I'm giving up.

lorelei.. its the issue of peoples expectations.. not my choice, if that makes sense?

I wanted to take care of my DS, it was a no brainer for me to do that, and i would never have done any different... yet when you talk to people about it, they EXPECT me to have made that decision based on the fact i'm his mom and its normal for mom to take care of the kids.

Its one of those, not sure what the right word is, juxtaposition? Paradox? things

I raise the point that I decided to, because i wanted to, but i didn't HAVE to.. and people are like 'well, why make a fuss over it?' because they don't get that the EXPECTATION based on my Sex annoys me.

There were some cool women nuns in the later Roman Empire, it's true. And a couple of feisty empresses (married to emperors rather than empresses in their own right. Apart from my namesake Irene of Athens in the 8th century, though I'd call that the Byzantine period rather than the Later Roman Empire).

Not sure this really makes a matriarchy, though.

Madly, further thought, really glad you raised this as I suddenly see something I hadn't put my finger on.

The reason I get puzzled with feminists talking about being forced to align with norms is that..we wouldn't have feminists if everyone felt that forced to stick with norms. Which goes back to a pp from earlier wondering what happened to just saying "no".

Maddy, but we make choices based on what is right for us? If it was wrong for you and made much more sense to do it the other way round, would you change due to norms? Garlic started this thread saying how hard she fought to change norms. If anything, your answer is surprising on this thread?

"The late Roman Empire was as matriarchal as any society has ever become."

To amend what i said, with the obvious exception of the modern Western world..

"I specialised in the Later Roman Empire at university but totally missed the bit where it became a matriarchy. Could you fill me in?"

You're looking at it in a vaccuum and out of context. I am looking at it in the context of and relative to other societies of the era.

So you accept that women were treated worse than men all other things being equal?

lorelei, its all to do with expectation and societal norms, i really wouldn't have thought that would need clarifying on this forum of all places

"annoyingkid, are you seriously trying to argue that Elizabethan England wasn't patriarchal? Do you actually know very much about Tudor history?"

I didn't argue that. I said there's no evidence that women were treated worse than men in the name of misogyny.

Patriarchy just means rule of the fathers. All feminists argue that western society today is a patriarchy, and women arent treated as chattel. So the two don't inherently go together as concepts.

I've spent a while reading through this thread I've been thinking about these issues quite a lot recently, particularly the 'trans' issue. I'm sorry to see you leave Garlic

"There have been two documented instances of matriarchy historically in major civillizations. The Babylonians, and the Late Roman Empire"

I specialised in the Later Roman Empire at university but totally missed the bit where it became a matriarchy. Could you fill me in?

"When you appear on threads and state that the Late Roman Empire was a Matriarchy, despite this being a ludicrous suggestion in the eyes of almost all historians, I can see why people on some other sites would consider you to be a troll, as you claim. Do you think that might be where you are going wrong on these other sites?

If you believe something about a society that almost nobody else believes, it is massively misleading to refer to it as a 'documented case of' as if there were some kind of broad consensus on the matter."

The late Roman Empire was as matriarchal as any society has ever become.

Sorry, 'documented instances of' was your actual wording.

annoyingkid, are you seriously trying to argue that Elizabethan England wasn't patriarchal? Do you actually know very much about Tudor history?

"Which issues do men have that are not caused by living in a state of patriarchy?"

I could make a list if you want, but i'd rather deal with the underlying problems with that argument. The idea that all that stands between men the solving of all their problems, is the feminization of themselves. That is an anti male position.

The idea that instead of seeing men as they are as worthy of spending resources on to say, combat the 4x higher male suicide rate, we'll just help women in the hope that eventually it'll result in men wanting to feminize, and once they're more feminized, their suicide rate should start falling.

There are some who would deem it magical thinking.

When you appear on threads and state that the Late Roman Empire was a Matriarchy, despite this being a ludicrous suggestion in the eyes of almost all historians, I can see why people on some other sites would consider you to be a troll, as you claim. Do you think that might be where you are going wrong on these other sites?

If you believe something about a society that almost nobody else believes, it is massively misleading to refer to it as a 'documented case of' as if there were some kind of broad consensus on the matter.

Maddy, I do know a man who is SAH for a child with health problems. The higher earner was the default to work. I feel as if you are saying you were the logical choice being a woman, but why?