THE CLASSICAL ATHENS GOLDEN AGE – THE FIRST TALIBAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Postcsriptim
Why is postscriptum in front and not at the end of this essay is a mystery easily solved by how one feels. This longish essay with the excellent use of Gemini AI is a longish one. NOW, the AI is 360 degrees tool. It can kill you and it can also save you a lot of time if you exactly, exactly know what exactly you ask.
This essay was long overdue, Witchlady insisting to concoct something out of a book in her possession, definitely a feminist book but completely true in all facts, so, STUPIDON; what a fuck of woke or not woke, the proof is in eating the pudding.
IN the Stupidon age, AI or not AI, Stupidon the song remains the same- led zeppelin- lets look what this US pirate empire soft power stuff of bollocks peddles for the stupidon populace like this Nolan mega costly paid movie by who knows exactly which power, to be sold, about fake Ancient Greeks or even his other movies about the atomic bomb not to mention some local Bat or dumb ass heroes like Oppenheimer, when in fact the movie should have been not about the Oppenheimer polar disorder but about the real stuff, the Edward Teller real mover- doctor strangelove who was ready to bomb in unison with the US Rulers anybody with the H Bomb, just because somebody was launching a not nice glance at the rogues of the Empire.
SO in the Zeitgeist, of the mainstream shit of the bells curve of Stupidons suddenly a thorn inside for being a cunning dumbass called Odysseus was made into a soft something sign of the US soft power exporting intangible goods. Propaganda rubbish.
Now ULYSSES was not just a WAR CRIMINAL, BUT A CONCLAMATE GENOCIDE ARCHITECT. He made a genocide of Troy, not a military takeover. GAZA anybody? Netanyahoo? Are this characters cunning and thorn inside and we sympathize for them?
What about general Ratko Mladic a convicted war criminal for genocide in Srebrenica and now a Serbian Hero?
“AI GEMINI:Yes, in the context of Greek mythology, the actions of Ulysses (Odysseus) and the Greek army during the fall of Troy align directly with modern definitions of war crimes and genocide. While ancient epics framed the event as a glorious victory, later classical plays, Roman literature, and modern analyses focus heavily on the systematic destruction of the Trojan people. Ulysses did not just participate; he was the primary architect of the strategy that enabled the total annihilation of the city. “
AI:
“Crucial Atrocities and the Eradication of Troy
The resulting sack of Troy went far beyond standard military conquest, moving into the wholesale extermination of a culture and lineage: [1]
The Execution of Astyanax: In cyclic myth cycles like the Iliupersis (The Sack of Troy), Ulixes is either the executioner or the driving force behind the murder of Astyanax, the infant son of Hector. Ulixes argued that the royal Trojan bloodline had to be permanently extinguished to prevent any future retribution. The baby was thrown to his death from the high walls of Troy.
Mass Slaughter and Desecration: The Greeks mercilessly slaughtered the civilian population, including King Priam, who was executed at a sacred altar. Temples were defiled and burned, violating ancient sacred laws.
Mass Enslavement: Virtually all surviving Trojan women and children were rounded up, divided like property, and forced into permanent slavery. Ulixes himself took Queen Hecuba, the matriarch of Troy, as his prize.”
SO once again we have not just a Hero, but a Genocidal hero. Are we hey Stupidon, being prepared and manipulated for more genocides coming? The Trojan Virus of the rogue empires in form of fake myths.
SO he was a Rapist as were also his men. LOOT, BOOTY SWAG kill rape enslave.
• NOW, the problem was that he lost his booty and could not go back home empty handed after 10 years of siege and killing. He had no booty, no slaves and so he went adrift out of shame and despair to loot something elsewhere to be able to go home. And then even he lost all his men too which would have provoked anger in the families of Ithaca if he returned alone and empty handed. Apart from being a SEX SLAVE to Calypso for 7 years and one wonders of the poor Ulixes doing it every night. CIRCE was nice, no competition from his men turned into pigs but at the end, wherever he went he would not be one and only thing- A KING COMMANDER- the real stuff he wanted. He wanted to rule and not to be a sex slave . So home was the only place where he could be the KING and home was the only solution. The only thing logically hypothetically out of order was the meeting with Phaecians. Why on earth they did give him all this treasures and sent him home drugged- sleeping- while Phaecans led the ship to Ithaca?
AI:
“The Phaeacians gave Odysseus (Ulysses) rich treasures of gold, bronze, and fine clothing to take home after he told them the story of his wanderings. [1, 2]
• The Phaeacian Gift: King Alcinous, Queen Arete, and the Phaeacian lords loaded Odysseus with more wealth and plunder than he would have ever won from the Trojan War. They then sailed him safely to Ithaca on one of their magical ships.”
The only rational answer is that they wanted to get rid of him because if not he would have married Nausicaa who was in love with him, which was a bad omen , so they had to bribe him to go. Also there was the mirror problem with suitors of Nausicaa, same as Penelope was witnessing in Ithaca. . Lineage of the succession was behind this bribery in order to get rid of him and so get rid of this problematic villain.. This is A speculation, other is not. So Phaeacians lent him the best ship with Phaeacian rovers, tucked the treasure gift in the boat, drugged him for the all time of journey to Ithaca to prevent that Odysseus concocts another of his cunning plans. Homer says Ulixes was “asleep” for the whole time of the journey, haha. They left him and the treasure on Ithaca shore and the guy did not even recognize the place where he was brought.
