The Complexity of the Western Women History

I have a theory about the introduction of patriarchy.

My theory begins in the beginning on the falling of the Roman Empire. Until then, women were regarded as equals. The role of the student woman was one of great importance: women learned literature, complex maths and philosophy, while the education of men was primarily based on their physical attributes and capacity for battle. Women served in office and had their faces on coins, like the case of Julia Soaemias, a lesser known but equally important revolutionary who overthrew the establishment and ruled the Empire with her son being the Emperor.

Since the history we think we know today is mostly written and studied by white males belonging to a colonialist patriarchal society, everything we read about Ancient Women of Greece and Rome, Ancient Egypt or Mayan, or Astec or Inca, has to be regarded with one of those huge grains of salt, and re-studied in the light of a more inclusive and diverse lens than the one we are used to today. A well known side-effect of patriarchy is how it is engrained in the complex development of our women today, making it so we are unwillingly or unknowingly submissive to a patriarchal narrative. Lets change that, or try to right now for the sake of our own education about ourselves.

Continuing…

Not only was Julia’s mother (Julia Maesa) also a revolutionary, she helped overthrow Macrinus and she was the one who decided her daughter would rule the Empire, making her emperor her son and not her husband, and making the very homosexual and hedonistic Elagabalus (the son) adopt Alexander Severus, to continue to rule the territory. There were coins with her face on them.

They were the last of the Severan Dynasty.

After their fall, another interesting Ancient Rome woman was Ulpina Severina, Aurelius wife, who is thought to have ruled the Empire after Aurelius assassination. Aurelius was sort of the The Mad King of the time, rendering him an assassination and short rule. The period after Aurelius, it is highly doubtful who actually ruled the Empire, but coins were found with Severina’s face on them, making her a likely hypothesis:

One of the studies of esoteric interest, is the study of the Feminine/Masculine parts of ourselves. And it seems to be well established in Ancient Rome that women had a more equal place in the Empire than what is usually said.

One interesting piece of information, has to do with the physical attribute of a woman’s blonde hair. Despite being taken today in a not-so-very subtle way that the white blond western woman holds a place of priviledge, it can be taken into consideration our very rooted in Ancient Rome past. Women of Ancient Rome had the fashion of dyeing their hair blond or red, and it became such an icon in women’s sexual presence that it is thought today, in the patriarchal narrative, that blond women of the Roman Empire were prostitutes. Mostly due to how some male philosophers and authors of the time portraied certain female characters as blonde and prostitutes, and the discussion behind the idea that blond women were somehow lavish and promiscuous. Since there are major accounts for the presence of “blond hair fashion” it may account solely to a period in which women of the Empire had a freer approach to sexuality. And also, Mary Magdalene may also only have been blonde and not a prostitute. It also serves the higher purpose of a patriarchy narrative to make Mary Magdalene a prostitute.

Despite this, the importance of brothels in Ancient Rome was very likely much more impactful than the red light district in Amsterdam, so comparisons must not take place — different social contexts. Prostitution was often regarded as a way in which men and women from all social backgrounds, including imperial, could incorporate sexuality in their lives, as opposed to the very controvertial theme of prostitution of today that is very much connected to our neoliberal economic system and all which of that entails.

The presence of slaves in Roman Empire must also be taken into consideration different emperors and emperesses and epochs of ruling territory, much like our world today — it did make sense for some reason to have slaves until 200 years ago in our considerably large civilization, and Ancient Rome much likely had similar epochs. It did exist for very, very long time. Women in slavery, as slave owners and slaves themselves, is a turbulent story better left for an article on it’s own — I’ll just leave pointing out that most women who were made slaves througout history were women beloging to groups who were different in some way, or somehow not complacent to the rule of whoever wanted slaves in the first place — true revolutionaries.

So this to get to a very specific point of my theory on patriarchy: it is well regarded and thought as such, that the beginning of Christianity is the culprit of the Roman Empire befallment. Or, the idea of a unified male god. But, it is regarded in the study of demography that it had started some time before, with the introduction of eugenic ideals due to the rise in population. The Roman Empire had about 50 million people (very speculative number)and it is a thought of today’s demography that as soon as a civilization starts to collectively believe there are too many humans on the planet, it begins a process of self-destruction. It is a theory behind the fall of the Mayans, Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome… Much like what is happening today in our global society as well.

So, in the study of the catastrophic end of complex systems, it is thought that what comes after is not often the best possible solution, but simply an adaptation to both the destruction that ensued and the needs of such a period, and simple survival of how we know how to live. What do I mean by this? That in a way, if our society ended today with climate change for example, or, lets say without panicking, Covid-19, what would come next would be a survivalist way in adaptation to the constraints caused by the fall of our civilization, and much less an utopia of ideals and communion our idealistic utopian selves would want to believe.

Much like in the treatment of trauma, if you don’t change your genes through the epigenetics of trauma healing, it’s much likely your children will inherent the attributes that made you act in certain ways facing whatever caused you the trauma, and by social inculcation of the non-healed, they will also have similar behaviors. In the total global social sphere, the end of a civilization might simply mean that the next generation which will create a new reality for human presence, will have the core issues that led to the end of the previous civilization inculcated into them. Without a true understanding of the entire complexity of the problems that gave rise to the fall, much likely history is doomed to repeat itself again.

So, why did an inclusive and equal society’s end gave birth to an exclusive, unequal, and very discriminatory society afterwards?

We can blame Christianity, but I think it has another story behind it. The fear of what was always regarded as the Goddess: Mother Earth. The falling of the Goddess Cult and recent ressurgence speaks to the well established notions of naturalistic and ecosystematical incorporation in society. Women and men as equals, represents the mother and father archetype as just, kind, present and loving. Mother Earth sustains us and gives us life, Father Sun gives us warmth and life. So, to blame Christianity and remove Mother Earth from the equation is very likely a reaction of fear. We can trust the sun to keep shining, but we are afraid of losing our sustenance — of a collapse of the system in which we naturally belong to.

It’s only a theory, please regard it as such. Comments are welcome.

Cheers.