The Roles and Rights of Women in Ancient Greece vs. Ancient Rome - Paper Example

Introduction

Women in ancient days were treated differently from men because they were viewed as weaker and lesser them. The men dominated their world, and they made decisions about women's lives. Women were confined to their homes, and their role was to take care of their husbands and children (Hall et al, p.108). In ancient Greece, once a woman got married, she was under the control of her husband, and before that, the father or a male family member was the guardian. As a result of the submissive nature as laid out by culture, women were assumed to have no role in ancient Greece (Hall et al, p.108). However, they played the most demanding parts of being housekeepers and taking care of their children and husbands. The primary purpose of a woman was to cook, clean, and perform all the domestic chores while men went for war. On the other hand, women in Rome were also considered inferior to men, and they were supposed to be submissive to them (Hall et al, p.108). At home, they were under their husbands, and the authority over women changed hands from father or guardian to husband. Women were not given any right to education, owning property, getting jobs, running for political seats or even voting. The paper will explore the roles and rights of women in ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The role of women in ancient Greece entailed taking care of children and husbands in their marital homes. The man was the head of the family, and the woman's role was to be submissive and follow the husband's decisions. The women did the everyday chores such as cleaning, cooking and feeding the children (Hood, p.83-84). They were confined to their homes as they were not allowed to move from place to place freely. The same thing applied to the women in Ancient Rome who were not given the freedom to move and interact with other people outside her husbands or fathers place (Hood, p.83-84). In ancient Greece, women were not allowed to own property such as land, but there were exceptional cities such as Sparta, Delphi, Megara, and Thessaly where women were given the right to own private property. The same case applied to the women in ancient Rome, but their state changed after five hundred years when Rome became an empire women began holding property in their names (Hood, p.83-84). In Greece, women were not given full rights to become citizens in cities such as Athens because they did not own anything. On the other hand, Roman women were granted the rights to become citizens regardless of their state of property ownership.

Similarly, the role that women played as housekeepers in both Greece and Rome never allowed them to have formal education, and they were only entitled to informal learning where they were taught on how to take care of children, husbands and the homes (Cohen, p 35-54). They were shown to be homemakers and could be confined to their homes. In both Greece and Rome it was the role of a woman to be chaste and modest for the husband and the community to be pleased. For instance, in Rome, a woman was supposed to dress in clothes that entirely covered their bodies and in Greece they were to cover their bodies and have head scarfs to hide their hair (Cohen, p 35-54). In Rome, a woman was supposed to maintain fidelity to her husband, but the men would marry and divorce as they wished. The primary role of women in Rome was on religious matters; it is one of the public functions that were solely reserved for women (Kyle, p.183-203). The women who chose to play roles in the spiritual spheres were exempted from giving birth, and they could only dedicate themselves into observation of rituals which were considered necessary for the security and survival of Rome (Kyle, p.183-203). On the other hand women in Greece never presided over religious matters. Regarding divorce and marriage women in Rome were not allowed to divorce, but in Greece, they were at liberty just like men (Galinsky.p.193).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is important to note that the rights and roles of women in both Greece and Rome were similar except for a few differences. In both regions, women were not allowed to own property in their names as everything belonged to men. Also, they were confined to their homes with no freedom of movement. Women were also denied the role of participating in political issues such as voting and taking up leadership roles. In both women were inferior to men and they were supposed to follow the decisions of their husbands without question. Besides, they were denied the right to education but only entitled to informal teachings that concerned housekeeping. It is vital to conclude that women had few roles to play and limited powers because men dominated both Greece and Rome. Their only significant purpose was to be a wife, mother and a home keeper. It was only until after transition that some rules were abolished.

Works Cited

HALL, Edith, et al. "INDIA, GREECE, AND ROME, 1757 TO 2007." Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, no. 108, 2010, pp. iii-180. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44216106.

Kyle, Donald G. "'The Only Woman in All Greece': Kyniska, Agesilaus, Alcibiades, and Olympia." Journal of Sports History, vol. 30, no. 2, 2003, pp. 183-203. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43610326.

Hood, David. "The History Teacher." The History Teacher, vol. 27, no. 1, 1993, pp. 83-84. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/494334.

Galinsky, Karl. "MEMORIA ROMANA: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory." Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes, vol. 10, 2014, pp. iii-193. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44423154.

Cohen, Elizabeth S. "Open City: An Introduction to Gender in Early Modern Rome." I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014, pp. 35-54. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/675762.

Katherine M. Bentz. "The Afterlife of the Cesi Garden: Family Identity, Politics, and Memory in Early Modern Rome." Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 72, no. 2, 2013, pp. 134-165. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/jsah.2013.72.2.134.