So lets
START
This essay is not about the Genocidal Dumbass, rapist and killer and a war criminal called Odysseus. He DID NOT come home with a booty , the treasure was a gift of Phaeacians, if not he would never come back , lynched by all the people who lost their relatives who sailed with Ulixes to make a genocide and looting in Troy..
This essay is about the regression of the Homeric bronze age of the status of women sliding into the Athens Golden Age first democratic Taliban Republic of males. Yes, very similar to Afghanistan Taliban apart from males having sex with anybody, drinking together, prostitution legalized and organized by Solon, and a lot of big thinking called philosophy.
OK, the Taliban use the one day marriage contract for the same reasons.
AI Gemini:
“The Shift in Social and Legal Status from the aristocratic, epic society of Homeric times (roughly the 8th century BCE) to the Classical “Golden Age” of Athens (5th century BCE) as a regression in the public freedom, legal standing, and social mobility of respectable citizen women.
Homeric Era (Time of Ulixes): Physical Freedom Highly Visible. Queens moved about the palace, attended banquets, and spoke directly with male guests (e.g., Helen, Penelope, Arete).
Golden Age of Athens: WOMEN Severely Confined. Respectable citizen women were locked in the gynaeceum (women’s quarters) and could rarely leave the house without a male escort.
Homeric Era: Domestic Authority The Household Arbiter. The Queen completely managed the oikos (estate), controlled the keys to the treasury, and directed domestic diplomacy.
Golden Age Athens: The Subordinate Manager. The wife managed servants but was ultimately seen as an “incubator” for male heirs rather than a partner.
Homer Era:
Social Value Prized for Intellect (Mêtis). Cleverness, verbal sharp-wittedness, and political wisdom were deeply respected in women.
Athens Golden Age:
Prized for Silence. The famous statesman Pericles noted that the highest glory for an Athenian woman was “not to be spoken of among men, whether for good or evil.”
Homeric Era:
Legal/Civic Role Dynastic Anchor. While lacking official political office, queens held vast informal political sway and could influence regional peace.
Golden Athens:
Legal Minor. Women were treated as perpetual children, legally invisible without a male guardian (kyrios) and entirely excluded from the democracy. “
The book , a sort of horror movie for any woman is: Angela Giallongo- L’ IMMAGINE DELLA DONNA NELLA CULTURA GRECA Maggioli editore 1981. 1981!!!
Women closed indoors a the back of the house. Famous gynaeceum or whatever. Not allowed to go in the house front quarters. Imprisoned FOR LIFE, maybe for some big events they could go out escorted with male guard. The Taliban Democracy of the golden age!
Illiterate, not allowed to learn to write or any rhetoric skill except some women, counted on few fingers who were allowed to do it by their tutor master.
The Ransom of the Shepherd DOG
The social contract, publicly announced and a kind of non written law was that the Man is like the shepherd dog ( not yet a German shepherd) who guards the women and in return they obey him completely as any slave would do. The shepherd nature of the Greeks . While grazing sheep and thinking of the Universe or more down to earth copying the sheep social system onto the Athens Golden Age social structure! As, when stepping outside the door to the street the woman was legal prey to any man and after being raped it was her fault and she was repudiated at instant and even punished: Thrown out into the street to be abused for life. The contract was that the man husband or any man in charge was the shepherd dog guardian for women closed inside the hose. And like Penelope in the story they worked as slaves weaving or producing goods for free to repay their PROTECTOR- HUSBAND- FOR BEING A SHEPHERD DOG for being so kind to guard their safety in women prison ( see Xenophon Memorabilia- Aristarchus)
AI: “In Xenophon’s Memorabilia, Aristarchus is a real Athenian citizen who appears in a philosophical dialogue with Socrates. [1, 2]
• The Situation: Aristarchus is in deep distress because the civil war in Athens has left him impoverished. To make matters worse, fourteen of his female relatives (sisters, nieces, and cousins) have fled to his house for refuge, and he cannot afford to feed them. [1]
• Socrates’ Advice: Socrates points out that people who run businesses with slaves manage to feed large households and make a profit. He suggests that Aristarchus’ female relatives should not stay idle; instead, they should use their skills to make clothing.
• The Outcome: Aristarchus takes the advice, buys wool and tools, and the women begin spinning and weaving. The household becomes self-sufficient, everyone is fed, and the tension in the home disappears”
Before we reach the CLUE OF THIS POST, a mind blowing “scientific ground” for the establishment of this Afghan Taliban Athens Golden Age democracy, lets take a side bend on what was really going on in Ithaca, why Penelope was stalling and what Telemachos was trying to do.
AI GEMINI, with the good prompt:
Telemachus reaching the age of majority introduced a ticking clock to Penelope’s survival strategy. In the patriarchal structure of Homeric Greece, a son coming of age did not reinforce the queen’s power—it actively dismantled her legal authority over the palace. As Telemachus transitioned from a boy into a man, Penelope found herself caught in a legal and social trap between her husband’s absent authority, the suitors’ aggression, and her own son’s emerging rights as the master of the house
In Homeric Greece—the Late Bronze Age setting depicted in the tales of Ulixes (Odysseus)—the real power of queens was indirect, domestic, and structural, rather than political or military. [1, 2]
While Homeric society was overtly patriarchal, queens wielded substantial authority as custodians of the kingdom, diplomatic gatekeepers, and legal bridges for royal legitimacy. [1, 2, 3]
1. Guardians of Sovereignty & Legitimacy
In the Late Bronze Age, political power was deeply tied to the oikos (the royal household). When a king went to war, the queen became the operational head of this estate. [1, 2, 3]
• The Bridge to the Throne: As seen with Penelope in Ithaca, a queen’s hand in marriage carried immense political weight. The dozens of suitors invading her palace did not just want her; they wanted to legitimize their claim to Ulixes’ throne by marrying her. [1]
• Preservation of Dynasty: By using her cunning (metis)—such as the famous trick of weaving and unweaving the burial shroud—Penelope delayed a total constitutional crisis. Her soft resistance successfully protected her son Telemachus’s inheritance until Ulixes could return. [1]
2. High Diplomacy and Interpersonal Soft Power
Homeric queens were highly respected judges of character and held severe social sway.
