12 ms·

Roman Women and the Oppian Law

88 points by diodorus 2y ago

thriftwy 2y ago
There should be explicit legal mechanisms to revert any temorary measures and as many measures as possible should be viewed as temporary. For example, every extension needs to be vetted by an independent court and by default it is revoked immediately upon failing to renew.
- more_corn 2y ago
  This proposal solves many societal problems. LGTM please merge into master at your earliest convenience.
- vundercind 2y ago
  This turns e.g. hard won fights for civil liberties and other very-nice-to-have things (parental leave, say, for countries developed enough to have it) into even more of a never-ending battle than they already are.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    It seems like that would not necessarily be the case, since not all laws would be temporary. But there would certainly be a push to make controversial things a temporary law.
  - krsdcbl 2y ago
    such laws are unlikely to be implemented as temporary measures, which op specifically talks about.
- NeoTar 2y ago
  I have contemplated whether every law should be explicitly time limited. There are some theoretical arguments for it - all uncontroversial laws (e.g. no murdering) should be renewed, and other laws can be re—evaluated (e.g. a number of US states enacted laws in the 90s preventing under—18s having pagers, which are at best irrelevant today, ignoring all other facts) The trouble is that perhaps our societies are now so polarised we’d never be able to agree to pass uncontroversial legislation without partisan horse trading.
  - clcaev 2y ago
    Laws past are often changes to legal code, they often soon have other code intertwined with them. How do you expire code automatically, do all dependent changed also have to expire? How do you track the dependency tree? Horse trading is an aspect of compromise: you want A, I would rather not; I want B, you would rather not; so we agree on A & B.
    - NeoTar 2y ago
      The trouble for me comes where you want A, I also want A, but I claim to want A*, so that I can ‘compromise’ with you to agree A and another policy I want, B.
  - brightlancer 2y ago
    Laws that are uncontroversial in one year can become very controversial in another. Is it murder to kill your slave? Is it murder to kill the man breaking into your home at 3AM? Is it murder for the government to kill the man convicted of murder? I think it's a good idea for all laws to have sunsets, though some could be longer than others. In the US, I see federal laws renewed every few years with little public debate, sometimes released to the legislature with little opportunity for them to debate, let alone read and verify changes. > The trouble is that perhaps our societies are now so polarised we’d never be able to agree to pass uncontroversial legislation without partisan horse trading. Again, some things may be more controversial than they appear. When things are uncontroversial, I think there's usually broad agreement to pass it without horse trading. More often, I see something (very) controversial is packaged with the uncontroversial, and the reporting of the situation is biased.
swaginator 2y ago
Back when that meme of "how often do men think about the roman empire" was going around, I was talking to my girlfriend about it and I noticed how I couldn't name any Roman women other than [Agrippina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger). I mostly just watch [toldinstone](https://toldinstone.com/ https://toldinstone.com/) and [Historia Civilis](https://www.historiacivilis.com/ https://www.historiacivilis.com/) on Youtube. I'm not really that interested in roman history, it's just nice infotainment to put on in the background, so it's not like I am going out of my way to learn about roman history, so it may also be that the presenters are glossing over the role of women in roman society. But I also watch a lot of ancient roman cooking videos, and again, the role of women is often absent in the historical texts that these videos quote from. I find it odd that I can only name a single roman woman, when I can name at least a few dozen women in other historical time periods that were very patriarchal. medeival, renaissance, and colonial era European history has many famous women, and Chinese and Japanese history has many named women, many in the courts of nobles, but they were still written about. I also don't read into these eras of history deeply, I just consume infotainment about them. It makes me wonder how much worse roman civilization must have been for women that they apparently didn't even bother to write down anything about them. Or is it that pop-history about ancient rome tends to be more male-oriented than history about other historical eras, and so women are just not talked about?
- countrymile 2y ago
  I was thinking something very similar to this. For all the thinking about the Roman empire, we (well the vast majority of we) need to be very thankful we live now rather than then. Tom Holland's dominion gives a very interesting run down of the horrors of those times.
- shrubble 2y ago
  There is Lucretia, and Virginia who was treated so badly by the aristocrats that it led to the overthrow of the decemviri and restoration of the Republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verginia, Macaulay wrote a famous poem about her as well, https://www.theotherpages.org/poems/virginia.html https://www.theotherpages.org/poems/virginia.html
