Funny, and here I was under the delusion that Greek, Roman and Christian women had it pretty good compared to the rest of the world.

Greek and Roman women were able to be granted full citizenship. Christian women though treated very well were always under the obligations of thier husband or father.

All of them did have it pretty good.

I would like to think that if you utilize trusted historical sources you can usually gain a very good idea of why things went the way they did.

History is one of those things you have to treat like "hard" science. You must believe it is true until someone proves that it is not. Flexible perceptive abilities are a must

actually, no...for being such advanced cultures they had a pretty low view of women, especially daughters and wives. one of those times it was better to be a temple whore than waiting all night with dinner at a door.

roman

greek

it does sound like the greeks may have been a little more considerate of the female sex, but not much more than the romans...compare their rights to those of women in ancient celtic cultures or even egyptian culture and you'll see that the greeks and romans were rather detrimental to the standing of women...but i'm sure in the masochistic mind view a women restricted to a house with a dozen children, no education and a man free to please himself with not only girls but boys...does have life, "reeeel good, yup!"

as for the life of christian women...that would have applied as it applies to the jewish people's, but not much better either.

cultures where whores are deemed higher, and better educated than a wife are always...interesting in my opinion, despite how atrocious they were for women's rights.

I do not know about detrimental. Women have never had rights akin to those that are available to them in our modern world. Alot of this was because of the need for rapid procreation due to the miserable life spans available to ancient cultures. People were often dying before thier 30's. Some women would have 12 offspring by the time they were 26 and only see 3-5 of those children even survive. Keeping women safe was the first agenda and making sure they were pregnant the second.
This was not in any way sexist, it was mere survival. Look at how the Spartans treated women and newborns. It was one of the reasons they were one of the strongest Greek states.

You find me a single instance where a woman was considered the intellectual equal in classical Greek or Roman society, let alone given the opportunity to own property or vote in the governmental forums, and I'll agree with you. Women were second-class citizens at best.

""
Women: Although membership in these classes was dominated by the same families over many generations, the classes themselves were defined according to male activities rather than birth. Women's place in these classes was therefore somewhat problematic. However, there came to be a customary acceptance that women belonged to the social class of their fathers and then of their husbands, although the women had no special dress that distinguished their status. This female participation in social status began to crystallize and formalize under Augustus, who explicitly included the daughters, granddaughters, and great-granddaughters of senators in his law prohibiting members of the senatorial class from contracting legal marriages with freedpeople. ""

""Women: Since the lower classes were not defined by male activities, there was no problem with including women; female and male children were automatically members of the social class of their parents (except for freedpeople, since only one generation could be “freed”). If the parents were Roman citizens and had contracted a legal Roman marriage, the children followed the social status of their father (i.e., they were Roman citizens). However, in the case of Latins, foreigners, and slaves, children took the social status of their mother, even if their father was a freeborn Roman citizen. ""

""Lex Voconia (The Voconian Law) was a law established in ancient Rome in 169 BC.

Introduced by Q. Voconius Saxa with support from Cato the Elder, Voconius being tribune of the people in that year, this law prohibited those who owned property valued at 100,000 asses (or perhaps sesterces) from making a woman their heir. This particular limit was not arbitrary but was apparently the traditional property qualification for admission to the highest class in the Comitia Centuriata, and thus the minimum qualification for the Equestrian Order. In addition, it prohibited extraordinary legacies in a will of a greater value than the inheritance of the ordinary heirs. This intention of this legislation according to Gellius was sumptuary in that it limited the wealth available to women, who were presumed to expend it on useless luxury goods. It was evaded by means of avoiding registration in the census, which entailed the loss of some civil rights, or by the common Roman form of trust known as a "fideicommissum". The second provision was essentially voided by the Lex Falcidia. Legislation under Augustus, in particular the Lex Papia Poppaea relaxed the first provision as well, granting full inheritance rights to married women who were mothers of three children (if born free) or of four children (if a freedwoman).""

In the ability to become hiers to a certain extent women were able to own and have rights to property which put them in accordance to the "commons". Sometimes very wealthy women though not rightful citizens had far more power and influence. So in effect they were citizens in all but name. Wives were accorded the same status as thier husbands and as such were granted the same viable powers vested within the husband.

Women are property to be bought, sold, and traded among the superior gender.

You know.... like the blacks.

There's a big difference between designation in a social class, and being able to exercise civil rights as an equal human being...

The major factor here though, is the idea of wealth. Anyone with enough wealth in any society can expand their influence in spite of gender. That isn't the same as having the same political or cultural rights and priveleges.

It has always been about wealth. We are not free here in the United States. But you can buy yourself a pretty secure feeling of freedom if you have enough money. Our entire Justice system can be beat with a big enough pocketbook.

A wealthy Roman Woman had it far better than you might think. She certainly had it better than an average person living anywhere else in the world besides Rome. Mainly because she could purchase her freedoms.

Money matters.

I'm not saying that Roman women weren't better off than a lot of other places, but you're still not going to get very far unless you come from a rich, indulgent family.

As for our system, sure there's still inequality when it comes to finances...anyone is better off with a high-class lawyer as opposed to a public defender...but everyone is insured due process. It's not like the good ol' days where a lord can put down a peasant revolt in a bloody massacre and then go home for some roast squab or mutton, feeling he's reestablished the proper order of the world.