• The Gatekeeper of Favor: When Ulixes washes ashore on the island of Scheria, he is explicitly told to bypass King Alcinous and appeal directly to Queen Arete. Homer notes that Arete possesses a brilliant mind and settles disputes among men. If the queen did not favor a visitor, they would receive no hospitality or safe passage home.
• Control of the Household Economy: Queens directly managed the vast wealth, slaves, and production (such as textiles) of the palace. [1, 2, 3]
3. The Dangerous Alternative: Total De Facto Rule
When queens entirely stepped outside of patriarchal boundaries, their power could shake whole civilizations.
• Clytemnestra, the queen of Mycenae, ruled the kingdom in her own right for a decade while her husband Agamemnon fought at Troy. She took a lover, managed the state, and eventually engineered the assassination of the king upon his return. Her historical and literary archetype represents the absolute patriarchal fear of unrestrained female agency. [1, 2, 3]
Direct Comparison: Male vs. Female Power in the Homeric Era
Aspect Kings (e.g., Ulixes, Agamemnon) Queens (e.g., Penelope, Arete)
Source of Power Divine right, physical prowess, military command, and public speaking. Bloodline, mastery of the oikos, fidelity, and cleverness (metis).
Domain The Agora (public assembly), the battlefield, and foreign conquest. The Oikos (the palace interior), domestic wealth, and core diplomacy.
Limits of Power Bound by oaths to other kings and the whims of the gods. Legally subordinate to husbands or sons when they reached adulthood.
Penelope’s power relied entirely on psychological warfare, structural stalling, and intellectual agility (metis), which allowed her to outmaneuver over a hundred desperate suitors without ever wielding a weapon.
Because she had no legal right to rule Ithaca outright in the absence of Ulixes, her strategies were designed to exploit patriarchal customs to her advantage.
1. The Shroud of Laertes (Structural Stalling)
Penelope’s most famous strategy was a masterclass in exploiting religious and familial duty to delay political collapse.
• The Tactic: She promised the suitors she would choose a husband only after finishing a burial shroud for Ulixes’ aging father, Laertes. She wove the shroud by day and secretly unwove it by torchlight at night.
• The Power Behind It: In Homeric society, denying a proper burial garment to an elder was a massive sin (bad form). By framing her delay as a sacred duty, the suitors could not force her to choose without looking impious to the community and the gods. She successfully bought Ithaca three full years of peace using a mere loom.
2. Splitting the Enemy (Flattery and Economic Drain)
Rather than aggressively rejecting the suitors—which would invite violence—Penelope played the role of the ultimate prize, keeping them compliant.
• The Tactic: Inspired by the goddess Athena, Penelope appeared before the suitors to lament her fate, drop subtle hints of encouragement, and complain that they were ruining her estate instead of bringing her gifts, as proper suitors should.
• The Power Behind It: The suitors immediately ran to fetch gold, robes, and jewelry to win her favor. By extracting wealth from them, she balanced out the massive economic drain they were causing by eating her livestock. More importantly, she kept them fighting each other for her attention rather than uniting to overthrow her son, Telemachus.
3. Weaponizing Her Fidelity
In the Bronze Age, a queen’s chastity was not just a moral issue; it was a matter of state security.
• The Tactic: Penelope weaponized her grief. By remaining aggressively mourning and loyal to Ulixes, she denied any single suitor the right to claim the throne.
• The Power Behind It: If she had yielded to a suitor early on, that man would have claimed the palace, likely murdered Telemachus, and ended the line of Arcesius. Her grief was her shield; as long as she was “undecided,” the throne remained technically occupied by the memory of Ulixes.
4. The Intellectual Tests (The Ultimate Gatekeeper)
Penelope possessed the same sharp, cautious mind as Ulixes. She refused to be fooled by impostors or rushed into a trap.
• The Contest of the Bow: When she finally could delay no longer, she set a challenge she knew almost no regular mortal could complete: stringing Ulixes’ massive hunting bow and shooting an arrow through twelve axe-heads. This strategy ensured that only a man equal to her husband could ever take his place—unknowingly setting the stage for the disguised Ulixes to slaughter the suitors.
• The Secret of the Bed: Even after the suitors were dead, she tested Ulixes himself. She ordered her servant to move their bridal bed. Ulixes instantly grew angry, knowing the bed was built directly into the roots of a living olive tree and could not be moved. By testing his reaction, she verified his identity beyond doubt, protecting her agency until the final second.
If you want to dig deeper, let me know:
Should we look at how Telemachus’s coming of age complicated Penelope’s plans?
Telemachus reaching the age of majority introduced a ticking clock to Penelope’s survival strategy. In the patriarchal structure of Homeric Greece, a son coming of age did not reinforce the queen’s power—it actively dismantled her legal authority over the palace.