welder 2y ago
Hug of death alternative https://archive.is/CgxFF https://archive.is/CgxFF
notjoemama 2y ago
> The lex Oppia was implemented to severely curb female expenditure on adornment and finery. This explains that other laws had been repealed following the conclusion of war 20 years prior. Women took to the streets in protest and filled the senate. As a result the lex Oppia was revoked. Interesting event. Let's not engage in presentism while we consider the implications of it today.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Is it presentist to be presentist, where others in history exercised presentism without constraint?
  - rkagerer 2y ago
    I'd never encountered the term "presentist" before, and at first blush it sounded like some kind of hipster slang. Turns out it's been a word for at least a century, and I have to admit the definition encapsulates a worthwhile concept. Not to be confused with "presenteeism". The commenter could also have said: "Let's remember we're viewing this through the looking glass of today's values."
    - gumby 2y ago
      Why do you consider simpler the use of the incomprehensible expression “through the looking glass”, as a looking glass is something you cannot see (view) through. Lewis Carroll’s use of “Through the Looking-Glass” in the title of one of his books is an explicit joke in this regard. I don’t think you meant that same joke.
      - gerdesj 2y ago
        Of course you can see "through" a looking glass (mirror) - you will see yourself. That's what they are for - direct reflection. "Through the looking glass" involves physical movement via a mirror and that is science fiction or fantasy or both (pick your genre or hit the drugs!) When I want to verify I have shaved fully, I look through a mirror, which is not a sight for the nervous ... first thing in the morning! There are half silvered mirrors and you can get a similar effect with a window, where you can see yourself and what lies beyond at the same time.
rkagerer 2y ago
I hope whoever penned this quote was proud of themselves, it still carries a provocative punch after 2000 years: ‘Would you in your refusal to revoke this law’, the question was put to the Senate, ‘allow the trappings of your own horse to be more splendid than the dress of your wife?’
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lazide 2y ago
    Clearly you’ve never stood behind or near a barn sour (or just plain cranky) horse. They will crush your feet, or even kick you in the head. I was in the mountains and had a mare roll over and try to pin me to a boulder when I was on her - it was 5am and cold + icy, and she clearly didn’t like that. Unfortunately for her, I grew up around a barn sour horse and saw it coming. Several times he tried to scrape me off against trees at full gallop. People are more dangerous just because they can manipulate others to kill/destroy you, and due to opposable thumbs can use weapons and construct machines/traps to kill you. Physically they’re far weaker and less capable than a horse. A horse can consistently kill a full grown man with a single well aimed kick to the head. I’ve also been threatened with knives 3 times, and shot at once, by humans - but near as I can tell, they weren’t serious about it. They just wanted the reaction. Unlike those horses. If horses (or cats for that matter) had opposable thumbs or speech, the sky would be the limit.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > A horse will never betray you I'm guessing you don't have much personal experience with horses.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      Animals sans humans are honest, so there are no betrayals. If that horse wants to wrong me, he will make it clear he wants to wrong me. That might be a wrong, but it's not a betrayal.
consumer451 2y ago
Very recently, we were complete morons. See page 3: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/7027c3d0-886c-52e6-aaba-14c60f6c7790/content https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/...
- jowea 2y ago
  Wait, how does Christianity makes sense if women have no souls? > Christianity swung between the Augustinian view that women had souls only to have Aquinas take up Aristotle’s position that women were incapable of reason and therefore had no souls > The question of women having Souls was only resolved for the Church in 1950 with the promulgation of “The Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven” and the Papal Bull (De munificentissimus Deus 1950) which accompanied the creation of a special feast to commemorate this event
  - throwup238 2y ago
    The list of contradictions and logical inconsistencies was so long it took them a while to work their way up to women's souls.
  - brightlancer 2y ago
    Neither of those sentences cite a source. The papal bull notes, "our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception." Pope Pius IX died in 1878. Did he proclaim that Mary was born without sin but she still didn't have a soul? So, how many errors do we have to find in the paper before we just dismiss the paper as nonsense?
  - coolsunglasses 2y ago
