threadwalker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
threadwalker) wrote2009-10-15 08:27 pm
threadwalker) wrote2009-10-15 08:27 pm
Those Spartan Hussies!
Decline due to Moral Weakness in Women
"...by the 4th century BC, through doweries and other inheritances, women controlled two-fifths of Spartan land, some apparently forsook their traditional role as childbearers, devoting their money and time instead to racehorses and clothing. In the mid-third century BC, King Agis enacted a series of reforms designed to redistribute the land but, in Plutarch's arguably biased and moralistic view, these failed because of women's refusal to abandon their new-found ease and luxury. Spartan women were also criticized by Aristotle who blamed their behaviour for certain aspects of Sparta's decline. This linking of political weakness with moral degeneracy of women and, conversely, of a strong state with the virtue of women, was to be echoed later by both the Romans and Italians."
ref: Killerby, Cahterine Kovesi. Sumptuary Law in Italy 1200-1500. Oxford Historical Monographs. 2002. P10
I'm thrilled to find evidence that there was a sufficient number of women experiencing "ease and luxury" in the 3rd century BC to warrant enough complaint that it can be documented more than 2000 years later because men were whining.
Testify sisters!
However, on a more reflective note, I find it interesting that regardless of the debauchery or virtue of men, it's the lack of virtue of women that gets blamed for the decline of civilizations and often it's argued that if women had more virtue the state would be stronger. Really? Really! That much value was placed on a woman's virtue? And a woman's virtue was that powerful? What about the virtue of men? And yet, who are those "virtueless" women probably spending their virtue-coin on? They are having their "ease and luxury" with men. And who's complaining? men.
For me this triggers reflection on the iconography of the mother or the maiden who represents the ideals of a civilization/nation; eg the Statue of Liberty, Madonna, Queen, various Goddesses (it can be a very long list). And how these women (living or not) become an embodiment of ideals, dreams and goals. But when they fail to live up to our expectations we respond in anger and we villefy them and cast them down. I also find myself thinking about how voiceless minorities often become the scape goat for a nations failure to suceed. The group that gets blamed is the one that can defend itself the least, whether it's women or a racial minority.
That's the direction of my thoughts today: women taking the blame for a culture that says it values one thing while behaving in a totally different way. Not much has changed in over 2000 years.
I can't help thinking that being a liberated woman starts with attitude and respect. While looking for ways to assert my right to my personal "ease and luxury", I must also respecting the right of others to their own "ease and luxury". It's easy to defend my choice to be a career woman, to be married and to be a parent. But that's only half the equation. To be really liberated in thought I can't be the woman who thinks she's liberated, but looks down her nose at women who've chosen to be stay-at-home moms. I can't be the married woman who looks down her nose at women who don't seek marriage. I can't be that parent who snubs people who've decided to not be parents. To me, really being liberated doesn't just mean feeling liberated to my own definition of happiness, but feeling liberated in respecting that everyone else has their own definition and not only is it different than my own, but it's perfectly acceptable.
liberate, sisters!
Suffagettes n Shoes!
"...by the 4th century BC, through doweries and other inheritances, women controlled two-fifths of Spartan land, some apparently forsook their traditional role as childbearers, devoting their money and time instead to racehorses and clothing. In the mid-third century BC, King Agis enacted a series of reforms designed to redistribute the land but, in Plutarch's arguably biased and moralistic view, these failed because of women's refusal to abandon their new-found ease and luxury. Spartan women were also criticized by Aristotle who blamed their behaviour for certain aspects of Sparta's decline. This linking of political weakness with moral degeneracy of women and, conversely, of a strong state with the virtue of women, was to be echoed later by both the Romans and Italians."
ref: Killerby, Cahterine Kovesi. Sumptuary Law in Italy 1200-1500. Oxford Historical Monographs. 2002. P10
I'm thrilled to find evidence that there was a sufficient number of women experiencing "ease and luxury" in the 3rd century BC to warrant enough complaint that it can be documented more than 2000 years later because men were whining.
Testify sisters!
However, on a more reflective note, I find it interesting that regardless of the debauchery or virtue of men, it's the lack of virtue of women that gets blamed for the decline of civilizations and often it's argued that if women had more virtue the state would be stronger. Really? Really! That much value was placed on a woman's virtue? And a woman's virtue was that powerful? What about the virtue of men? And yet, who are those "virtueless" women probably spending their virtue-coin on? They are having their "ease and luxury" with men. And who's complaining? men.
For me this triggers reflection on the iconography of the mother or the maiden who represents the ideals of a civilization/nation; eg the Statue of Liberty, Madonna, Queen, various Goddesses (it can be a very long list). And how these women (living or not) become an embodiment of ideals, dreams and goals. But when they fail to live up to our expectations we respond in anger and we villefy them and cast them down. I also find myself thinking about how voiceless minorities often become the scape goat for a nations failure to suceed. The group that gets blamed is the one that can defend itself the least, whether it's women or a racial minority.
That's the direction of my thoughts today: women taking the blame for a culture that says it values one thing while behaving in a totally different way. Not much has changed in over 2000 years.
I can't help thinking that being a liberated woman starts with attitude and respect. While looking for ways to assert my right to my personal "ease and luxury", I must also respecting the right of others to their own "ease and luxury". It's easy to defend my choice to be a career woman, to be married and to be a parent. But that's only half the equation. To be really liberated in thought I can't be the woman who thinks she's liberated, but looks down her nose at women who've chosen to be stay-at-home moms. I can't be the married woman who looks down her nose at women who don't seek marriage. I can't be that parent who snubs people who've decided to not be parents. To me, really being liberated doesn't just mean feeling liberated to my own definition of happiness, but feeling liberated in respecting that everyone else has their own definition and not only is it different than my own, but it's perfectly acceptable.
liberate, sisters!
Suffagettes n Shoes!
no subject
no subject
Actually
I have been reclining in luxury and practicing witchcraft and lesbianism.
And eating chocolate. And bacon.
Re: Actually
Re: Actually
I can haz bacon?
Re: Actually
F saw a TV program where someone took a maple bar donut and sprinkled bacon on it, making it a bacon-donut. I think I started drooling right away.
no subject
no subject
the deck is stacked against us if we use those rules.