As Telemachus transitioned from a boy into a man, Penelope found herself caught in a legal and social trap between her husband’s absent authority, the suitors’ aggression, and her own son’s emerging rights as the master of the house.
1. The Legal Loss of the Oikos (The Palace)
In Homeric society, a woman could not independently own a royal estate. She was always under the legal guardianship (kyreia) of a male figure: first her father, then her husband, and eventually, her adult son.
• The Shift in Power: The moment Telemachus grew facial hair and could speak in the public assembly (Agora), he legally became the head of the house (kyrios) in his father’s absence.
• The Complication: Penelope was no longer the undisputed ruler of the domestic sphere. Telemachus could technically order his mother around. In Book 1 of The Odyssey, he famously asserts his dominance by telling her to go back to her quarters and mind her spindle, declaring, “Speech shall be the anxiety of men… for mine is the power in this house.”
2. The Ultimatum: Marry or Move Out
Telemachus’s adulthood created a massive financial and social crisis regarding Penelope’s presence in the palace.
• The Mother’s Dowry: If Penelope refused to marry a suitor, she was staying in a palace that now belonged to Telemachus. However, the suitors were eating away Telemachus’s inheritance.
• The Catch-22: If Telemachus wanted to save his wealth, social custom dictated that he should send his mother back to her father (Icarius) so her father could arrange a new marriage and collect a new dowry. But Telemachus loved his mother and feared the social shame (and the wrath of the Furies) of kicking her out. Penelope’s strategy of endless waiting was directly bankrupting her own son, forcing a rift between them.
•
The Goal of the Suitors: Their objective is simple: assassinate Telemachos at sea. By killing the sole heir, they would eliminate the royal bloodline, leaving Penelope completely vulnerable and ensuring that whoever marries her inherits the kingdom without fear of future revenge.
WITCHDOCTOR insert. IF Penelope was sent back and Telemachos wanted to rule, he had to collect the huge dowry and repay Penelope father in order to stay KING.
AI:
“In Homer’s The Odyssey, Telemachus could not simply send Penelope back to her father to secure the kingship, because doing so would actually cause financial ruin and political chaos for him.
AI:
🏛️ The Dowry Dilemma
If Telemachus forced his mother to leave Ithaca against her will, ancient Greek custom required that he repay her massive dowry to her father, Ikarios.
• The Financial Penalty: Repaying the dowry would drain Telemachus’s personal wealth and estate.
• The Legal Hurdle: He would also face the wrath of the Furies (the gods of family vengeance) for mistreating his mother.
👑 The Kingship of Ithaka
Furthermore, sending Penelope away would not automatically make Telemachus king. In Ithaka, the kingship was not strictly hereditary.
• Penelope as the Prize: The next king would likely be whoever married Penelope, as her new husband would claim control over Odysseus’s royal estate.
• The Suitors’ Goal: This is why the suitors stayed at the palace. They wanted to marry Penelope to inherit the wealth and power required to take the throne, bypassing Telemachus entirely.
🏛️ Social and Emotional Tactics
• Playing the Mourning Widow: By maintaining that Odysseus might still return, she keeps the palace in a state of political limbo. This prevents any single suitor from seizing the crown or forcing Telemachus out of his own home.
• Stoking Suitor Rivalry: Penelope avoids favoring any single suitor. By keeping them competing against one another, she prevents them from uniting to assassinate Telemachus and divide the kingdom.”
THE CLUE – THE “SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATIONS” OF THE ATHENS TALIBAN DEMOCRACY
This is hilarious. It shows how some rubbish can change the history for about 20 centuries from 5 century BC to something like 1800 AC!!
and WHO IS OUR MAN in Havana? ARISTOTLE! IT IS HIM.
The Aristotle natural history “science” rubbish findings fell on very fertile ground of the Taliban family system practiced in the Golden Age Athens. Why is Witchdoctor always underlying the Golden Age factor? To tell that it it is rubbish.
Aristotle claimed that he solved the scientific mystery of CONCEPTION. He asserts that the Female is a Sterile Male. The man has a semen, it fells into some ground inside the female and hop, a child is born ,So, Female is only a fertile soil which nurtures the male seed!
NOW, lets see what is the real procedure, AI:
“In biology, conception begins when a sperm cell joins with an egg cell. [1]
• Ovulation: An ovary releases an egg into a fallopian tube.
• Travel: Sperm swim from the vagina through the uterus to the fallopian tube.
• Fertilization: One sperm breaks through the egg and combines genetic material, creating a zygote.
• Implantation: The cells divide into a blastocyst and attach to the lining of the uterus”
Well, Aristotle with his scientific rubbish “scientifically proved that women are less than nothing, only the vessel carriers of the mega important male seed and nothing else” (WITCHDOCTOR), the PURE TALIBAN natural philosophy which was the pillar of the whole Taliban western history for the next 20 centuries!!! From this “science” the establishing of the patriarchal rule was founded even in science!
By the way, from this idea that woman is a sort of soil, haha garden, haha Mother Earth, haha Pancha Mama, Demetra or any similar fertile soil rubbish metaphor, of bollocks, the women role in society was cemented all over the planet and her role is regressing back to the Taliban roots today..
Even if haha Aristotle was not even an Athenian citizen and was suspected of being a secret agent of the Alexander the Great as he was too Macedonian and an expat, he was the ultimate authority on this subject and so he proved that treating women as empty sacks to be filled is the Gods and scientific way.