    This isn't even remotely accurate to Christian belief in either the Catholic or Orthodox churches. There isn't a single church father who believed women didn't have souls, that's facially ludicrous if you know anything about church teaching which means the person writing this did not. Here's a simple example out of many I could draw on: if women didn't have souls they wouldn't be able to receive the sacraments. That means no baptism, no chrismation, no Eucharist, no marriage, no reconciliation, and no extreme unction. It would be metaphysically impossible to be sacramentally married to a woman. C'mon. There would be no need to distinguish between sacramental and natural marriages if women were soulless because they'd be unable to confect the sacrament with their espoused. The misreading of St. Augustine here has to do with a distinction he was making regarding Imago Dei. He pretty clearly believes women and men are spiritually/metaphysically equal, including as it relates to their spiritual dignity deriving from being made in the image and likeness of God. The passage that gets misread has to do with physical nature and its derivation from Imago Dei. I don't think it was a particularly important point and it's not something I've seen repeated elsewhere. This is a notorious enough myth about Christian belief that First Things has a multiple articles addressing it: https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/04/the-myth-of-soulless-women https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/04/the-myth-of-soul...
mentos 2y ago
I’m interested in the day to day life of a persons life in ancient Rome anyone recommend a book?
- boygobbo 2y ago
  Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino
- consumer451 2y ago
  Spectaculum Britannicum cui nomen est "Plebs" commendare volo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjfft56qTy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjfft56qTy0
- vizualbod 2y ago
  Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz
- ttonkytonk 2y ago
  The Satyricon
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
brightlancer 2y ago
> These restrictions prevented what these women saw as their right to be elegant in appearance. ... > The events that it set in motion on the streets of Rome created a precedent which saw Roman women stand up for their rights and make their voices heard. Recognizing that yes, women and men should have the same legal rights, I find it hilarious that the tipping point that year was that women had to limit their wardrobe in public. From [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Oppia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Oppia) because I find the phrasing interesting: "Cato argued that the law removed the shame of poverty because it made all women dress in an equal fashion. Cato insisted that if women could engage in a clothes-contest, they would either feel shame in the presence of other women, or on the contrary, they would delight in a rather base victory as a result of extending themselves beyond their means." Again, men and women should be equal under the law, but it isn't an antiquated notion that women would engage in a "clothes-contest", particularly among economic classes. (Men, to be clear, are socially permitted far less peacocking with clothing, so there isn't anywhere near the same contest.)
- defrost 2y ago
  > Men, to be clear, are socially permitted far less peacocking with clothing Various points in history beg to disagree. Doublets, ruffs, codpieces, high heeled shoes, etc didn't come cheap.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Even at our point in history, there is at least one watch brand which advertises with the message that this particular toy[0] is one you are merely the custodian of until you bequeath it to your successor[1]. [0] the difference between men and boys is how many people are on the payroll for taking care of their toys. [1] for patina, rings beat timepieces, but those families aren't exactly a growth market, now are they? Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alBm88ZjMrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alBm88ZjMrc
- 1659447091 2y ago
  > I find it hilarious that the tipping point that year was that women had to limit their wardrobe in public. Im not an expert in that time period, but my guess would be that was the one thing women had of their own and it was being taken away. Men did their peacocking with their more tangible possessions. With both women and men equally wanting to participate in the timeless human condition of wanting to show off and one-up their peers. Take that away from either men or women and I would guess it causes a tipping point of rebellion.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
If people want some specific changes, such as real, well-provided single-payer healthcare without the involvement of for-profit insurance companies, and universal prescription coverage, then they need to follow the examples of Roman women: mass, nonviolent action that targets the pocketbooks of the billionaires and the gold-bar-taking crooked politicians in a sustained manner. Medicare is incomplete, complex, confusing, expensive to the patient, and outsources much of itself to for-profit insurance companies. And Medicaid is terrible, offering only sometimes temporary and limited coverage for very poor people during emergencies and minimal care because few doctors accept it.

