A Debate about Feminism and Ancient Rome - Part One

Note: Some irrelevant and/or repeated comments were removed from both of our posts too reduce the size of these already massive posts. No words or sentences removed changed the context of any points or were important to the discussion. EDIT: Unfortunately, when we came back from the holiday break, I discovered that she had inexplicably turned off replies for the thread so we can no longer make new comments. I did try to contact her about reopening the thread so that we can continue our debate but she hasn't responded yet. However, I will continue trying and hopefully get a response at some point soon. If she reads this, I would also still like to have a live formal debate on Google Hangouts in the near future.

WARNING: This is a very long debate so grab a Pumpkin Spice Latte and something to eat before you sit down to enjoy this discussion. :P

So I was watching a video about Anti-Feminist women and noticed someone claiming that men have always been discriminated against worse than women. Naturally, I just could not resist getting involved in the discussion and ended up in a debate with the person in question, especially when she started getting cocky and telling people they shouldn't "cross swords" with her because she supposedly knew more about history than everyone else.



The person's name is Lana Voreskova and she says she has studied history for 15 years. She also happens to be a a blogger and author on prominent MRA website, A Voice for Men.

Her YouTube account can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3JfpF9o7OY1v0vpDVViXhw/feed
Her blog is located here:
https://feministbrainwash.wordpress.com/about/

She started off debating someone else but I asked that person if I could take over his position in the debate.



Here is my initial post responding to her arguments directed toward other people.

ME: As a student of history myself and someone who enjoys eviscerating MRAs and Anti-Feminists in debates, I will happily volunteer to cross swords with you. :) In fact, I honestly can't resist this opportunity.

While women have historically been slaves and still are today in many countries, I believe what +Sean Green is referring to would be the de facto slavery imposed on the majority of women in nearly every culture in history up until the last century. It even still exists today in some parts of the world. A type of slavery in which women were entirely dependent upon men and considered property of their husbands.

"There has never been a period of history as far as I am aware, when women were enslaved and men were not. Slavery was always about power and wealth, never about sex. Both men and women were enslaved and both men and women owned slaves and benefited from slavery."

And you claim to be a history expert? Interesting. Since you mentioned Rome, I will begin there. The reality of Rome doesn't quite match your cherry-picked vision of it. The women of the early Roman Empire were very much de facto slaves to men and a woman could legally be killed by her husband for committing such "horrendous" acts as simply disagreeing with him. This was often considered a direct challenge to his authority and he had a legal right to kill her under the law.

Women were not allowed to participate in politics in any capacity. They were not allowed to vote, hold office or even become lawyers or judges. Now to be entirely accurate, a large percentage of men were not allowed to vote either but at least SOME of them were given that right. No women were given the right to vote and it had nothing to do with not joining the military. They were simply barred from it as they were with most other aspects of society, such as getting an education for example. Women were not allowed to receive an education throughout most of Roman history, other than basic knowledge such as reading, writing and Roman culture. Furthermore, citizenship was a requirement to joining the Roman military and women were not considered citizens, which is one of the reasons why they were required to be under male guardianship.

In fact, until much later during the Roman Empire era, women actually had very few legal rights and each of them had limitations For example, they were eventually allowed to divorce but even this one wasn't really an option at first because of the male guardianship law. A woman wasn't allowed to be free of this requirement until Augustus implemented his new laws which exempted women who had produced three to five children, depending on their social class. Another important bit of information I should point out is that women automatically lost custody of the children to her husband after a divorce.

Unfortunately, while Augustus' laws which negated the guardianship requirement is seen as a positive step forward for Roman women, he also did many things that had a negative impact on women. For example, as a result of his attempts to legislate morality, a woman could be beaten or even killed just for consuming wine, widows were required to remarry within a couple of years and a woman who committed adultery would lose half her property, among other issues the new laws created.

Another problem is that women were required to have children. This wasn't an option. Roman women basically existed to give birth as many times as possible until they die, which was often during child-birth. Also, she had no input in whether or not a child was accepted by the family or abandoned to die. That was always up to the father alone. Naturally, the majority of infants left to die were female of course.

