: that is, when "two became one" (mark of platonism), without distinction, or lust between them. All the other christianities (in Carthage, Rome, Lyon, greek east...) kept the family as an institution. The biggest role women could have would was through asceticism, martyrdom, or how Monica did it, as an educator of religion to their sons and daughters. So it depends, if it was a Christianity reliant on the family or not.
>>18451796>or how Monica did it, as an educator of religion to their sons and daughters.So it depends, if it was a Christianity reliant on the family or not.Yes. Less patriarchal
>>18450785 Most christians could not read or write, that’s probably not the place to go for enlightened opinions
Wait, how did Christians destroy pagans world wide if they were so passive and feminine? God?
>>18451937Not really. Christianity, especially in the core of the roman aristocracy, where the church was a "confederation of families", that institution was strengthened, more specifically the pater-familias, and the role of women diminished.Christianity of the pauline, clementine type was preoccupied with stability of the family, it's easy to see why, it was a time of great, great dispute between christianities, paganisms, and their congregation and missionary work was dependent on the great patriarchs and their dominant power in the cities of the mediterranean. Any power held by women outside of the house would be seen as destabilizing, unmoral, an public danger to be treated by the church. Later, virginity would become a new source of power inside the church, mostly after Clementine of Alexandria. Suddenly, the bishops, which gathered more and more power, were not to marry to keep themselves pure. That made women even less influential on the ekklesia, which was increasingly less based on the already patriarchal families. Things got worst. On a unralated note: a didn't do justice for Brown. He is a incredible writer, and historian. If you like religious history, which does use theological sources, but without losing itself in abstraction and jargon, he is perfect. If you don't, at least read his World of Late Antiquity. It was a game changer for how to see the Fall of Rome when it came out.
>>18450792>this is the opinion of Odo of ClunyPlenty of fags go into orders and the priesthood itselfSocrates had wives and fathered children, even after enlightenment. There is a path for householder yogis too, just depends how strong you are.
>>18452275Cry more, foid
>>18452255>>18451796OP hereThank you so much!!Feel free to share anything else with us if you'd like.
>>18451421>The only thing that was easier for women in pagan time was getting a divorce.There was not a single divorce initiated by woman recorded in Ancient Athens.
