penkitten
Master Don Juan
in order for you to understand women, you must learn about women, womanhood and the bonds of womanhood. this thread will contain a history lesson, which may enlighten you on why women are the way that we are. this thread is for mature discussion only and i hope that you can participate here by sharing your views and opinions.
**********************
some believe that in the beginning of time, god made adam and eve, and that is what started the human race. whether or not you are religious, you have heard the story. every one of us were told in some way, that eve ate from the tree of life, a fruit, perhaps an apple , in which god told her not to,and she gave some to adam to eat and due to their sinful unobeying acts, they were cast out of the garden of eden, adam and all men were punished by having to work by the sweat of their brow and eve and all women were punished by childbirth.
we do not have to discuss religion. we do not have to discuss that it was going to happen anyways because god made the tree knowing they would eventually partake of it.
i am not even going to whine and tell you how much i hate this story where the blame gets placed on all women forever and ever due to one person's mistake.. if you will ....
my first question to you is was it all just a sh!t test?
yes, i asked it.
if this story happened in the manner in which we were told, did she do it just to see what fate would happen to her if she ate what was not allowed?
and even so, why did adam do it too?
i ask you these things to ponder on history and the stories that we have all heard, but adam and eve and eating an apple are not even what i want to talk about.
in ancient egypt, daughters could inherit things just like sons could as long as she participated in the funeral and they could also leave a will behind.they could own property, borrow,sue, be sued, lend and trade, have legal documents. she could have income by gardening, sewing, manage her own financial affairs.
however, in ancient athens (greece ) no woman could own more than clothing jewelery and a personal slave. she could not sign any contracts more expensive than a bushel of barley. a male would have to look after all her financial interests.if a marriage ended, the bridal price (dowry) would revert back to her to remarry or support herself (but a man had to administer it ) and she could make a last will and testament.
a father would split his estate land between all of his sons when he died, but for his daughters he would provide a dowry of other assets to give to her. men would try to pay close a bridal price close to what the dowry was worth and the father would pick whom she could marry from that. so that meant that the daughters actually got their inheritance early and at the time of their wedding, whereas men had to pay the bridal price to get married.
if there were no sons, a daughter would inherit her father's estate at his death. So far so good, but the nearest male relative of the deceased was entitled to become the guardian of the estate if he were willing to marry the daughter. He could claim her as his wife even if she were already married to someone else unless she had already produced a child of her own.
if the wife died before birthing a son, the dowry would was returned to her father.
in ancient rome, these dowries were smaller and were also administered by men. some men paid 3 yearly installments towards their dowries.
in ancient isreal, apostles were urging women to obey their husbands and for husbands to obey their wives. men were the head of the household, and women were to be his helpmate to work together for a partnership.
marriage was supposed to be ideal, and they made rules that a man could not marry a mother, sister or daughter because he had ties with her. they could have more than one wife if they could financially provide.
here, when a woman married, her family gave her to the groom's family and the groom's family would give a gift in return. once married, he was to support her, and if he financially could not, then she would be sold into slavery with him.it was very important for her to bear him a son, because it was common to become divorced over childlessness. if they had the money for a slave, she could give her personal slave to her husband to bear a child which would give her the same status as being the mother of his son which would make it harder for him to want to divorce her. if the husband died, and she had not had a son with him yet, she was expected to marry his brother, so that a man could support her and that she could feasibly have a son that would resemble him enough to carry on his name.
questions/ principals that people ponder about this :
why was social order more important that individual rights?
women's sexuality was sacrificed to ensure legitimacy..
a family's wealth should be administered by father/husband?
women, widows, divorcees needed help from their society...
slave and concubine babies could be raised by the father and his wife with the other children or raised by the mother as a separate family. fatherhood was not as we know it today, and was not always present. motherhood was always a constant, which is where it stems that women must have a birth control by having restrictions on sexual behavior even from this period of time.
marriage status with men did not matter when it came to sexual relationships with others, but when the woman married, she was to give her husband all her sexuality and adultery was taken so serious. even at the thought of it, she could be thrown into the lake to drown. her husband could feel sorry for her and save her, but he would also have to save her lover.
(i have to save him too ?)
ancient divorce has been explained in many ways. if the man just up and left, then they considered that he ran away. he made the choice and she was free to marry another even if he came back later. if they had children, she kept the children, the dowry and got to use the fields / property as to raise her children. whenever he died, she got a portion of his estate, along with their sons, and was free to remarry. if there were no kids, all he had to do was return the dowry. if he had paid no dowry, he paid her a mina piece of gold.
if she was the one that wanted the divorce or if he simply did not want to pay the dowry back, courts got involved. if she demonstrated innocence, she could take the children and dowry back to her father's house and if she was neglectful or blameful , she got sent away with nothing or he could have the option to keep her as a servant or the court could sentence her to death.
some women chose to be nuns instead of being in an undesirable marriage and sometimes their fathers decided this choice for them whether they wanted to become a nun or not. she was still entitled to her dowry, and received it from her brothers once her father passed away.