The Lex Julia allowed women who committed adultery to be legally killed by their husbands or fathers.

There were countless laws and cultural traditions that specifically targeted women in a negative manner. Another one was the Lex Oppia law, which was created to limit the wealth of women and restrict their clothing choices.

Unfortunately, it wasn't just laws that were a problem. Most of society had extremely misogynistic views about women. Look at some of the things said by Greek and Roman philosophers, such as Plato, Socrates, Cicero, etc... For a perfect example you can read Juvenal's Satires. Compare his misogynistic views with those of several prominent MRAs and you will discover that they are almost identical. lol

If you want I can provide an extensive list of quotations about women from a large selection of prominent Roman and Greek males.

"For most of human history in most cultures, women did receive some kind of education although formal education was often reserved for the rich elites. Women also had the right to own and inherit property in most cultures for most of history. Women in the ancient Roman republics for example could own property, start their own businesses and vote in plebiscites."

Actually, in most societies the type of education received by women was very basic. During most of the Roman Empire era it was limited to basic reading/writing and Roman culture. As for buying and selling property, this is accurate but you neglected to mention that in most situations she had to have permission from her male guardian, which was usually her father or husband.

Also, it was mostly lower class women who worked to help support their families. Upper class women were expected to stay at home.

"They were not allowed to vote in the senate, because those rights were reserved for citizens who were eligible for military service. Women, not surprisingly. didn’t find the idea of fifteen years in the army as a particularly attractive proposition."

I am sorry but that is complete and utter nonsense. As I already pointed out, women were not even ALLOWED to join the military because they were not considered full citizens at the time, which was a legal requirement. You are being intellectually dishonest.

"Voting rights have always been tied to military service and still are today."

Actually, in most civilizations voting rights have been mainly tied to citizenship and so is the ability to serve in the military. The Roman Republic you mentioned earlier is a good example. Women could not vote or join the military because they were not considered full citizens. I am also not aware of any country today in which voting rights are tied to military service. In fact, there aren't many examples throughout history. Perhaps you would care to name a few of them?

"In the USA for example, males must register for the draft within a short period of their 18th birthday. In Britian during the 1900s, the government was unable to introduce conscription until 1916 because most young men, did not have the vote."

This is not accurate. You can vote in the United States even if you have not registered for selective service. Also, voting has never been tied to signing up for selective service at any point in our history. If you don't register by your 26th birthday you will lose certain benefits such as fincial aid for students or getting a federal job. However, while it is technically a law, no one has been prosecuted since the 80's and it certainly is not tied to your right to vote in any way. As far as Britain is concerned, voting rights were never tied to military service there either. I should also point out that women were conscripted as well in the 1940's.

"There are very sound reasons why women did not fight for equal rights back when equal rights would have meant a life-time of back breaking labour and a life expectancy of about 40 years. Women did not want to go down the mines or haul iron on the railways or march of to the slaughter in the trenches."

So tell me, which cultures required you to work in the mines, haul iron or die in battle to attain basic rights? I already refuted your Ancient Rome example so perhaps you can name others.

"That is why feminism arose amongst the women of rich, privileged societies. It’s also why the early opposition to feminism came mostly from women."

Actually, many of the most notable early feminists came from humble backgrounds but the reason why feminism became popular among middle-class and wealthy women during the was due to better access to education. Nothing breaks the chains of oppression better than education. This is why we are seeing most of the resistance to religious fundamentalism in countries like Iran coming from college-educated middle-class people rather than the poor. People living in poverty are always used as tools to continue the current status quo because they usually lack the education to see their own oppression and understand that it doesn't have to be that way.

Anyway, Feminism was essentially a product of the Enlightenment period.

"When the Mexican general Santa Anna laid siege to the Alamo, he called for the women and children to be evacuated before he would allow his troops to open fire. Most of the women left, and Santa Anna kept his word, allowing them safe passage. When his soldiers had overcome their enemies, the surviving men were executed and the remaining women were allowed to leave unharmed. Just one example of the different ways in which women and men have always been treated: This special allowance for women did not always happen; sometimes the women were raped or murdered, but it was common, throughout human history. It never happened the other way around."