IN this essay Witchdoctor did not tackle the role of Greek Gods, First he is not good enough to do it and Second, the SADOMASOCHIST – sadist and masochist double bind- relations between Greeks, Gods, all together, is only a point of wonder: why they invented or mirrored such sadomasochistic universe? A question for a psychotherapist.
So this is Witchdoctor personal finding. Nothing of this was taught to him while he was studying Philosophy and Philosophy of Science at the University somewhere Slovenai. Make the conclusions: GIGA- garbage IN garbage Out.
The List of some of the Golden Age Athens Philosophers and writers
opposing any right of women:
AI Gemini:
“Aristotle (384–322 BCE): The most systematic philosophical opponent of female autonomy. In works like Politics and Generation of Animals, he argued that women are biologically and intellectually inferior to men. He famously asserted that while women possess a deliberative faculty, it “lacks authority” (akyron), meaning they cannot control their emotions with reason and must be permanently ruled by men. Biologically, he described the female body as an “impotent male” that contributes only passive matter to reproduction, while the male contributes the active soul and form. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Plato (427–347 BCE) — Contextual Opponent: While Plato is famous for suggesting in The Republic that exceptional women could be “Guardian” rulers, his views shifted drastically in later works. In Laws (his blueprint for a practical state), he relegated women back to traditional, heavily restricted domestic roles. Furthermore, in Timaeus, he wrote that men who live cowardly or unrighteous lives are reincarnated as women, explicitly framing the female form as a spiritual regression. [1, 2, 3]
• Xenophon (c. 430–354 BCE): A student of Socrates whose treatise Oeconomicus (“Household Management”) outlines the ideal division of labor. Xenophon argued that the gods inherently designed women’s bodies and minds for indoor, domestic tasks (like weaving and supervising slaves), while men were naturally built for outdoor life, politics, and war. He believed a woman’s primary virtue was obedience to her husband. [1]
•
2. Dramatic Writers & Playwrights
The massive open-air theater of Athens was highly political, written by men and performed by male actors for an audience that was primarily, if not exclusively, male.
• Aristophanes (c. 446–386 BCE): The master of Old Comedy. While plays like Lysistrata and Assemblywomen (Ecclesiazusae) feature women taking over political control, these were written as absurd, satirical carnivalesque farces. The humor relied entirely on the audience finding the idea of women running public affairs fundamentally unnatural, chaotic, and laughable. [1]
• Euripides (c. 480–406 BCE): Known for complex female characters (like Medea and Phaedra), Euripides was frequently accused by his contemporaries (including Aristophanes) of being a misogynist. His plays often depicted women as driven by dangerous, unchecked passions, destructive to the civic order of the polis when left unmonitored by men.
3. Orators and Statesmen
In democratic Athens, public speech (rhetoric) shaped law and cultural norms. Court speeches frequently reinforced the strict containment of women. [1, 2]
• Pericles (c. 495–429 BCE): The premier statesman of the Golden Age. In his famous Funeral Oration (recorded by Thucydides), he explicitly outlined the submissive ideal for women, stating: “Great will be your glory in not falling short of your natural character, and greatest will be hers who is least talked of among the men, whether for good or for bad.” [1, 2]
• Demosthenes / Pseudo-Demosthenes (4th Century BCE): In the legal speech Against Neaera, the orator neatly summarized the highly transactional, restricted view of women in Athenian society: “We have courtesans (hetairai) for pleasure, concubines (pallakai) for the daily care of the body, and wives (gynaikes) to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.”
•
Aristotle: Women lack full rational authority (phronesis) and are biologically deficient. Politics / Generation of Animals
Plato (Laws/Timaeus)Women represent a lower spiritual state; critical to state stability to keep them managed. Laws / Timaeus
Xenophon Biological determinism dictates women belong exclusively indoors. Oeconomicus
Pericles: Public anonymity and silence are a woman’s highest virtues. Funeral Oration (via Thucydides)
Theophrastus (c. 371–287 BCE), who succeeded Aristotle as the head of the Peripatetic school (the Lyceum), continued the philosophical tradition of limiting the scope of women’s autonomy. However, his opposition to women’s rights manifested quite differently from his predecessor’s biological focus, pivoting instead toward social, domestic, and marital disruption His anti-female rhetoric—which heavily influenced later Roman, Christian, and medieval anti-feminist literature
The somewhat bright exception was Parmenides
AI:
“Parmenides countered this traditional view by proposing an early “double-seed” theory. In his cosmology fragments, he asserted that both the mother and the father contribute equal, active seeds to conception. He also theorized that the mixing of these parental forces determined the child’s characteristics, treating both sexes as equal, vital components in the generation of life .”
INTERMEZOO
The zoo of the mainstream media about too many subjects of knowledge is far beyond the curent AI capabilities, if AI is properly questioned and checked. The CONCLUSION is logical: these arse lickers of some unknown force chicken out at nothing hiding behind rubbish, so they should be sacked ASAP.
They are the outrage of civilization. If the mainstream keeps doing this rubbish and is completely unable to make something worthwile out of any, especially AI output , they should be engaged in any agricultiural or reforestation work as much more useful than spreading rubbish in already doomed 21st century.
FOREWORD
Rewinding the tape fast forward we bump into incredible facts. Apart from the 80% of thre planet living in taliban shades of grey they current west situation , for example gives this data: Only in 1958 the West German women were allowed to work by special permit of the Husband!
ONLY in 1977 they achieved full rights at least on paper.