88 points by diodorus 2y ago

There should be explicit legal mechanisms to revert any temorary measures and as many measures as possible should be viewed as temporary. For example, every extension needs to be vetted by an independent court and by default it is revoked immediately upon failing to renew.

more_corn 2y ago
This proposal solves many societal problems. LGTM please merge into master at your earliest convenience.
vundercind 2y ago
This turns e.g. hard won fights for civil liberties and other very-nice-to-have things (parental leave, say, for countries developed enough to have it) into even more of a never-ending battle than they already are.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  It seems like that would not necessarily be the case, since not all laws would be temporary. But there would certainly be a push to make controversial things a temporary law.
- krsdcbl 2y ago
  such laws are unlikely to be implemented as temporary measures, which op specifically talks about.
NeoTar 2y ago
I have contemplated whether every law should be explicitly time limited. There are some theoretical arguments for it - all uncontroversial laws (e.g. no murdering) should be renewed, and other laws can be re—evaluated (e.g. a number of US states enacted laws in the 90s preventing under—18s having pagers, which are at best irrelevant today, ignoring all other facts) The trouble is that perhaps our societies are now so polarised we’d never be able to agree to pass uncontroversial legislation without partisan horse trading.
- clcaev 2y ago
  Laws past are often changes to legal code, they often soon have other code intertwined with them. How do you expire code automatically, do all dependent changed also have to expire? How do you track the dependency tree? Horse trading is an aspect of compromise: you want A, I would rather not; I want B, you would rather not; so we agree on A & B.
  - NeoTar 2y ago
    The trouble for me comes where you want A, I also want A, but I claim to want A*, so that I can ‘compromise’ with you to agree A and another policy I want, B.
- brightlancer 2y ago
  Laws that are uncontroversial in one year can become very controversial in another. Is it murder to kill your slave? Is it murder to kill the man breaking into your home at 3AM? Is it murder for the government to kill the man convicted of murder? I think it's a good idea for all laws to have sunsets, though some could be longer than others. In the US, I see federal laws renewed every few years with little public debate, sometimes released to the legislature with little opportunity for them to debate, let alone read and verify changes. > The trouble is that perhaps our societies are now so polarised we’d never be able to agree to pass uncontroversial legislation without partisan horse trading. Again, some things may be more controversial than they appear. When things are uncontroversial, I think there's usually broad agreement to pass it without horse trading. More often, I see something (very) controversial is packaged with the uncontroversial, and the reporting of the situation is biased.

swaginator 2y ago

Back when that meme of "how often do men think about the roman empire" was going around, I was talking to my girlfriend about it and I noticed how I couldn't name any Roman women other than [Agrippina](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippina_the_Younger). I mostly just watch [toldinstone](https://toldinstone.com/ https://toldinstone.com/) and [Historia Civilis](https://www.historiacivilis.com/ https://www.historiacivilis.com/) on Youtube. I'm not really that interested in roman history, it's just nice infotainment to put on in the background, so it's not like I am going out of my way to learn about roman history, so it may also be that the presenters are glossing over the role of women in roman society. But I also watch a lot of ancient roman cooking videos, and again, the role of women is often absent in the historical texts that these videos quote from. I find it odd that I can only name a single roman woman, when I can name at least a few dozen women in other historical time periods that were very patriarchal. medeival, renaissance, and colonial era European history has many famous women, and Chinese and Japanese history has many named women, many in the courts of nobles, but they were still written about. I also don't read into these eras of history deeply, I just consume infotainment about them. It makes me wonder how much worse roman civilization must have been for women that they apparently didn't even bother to write down anything about them. Or is it that pop-history about ancient rome tends to be more male-oriented than history about other historical eras, and so women are just not talked about?