**********************
some believe that in the beginning of time, god made adam and eve, and that is what started the human race. whether or not you are religious, you have heard the story. every one of us were told in some way, that eve ate from the tree of life, a fruit, perhaps an apple , in which god told her not to,and she gave some to adam to eat and due to their sinful unobeying acts, they were cast out of the garden of eden, adam and all men were punished by having to work by the sweat of their brow and eve and all women were punished by childbirth.
we do not have to discuss religion. we do not have to discuss that it was going to happen anyways because god made the tree knowing they would eventually partake of it.
i am not even going to whine and tell you how much i hate this story where the blame gets placed on all women forever and ever due to one person's mistake.. if you will ....
my first question to you is was it all just a sh!t test?
yes, i asked it.
if this story happened in the manner in which we were told, did she do it just to see what fate would happen to her if she ate what was not allowed?
and even so, why did adam do it too?
i ask you these things to ponder on history and the stories that we have all heard, but adam and eve and eating an apple are not even what i want to talk about.
in ancient egypt, daughters could inherit things just like sons could as long as she participated in the funeral and they could also leave a will behind.they could own property, borrow,sue, be sued, lend and trade, have legal documents. she could have income by gardening, sewing, manage her own financial affairs.
however, in ancient athens (greece ) no woman could own more than clothing jewelery and a personal slave. she could not sign any contracts more expensive than a bushel of barley. a male would have to look after all her financial interests.if a marriage ended, the bridal price (dowry) would revert back to her to remarry or support herself (but a man had to administer it ) and she could make a last will and testament.
a father would split his estate land between all of his sons when he died, but for his daughters he would provide a dowry of other assets to give to her. men would try to pay close a bridal price close to what the dowry was worth and the father would pick whom she could marry from that. so that meant that the daughters actually got their inheritance early and at the time of their wedding, whereas men had to pay the bridal price to get married.
if there were no sons, a daughter would inherit her father's estate at his death. So far so good, but the nearest male relative of the deceased was entitled to become the guardian of the estate if he were willing to marry the daughter. He could claim her as his wife even if she were already married to someone else unless she had already produced a child of her own.
if the wife died before birthing a son, the dowry would was returned to her father.
in ancient rome, these dowries were smaller and were also administered by men. some men paid 3 yearly installments towards their dowries.
in ancient isreal, apostles were urging women to obey their husbands and for husbands to obey their wives. men were the head of the household, and women were to be his helpmate to work together for a partnership.
marriage was supposed to be ideal, and they made rules that a man could not marry a mother, sister or daughter because he had ties with her. they could have more than one wife if they could financially provide.
here, when a woman married, her family gave her to the groom's family and the groom's family would give a gift in return. once married, he was to support her, and if he financially could not, then she would be sold into slavery with him.it was very important for her to bear him a son, because it was common to become divorced over childlessness. if they had the money for a slave, she could give her personal slave to her husband to bear a child which would give her the same status as being the mother of his son which would make it harder for him to want to divorce her. if the husband died, and she had not had a son with him yet, she was expected to marry his brother, so that a man could support her and that she could feasibly have a son that would resemble him enough to carry on his name.
questions/ principals that people ponder about this :
why was social order more important that individual rights?
women's sexuality was sacrificed to ensure legitimacy..
a family's wealth should be administered by father/husband?
women, widows, divorcees needed help from their society...
slave and concubine babies could be raised by the father and his wife with the other children or raised by the mother as a separate family. fatherhood was not as we know it today, and was not always present. motherhood was always a constant, which is where it stems that women must have a birth control by having restrictions on sexual behavior even from this period of time.
marriage status with men did not matter when it came to sexual relationships with others, but when the woman married, she was to give her husband all her sexuality and adultery was taken so serious. even at the thought of it, she could be thrown into the lake to drown. her husband could feel sorry for her and save her, but he would also have to save her lover.
(i have to save him too ?)
ancient divorce has been explained in many ways. if the man just up and left, then they considered that he ran away. he made the choice and she was free to marry another even if he came back later. if they had children, she kept the children, the dowry and got to use the fields / property as to raise her children. whenever he died, she got a portion of his estate, along with their sons, and was free to remarry. if there were no kids, all he had to do was return the dowry. if he had paid no dowry, he paid her a mina piece of gold.
if she was the one that wanted the divorce or if he simply did not want to pay the dowry back, courts got involved. if she demonstrated innocence, she could take the children and dowry back to her father's house and if she was neglectful or blameful , she got sent away with nothing or he could have the option to keep her as a servant or the court could sentence her to death.
some women chose to be nuns instead of being in an undesirable marriage and sometimes their fathers decided this choice for them whether they wanted to become a nun or not. she was still entitled to her dowry, and received it from her brothers once her father passed away.