AI GEMINI:
Legal History of Women’s Work in West Germany
• 1949 Basic Law: The constitution stated that men and women have equal rights, but existing civil code still placed husbands as the head of the household. [1, 2]
• 1958 Equality Law: A new law let women take a job without a direct, explicit permit from their husband, but the work had to remain completely compatible with raising children and managing the household. [1, 2]
• Husband’s Veto Power: If a husband felt the household or children were neglected because of his wife’s job, he still held the legal right to cancel or nullify her employment contract. [1]
• 1977 Reform: Complete career freedom and full independence in the workplace for married women in West Germany did not arrive until the law changed on July 1, 1977
Similar situations
AI Gemini:
The restriction requiring a husband’s permission for a married woman to work was common across many Western countries mid-century. Many nations enforced similar “spousal vetoes,” restrictions on opening bank accounts, or laws that fired women the moment they got married.
🇫🇷 France: The 1965 Reform
Under the 1804 Napoleonic Code, married women in France were legally treated as minors. A wife could not take a job, open a personal bank account, or manage property without her husband’s official permission. This remained the law until July 13, 1965, when a massive reform package finally granted married women the right to work and open independent bank accounts without spousal consent. [1, 2]
Only in 1958 the West German women wer allowed to work by special permit of the Husband!
•
some similar situations
The restriction requiring a husband’s permission for a married woman to work was common across many Western countries mid-century. Many nations enforced similar “spousal vetoes,” restrictions on opening bank accounts, or laws that fired women the moment they got married.
🇳🇱 The Netherlands: Labelled “Incapable” Until 1956
Until 1956, Dutch law explicitly categorized married women as handelingsonbekwaam (“incapable of acting”). This legally aligned married women with minors. A husband could unilaterally block his wife from working, cancel her employment contract, or take control of any money she brought home. These restrictions were eliminated with the Lex van Oven in June 1956. [1]
🇮🇪 Ireland and 🇦🇺 Australia: The “Marriage Bar”
Instead of requiring a permit, some countries banned married women from working in specific sectors altogether, a practice known as a marriage bar. [1]
• Ireland: Introduced in 1933, the marriage bar mandated that female civil servants (including teachers and clerical staff) resign from their jobs the moment they married. It was not lifted until July 1973 when Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC). [1]
• Australia: The Australian Public Service enforced a strict marriage bar starting in 1902. If a female civil servant got married, she was forced to resign or face being sacked. This law was abolished on November 18, 1966.
🇪🇸 Spain: The Franco Regime’s Permiso Marital
During Francisco Franco’s dictatorship, the permiso marital (marital permission) heavily restricted women’s autonomy. Married women were legally prohibited from working, traveling, buying property, or even opening a bank account without a formal, written certificate of permission from their husbands. This system remained fully intact until May 1975, shortly before the regime ended.
🇺🇸 United States: Credit Restrictions Into the 1970s
While the U.S. did not have a federal law requiring a husband’s permission to work, married women faced intense financial control. Well into the 1970s, banks regularly refused to issue credit cards, mortgages, or loans to unmarried or married women without a male co-signer (a father or husband). This practice did not become illegal until Congress passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
🇬🇧 The Marriage Bar in the United Kingdom
In the UK, the “marriage bar” was not a single national law, but rather a deeply entrenched policy adopted by the Civil Service, local authorities, the Post Office, banks, and the teaching profession.
1. How It Worked
The rule was simple and strictly enforced: single women could work, but the moment they got married, they were legally required to resign.
• If a woman hid her marriage to keep her job, she faced immediate dismissal for breach of contract once discovered.
• In very rare cases of financial hardship (such as a husband becoming permanently disabled), an exception might be granted, but the woman would usually be demoted to a temporary, lower-paid position with no pension rights.
Only in 1958 the West German women wer allowed to work by special permit of the Husband!
Married women in West Germany were allowed to work starting in 1958 under a new equality law, but they could only do so if their job did not neglect their domestic and family duties. [1, 2]
Legal History of Women’s Work in West Germany
• 1949 Basic Law: The constitution stated that men and women have equal rights, but existing civil code still placed husbands as the head of the household. [1, 2]
• 1958 Equality Law: A new law let women take a job without a direct, explicit permit from their husband, but the work had to remain completely compatible with raising children and managing the household. [1, 2]
• Husband’s Veto Power: If a husband felt the household or children were neglected because of his wife’s job, he still held the legal right to cancel or nullify her employment contract. [1]
• 1977 Reform: Complete career freedom and full independence in the workplace for married women in West Germany did not arrive until the law changed on July 1, 1977. [1, 2]
•
some similar situations
The restriction requiring a husband’s permission for a married woman to work was common across many Western countries mid-century. Many nations enforced similar “spousal vetoes,” restrictions on opening bank accounts, or laws that fired women the moment they got married.
• Ireland: Introduced in 1933, the marriage bar mandated that female civil servants (including teachers and clerical staff) resign from their jobs the moment they married. It was not lifted until July 1973 when Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC). [1]
• Australia: The Australian Public Service enforced a strict marriage bar starting in 1902. If a female civil servant got married, she was forced to resign or face being sacked. This law was abolished on November 18, 1966. [1]
🇬🇧 The Marriage Bar in the United Kingdom
In the UK, the “marriage bar” was not a single national law, but rather a deeply entrenched policy adopted by the Civil Service, local authorities, the Post Office, banks, and the teaching profession.
1. How It Worked
The rule was simple and strictly enforced: single women could work, but the moment they got married, they were legally required to resign.