countrymile 2y ago
I was thinking something very similar to this. For all the thinking about the Roman empire, we (well the vast majority of we) need to be very thankful we live now rather than then. Tom Holland's dominion gives a very interesting run down of the horrors of those times.
shrubble 2y ago
There is Lucretia, and Virginia who was treated so badly by the aristocrats that it led to the overthrow of the decemviri and restoration of the Republic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verginia, Macaulay wrote a famous poem about her as well, https://www.theotherpages.org/poems/virginia.html https://www.theotherpages.org/poems/virginia.html

welder 2y ago

Hug of death alternative https://archive.is/CgxFF https://archive.is/CgxFF

notjoemama 2y ago

> The lex Oppia was implemented to severely curb female expenditure on adornment and finery. This explains that other laws had been repealed following the conclusion of war 20 years prior. Women took to the streets in protest and filled the senate. As a result the lex Oppia was revoked. Interesting event. Let's not engage in presentism while we consider the implications of it today.

tomrod 2y ago
Is it presentist to be presentist, where others in history exercised presentism without constraint?
- rkagerer 2y ago
  I'd never encountered the term "presentist" before, and at first blush it sounded like some kind of hipster slang. Turns out it's been a word for at least a century, and I have to admit the definition encapsulates a worthwhile concept. Not to be confused with "presenteeism". The commenter could also have said: "Let's remember we're viewing this through the looking glass of today's values."
  - gumby 2y ago
    Why do you consider simpler the use of the incomprehensible expression “through the looking glass”, as a looking glass is something you cannot see (view) through. Lewis Carroll’s use of “Through the Looking-Glass” in the title of one of his books is an explicit joke in this regard. I don’t think you meant that same joke.
    - gerdesj 2y ago
      Of course you can see "through" a looking glass (mirror) - you will see yourself. That's what they are for - direct reflection. "Through the looking glass" involves physical movement via a mirror and that is science fiction or fantasy or both (pick your genre or hit the drugs!) When I want to verify I have shaved fully, I look through a mirror, which is not a sight for the nervous ... first thing in the morning! There are half silvered mirrors and you can get a similar effect with a window, where you can see yourself and what lies beyond at the same time.

rkagerer 2y ago

I hope whoever penned this quote was proud of themselves, it still carries a provocative punch after 2000 years: ‘Would you in your refusal to revoke this law’, the question was put to the Senate, ‘allow the trappings of your own horse to be more splendid than the dress of your wife?’

Dalewyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- lazide 2y ago
  Clearly you’ve never stood behind or near a barn sour (or just plain cranky) horse. They will crush your feet, or even kick you in the head. I was in the mountains and had a mare roll over and try to pin me to a boulder when I was on her - it was 5am and cold + icy, and she clearly didn’t like that. Unfortunately for her, I grew up around a barn sour horse and saw it coming. Several times he tried to scrape me off against trees at full gallop. People are more dangerous just because they can manipulate others to kill/destroy you, and due to opposable thumbs can use weapons and construct machines/traps to kill you. Physically they’re far weaker and less capable than a horse. A horse can consistently kill a full grown man with a single well aimed kick to the head. I’ve also been threatened with knives 3 times, and shot at once, by humans - but near as I can tell, they weren’t serious about it. They just wanted the reaction. Unlike those horses. If horses (or cats for that matter) had opposable thumbs or speech, the sky would be the limit.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  > A horse will never betray you I'm guessing you don't have much personal experience with horses.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Animals sans humans are honest, so there are no betrayals. If that horse wants to wrong me, he will make it clear he wants to wrong me. That might be a wrong, but it's not a betrayal.

consumer451 2y ago

Very recently, we were complete morons. See page 3: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/7027c3d0-886c-52e6-aaba-14c60f6c7790/content https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/...