Once again, you aren't telling the full story. They only killed those who fought against them during the battle. Several men were allowed to leave as well, such as male slaves. The Alamo was not some city filled with civilians. It was a military fort so the majority of men were soldiers and they are usually not spared during battles. Also, historically those situations were actually rare. As Sean pointed out, women were traditionally the victims of rape and enslavement during and after the majority of wars. I'm sure many would agree that a quick death would be a more merciful fate.

Rape is often used as a type of psychological warfare against an enemy's population and other times it has been used to improve the morale of soldiers. Those Greek and Roman societies that you are fond of mentioning both engaged in raping women when they invaded new territories. Other examples include the Persians, Vikings, Goumiers, Mongols, Tartars, Qing Dynasty, Germans, Japanese, Russians, the U.S. military, the list is nearly endless. And should I even start on the rape camps set up during the Bosnian War? Women have always been the spoils of war and it has been in a problem in every period of human history. I find your desire to try to minimize that fact to be quite disgusting and very dishonest.

"Women were always more likely to be treated more gently than men. The mantra of the “patriarchy” that feminists complain about was always “women and children first.”

Except that isn't actually true, as I have already pointed out.

"For most of human history, the majority of people had few rights. It was a case of the vast majority of poor men and women being oppressed and exploited by a tiny minority of rich men and women."

While this is somewhat true, men as a group have never been oppressed to the extent of women in any society. Never have men as a whole been essentially enslaved and treated as property by women. That is a fact that you just can't escape.

"Life was hard for everybody; but on balance, life for men was harder, shorter and more dangerous."

That is not correct in many cultures. For example, let us return to the Roman Empire again. According to the consensus of most historians, the average life expectancy for both genders was around 25 years. Many women died during child-birth because they were expected to be perpetually pregnant and popping out child after child. And the majority of infants who were left to die were females so many didn't even make it past this stage of life. Which was probably a kinder fate when you consider that the only thing they had to look forward to was becoming someone's property and being a breeding machine.

"I have been studying and lecturing in history for fifteen years. It is my profession. I suggest that if you want to cross swords with me in a debate about history, you come better prepared. Simplistic feminists slogans will not cut it I’m afraid. I suggest you educate yourself not only about history, but also biology and anthropology."

Duly noted! Since we are discussing educational backgrounds, I will officially toss my hat into the ring in this debate. While I am most likely quite a bit younger than you, I have a very unusual education. You may read about it on my blog if you choose but I will sum it up for you by saying that I have received quite an extensive education outside of the traditional one I had in school. Both my mentor and parents insisted that I obtain a far more comprehensive education, which started at the age of eight. Subjects included science, advanced math, history, philosophy, literature, critical thought, women's studies and religion.

Needless to say, I am pretty confident in my ability to debate anyone. Speaking of which, I was also on the debate team in high school. Personally, I usually prefer a formal Lincoln-Douglas style of debate over a random discussion in the comments section of YouTube. However, this will suffice for the moment. Perhaps I could interest you in a real debate on Google Hangouts at another time? I have already challenged thunderf00t and Alison Tieman, neither of whom seem to be interested in debating me. To be fair, it could be due to the fact that I shredded their poorly-conceived arguments in the comments sections of their channels, in which case I can hardly blame them. :P Anyway, I am starting up a feminist group earlier in the upcoming year and debating MRAs/Anti-Feminists will be a big part of our site so let me know if you would like to engage in a real debate.

"Your gynocentric fawning is normal. It is Mother Nature's way of ensuring the survival of the species. It was common all through human history to consider the comfort and safety of women to be far more important than the comfort and safety of men. It still is. It is based in our built in biological imperatives. But you would do well to learn and understand these things if you want to avoid looking so foolish in future."

Hmmm that sounds suspiciously like a borderline ad hominem. I can't wait to see the one that you will probably try to use against me in your next post. I am sure it will be something involving my age. :o