• If a woman hid her marriage to keep her job, she faced immediate dismissal for breach of contract once discovered.
• In very rare cases of financial hardship (such as a husband becoming permanently disabled), an exception might be granted, but the woman would usually be demoted to a temporary, lower-paid position with no pension rights.
2. The Civil Service and Post Office
The British Civil Service formally institutionalized the marriage bar in 1894. It applied to thousands of women working in administrative, clerical, and postal roles. Even during World War I and World War II, when women were desperately needed to run the country, the bars were only suspended temporarily. As soon as the wars ended, women were expected to return home to free up jobs for returning male soldiers.
The Civil Service finally abolished its marriage bar in 1946, largely due to post-war labor shortages. The Foreign Office, however, held onto its marriage bar for female diplomats until 1972.
3. The Teaching Profession
Local education authorities across the UK heavily enforced marriage bars for female teachers throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The justification was often explicitly economic: during the Great Depression, authorities argued that a married woman holding a job was “stealing” an income from a male breadwinner or a young, single woman.
The marriage bar for teachers England and Wales was legally banned by Parliament through the Education Act of 1944.
4. Private Banks and Everyday Culture
The private sector maintained these restrictions much longer than the government. Major British banks (like Barclays and Lloyds) enforced strict marriage bars well into the 1960s. Women entering bank work knew it was a temporary prelude to domestic life; upon marriage, they were sent off with a small “marriage gratuity” cash payout as a farewell.
The practice only truly died out with the changing social tides of the late 1960s and was officially made illegal by the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975.
some similar situations
The restriction requiring a husband’s permission for a married woman to work was common across many Western countries mid-century. Many nations enforced similar “spousal vetoes,” restrictions on opening bank accounts, or laws that fired women the moment they got married.
• Ireland: Introduced in 1933, the marriage bar mandated that female civil servants (including teachers and clerical staff) resign from their jobs the moment they married. It was not lifted until July 1973 when Ireland joined the European Economic Community (EEC). [1]
• Australia: The Australian Public Service enforced a strict marriage bar starting in 1902. If a female civil servant got married, she was forced to resign or face being sacked. This law was abolished on November 18, 1966. [1]
Only in 1956 married women were allowed by law to work, open a bankaccount and to travel without the permission of their husband. …
Marriage bar abolished – Parliamentary Education Office
18 November 1966. Married women are allowed to work in the public service. Until 1966 married women were banned from working in th…
🇬🇧 The Marriage Bar in the United Kingdom
In the UK, the “marriage bar” was not a single national law, but rather a deeply entrenched policy adopted by the Civil Service, local authorities, the Post Office, banks, and the teaching profession.
1. How It Worked
The rule was simple and strictly enforced: single women could work, but the moment they got married, they were legally required to resign.
• If a woman hid her marriage to keep her job, she faced immediate dismissal for breach of contract once discovered.
• In very rare cases of financial hardship (such as a husband becoming permanently disabled), an exception might be granted, but the woman would usually be demoted to a temporary, lower-paid position with no pension rights.
2. The Civil Service and Post Office
The British Civil Service formally institutionalized the marriage bar in 1894. It applied to thousands of women working in administrative, clerical, and postal roles. Even during World War I and World War II, when women were desperately needed to run the country, the bars were only suspended temporarily. As soon as the wars ended, women were expected to return home to free up jobs for returning male soldiers.
The Civil Service finally abolished its marriage bar in 1946, largely due to post-war labor shortages. The Foreign Office, however, held onto its marriage bar for female diplomats until 1972.
3. The Teaching Profession
Local education authorities across the UK heavily enforced marriage bars for female teachers throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The justification was often explicitly economic: during the Great Depression, authorities argued that a married woman holding a job was “stealing” an income from a male breadwinner or a young, single woman.
The marriage bar for teachers in England and Wales was legally banned by Parliament through the Education Act of 1944.
4. Private Banks and Everyday Culture
The private sector maintained these restrictions much longer than the government. Major British banks (like Barclays and Lloyds) enforced strict marriage bars well into the 1960s. Women entering bank work knew it was a temporary prelude to domestic life; upon marriage, they were sent off with a small “marriage gratuity” cash payout as a farewell.
The practice only truly died out with the changing social tides of the late 1960s and was officially made illegal by the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975.
Would you like to see how women fought back against these UK bans (such as high-profile legal challenges by teachers), or would you prefer to switch gears and look at how marriage affected property and bank ownership in the same era?
at how marriage affected property and bank ownership in the same era?
During the era of the marriage bars (roughly the late 19th century through the mid-20th century), property and bank ownership for married women underwent a massive legal transformation. However, social customs and bank policies lagged decades behind the law, keeping women financially dependent on their husbands long after they technically gained legal rights.
The evolution of financial independence for married women shifted significantly over several distinct phases.
1. The Starting Point: Coverture
Before the mid-19th century, the UK operated under the legal doctrine of coverture. The law viewed a husband and wife as a single legal entity controlled entirely by the husband. [1, 2, 3]
• The Rule: Any money a woman earned, property she owned, or inherited wealth automatically became her husband’s legal property upon marriage. [1, 2, 3]
• The Reality: A married woman could not open a bank account, sign a contract, write a valid will, or buy property independently because she literally did not exist as a separate legal person
2. The Legal Breakdown (1870–1882)
The legal framework changed drastically with two landmark pieces of legislation:
• The Married Women’s Property Act of 1870: Allowed married women to legally keep their own wages and investments separate from their husbands. [1]
• The Married Women’s Property Act of 1882: Formally dismantled coverture. It explicitly gave married women the right to own, buy, sell, and inherit property, as well as hold stocks and bank accounts in their own names. [1, 2]
By 1882, married women had the legal right to own property and bank accounts. Yet, despite this legal shift, everyday life during the mid-20th century looked very different
Only in 1958 the West German women were allowed to work by special permit of the Husband!