jowea 2y ago
Wait, how does Christianity makes sense if women have no souls? > Christianity swung between the Augustinian view that women had souls only to have Aquinas take up Aristotle’s position that women were incapable of reason and therefore had no souls > The question of women having Souls was only resolved for the Church in 1950 with the promulgation of “The Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven” and the Papal Bull (De munificentissimus Deus 1950) which accompanied the creation of a special feast to commemorate this event
- throwup238 2y ago
  The list of contradictions and logical inconsistencies was so long it took them a while to work their way up to women's souls.
- brightlancer 2y ago
  Neither of those sentences cite a source. The papal bull notes, "our predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the loving Mother of God's Immaculate Conception." Pope Pius IX died in 1878. Did he proclaim that Mary was born without sin but she still didn't have a soul? So, how many errors do we have to find in the paper before we just dismiss the paper as nonsense?
- coolsunglasses 2y ago
  This isn't even remotely accurate to Christian belief in either the Catholic or Orthodox churches. There isn't a single church father who believed women didn't have souls, that's facially ludicrous if you know anything about church teaching which means the person writing this did not. Here's a simple example out of many I could draw on: if women didn't have souls they wouldn't be able to receive the sacraments. That means no baptism, no chrismation, no Eucharist, no marriage, no reconciliation, and no extreme unction. It would be metaphysically impossible to be sacramentally married to a woman. C'mon. There would be no need to distinguish between sacramental and natural marriages if women were soulless because they'd be unable to confect the sacrament with their espoused. The misreading of St. Augustine here has to do with a distinction he was making regarding Imago Dei. He pretty clearly believes women and men are spiritually/metaphysically equal, including as it relates to their spiritual dignity deriving from being made in the image and likeness of God. The passage that gets misread has to do with physical nature and its derivation from Imago Dei. I don't think it was a particularly important point and it's not something I've seen repeated elsewhere. This is a notorious enough myth about Christian belief that First Things has a multiple articles addressing it: https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/04/the-myth-of-soulless-women https://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/04/the-myth-of-soul...

mentos 2y ago

I’m interested in the day to day life of a persons life in ancient Rome anyone recommend a book?

boygobbo 2y ago
Daily Life in Ancient Rome by Jerome Carcopino
consumer451 2y ago
Spectaculum Britannicum cui nomen est "Plebs" commendare volo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjfft56qTy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjfft56qTy0
vizualbod 2y ago
Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz
ttonkytonk 2y ago
The Satyricon
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

brightlancer 2y ago

> These restrictions prevented what these women saw as their right to be elegant in appearance. ... > The events that it set in motion on the streets of Rome created a precedent which saw Roman women stand up for their rights and make their voices heard. Recognizing that yes, women and men should have the same legal rights, I find it hilarious that the tipping point that year was that women had to limit their wardrobe in public. From [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Oppia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Oppia) because I find the phrasing interesting: "Cato argued that the law removed the shame of poverty because it made all women dress in an equal fashion. Cato insisted that if women could engage in a clothes-contest, they would either feel shame in the presence of other women, or on the contrary, they would delight in a rather base victory as a result of extending themselves beyond their means." Again, men and women should be equal under the law, but it isn't an antiquated notion that women would engage in a "clothes-contest", particularly among economic classes. (Men, to be clear, are socially permitted far less peacocking with clothing, so there isn't anywhere near the same contest.)

defrost 2y ago
> Men, to be clear, are socially permitted far less peacocking with clothing Various points in history beg to disagree. Doublets, ruffs, codpieces, high heeled shoes, etc didn't come cheap.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Even at our point in history, there is at least one watch brand which advertises with the message that this particular toy[0] is one you are merely the custodian of until you bequeath it to your successor[1]. [0] the difference between men and boys is how many people are on the payroll for taking care of their toys. [1] for patina, rings beat timepieces, but those families aren't exactly a growth market, now are they? Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alBm88ZjMrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alBm88ZjMrc
1659447091 2y ago
> I find it hilarious that the tipping point that year was that women had to limit their wardrobe in public. Im not an expert in that time period, but my guess would be that was the one thing women had of their own and it was being taken away. Men did their peacocking with their more tangible possessions. With both women and men equally wanting to participate in the timeless human condition of wanting to show off and one-up their peers. Take that away from either men or women and I would guess it causes a tipping point of rebellion.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

If people want some specific changes, such as real, well-provided single-payer healthcare without the involvement of for-profit insurance companies, and universal prescription coverage, then they need to follow the examples of Roman women: mass, nonviolent action that targets the pocketbooks of the billionaires and the gold-bar-taking crooked politicians in a sustained manner. Medicare is incomplete, complex, confusing, expensive to the patient, and outsources much of itself to for-profit insurance companies. And Medicaid is terrible, offering only sometimes temporary and limited coverage for very poor people during emergencies and minimal care because few doctors accept it.