Married women in West Germany were allowed to work starting in 1958 under a new equality law, but they could only do so if their job did not neglect their domestic and family duties. [1, 2]
Legal History of Women’s Work in West Germany
• 1949 Basic Law: The constitution stated that men and women have equal rights, but existing civil code still placed husbands as the head of the household. [1, 2]
• 1958 Equality Law: A new law let women take a job without a direct, explicit permit from their husband, but the work had to remain completely compatible with raising children and managing the household. [1, 2]
• Husband’s Veto Power: If a husband felt the household or children were neglected because of his wife’s job, he still held the legal right to cancel or nullify her employment contract. [1]
• 1977 Reform: Complete career freedom and full independence in the workplace for married women in West Germany did not arrive until the law changed on July 1, 1977. [1, 2]
some similar situations
The restriction requiring a husband’s permission for a married woman to work was common across many Western countries mid-century. Many nations enforced similar “spousal vetoes,” restrictions on opening bank accounts, or laws that fired women the moment they got married.
While the U.S. did not have a federal law requiring a husband’s permission to work, married women faced intense financial control. Well into the 1970s, banks regularly refused to issue credit cards, mortgages, or loans to unmarried or married women without a male co-signer (a father or husband). This practice did not become illegal until Congress passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
Would you like to explore how these laws affected women’s rights to own property, or look closer at how the “Marriage Bar” functioned in the UK?
Only in 1956 married women were allowed by law to work, open a bankaccount and to travel without the permission of their husband.
18 November 1966. Married women are allowed to work in the public service. Until 1966 married women were banned from working in th..
• In very rare cases of financial hardship (such as a husband becoming permanently disabled), an exception might be granted, but the woman would usually be demoted to a temporary, lower-paid position with no pension rights.
The Civil Service finally abolished its marriage bar in 1946, largely due to post-war labor shortages. The Foreign Office, however, held onto its marriage bar for female diplomats until 1972.
2. The Legal Breakdown (1870–1882)
The legal framework changed drastically with two landmark pieces of legislation:
• The Married Women’s Property Act of 1870: Allowed married women to legally keep their own wages and investments separate from their husbands. [1]
• The Married Women’s Property Act of 1882: Formally dismantled coverture. It explicitly gave married women the right to own, buy, sell, and inherit property, as well as hold stocks and bank accounts in their own names. [1, 2]
By 1882, married women had the legal right to own property and bank accounts. Yet, despite this legal shift, everyday life during the mid-20th century looked very different. [1, 2]
3. The 20th Century: The Social & Institutional Gap
While the law said a married woman could own property and money, institutional sexism heavily restricted her ability to do so in practice well into the 1970s.
• The “Housekeeping Money” Trap: Because the marriage bar kept women out of work, their primary source of money was the household allowance given by their husbands. In the 1943 UK Court of Appeal case Blackwell v Blackwell, the court ruled that if a wife saved money from her housekeeping allowance, those savings legally belonged to the husband, not her. This meant a wife could not build independent bank savings using household funds until the law was finally amended by the Married Women’s Property Act of 1964.
• The Mortgage and Credit Barrier: Even though women could legally buy property, banks and building societies universally refused to grant mortgages or loans to women without a male guarantor (either a husband or father). Banks argued that because of the marriage bars, a woman could get married or pregnant at any moment, lose her job, and default on the loan.
• Joint Accounts and Control: The majority of matrimonial bank accounts were held strictly in the husband’s name. If a joint account existed, the husband typically maintained sole signature authority, giving him total control over the household wealth
1975Full Equality: The Sex Discrimination Act outlaws denying women financial products (like mortgages or credit cards) based on gender.
Direct Comparison: UK vs. USA
Feature 🇬🇧 United Kingdom 🇺🇸 United States
Dismantling Coverture Completed nationwide by 1882 (Married Women’s Property Act). Done state-by-state throughout the mid-to-late 1800s (e.g., NY in 1848).
Household Savings Legally belonged to the husband until 1964. Varied by state, but heavily controlled by male-headed household traditions.
The Credit & Mortgage Fix Formally outlawed discrimination via the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. Formally outlawed discrimination via the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.
Summary Comparison: Cold War Dynamics
Feature 🇺🇸 / 🇬🇧 / 🇩🇪 The West ☭ / 🇩🇩 The Eastern Bloc
Workplace Goal Voluntary employment; traditional male-breadwinner priority. Mandated full employment; economic independence from husbands.
Childcare Viewed as a private, maternal responsibility (scarce public daycare). Viewed as a state duty to maximize the adult labor force.
Financial Rights Dependent on husbands for credit/mortgages until the mid-1970s. Fully autonomous from husbands; dependent entirely on the state.
The Flaw Institutional sexism keeping women financially locked out. The “Double Burden” of mandatory career + total household labor.
INTRODUCTION
AS in the movie “disclosure” the propaganda rubish of only aliens can save us pertains to the US, but they want us to belive it it concerns others, too.. Let them be saved by the Aliens and instead,
LISTEN
this essay is content linked with the series on family systems 1-7