Wife

Jack DeSantis Western Civilization 3/4/13 The Roman Family “Familia”, the Latin word for family. This word played a very large role in that of that Roman society. The Roman family is essentially the basic component of Roman society and could also be the archetype of political authority. Without a strong connection and bond in your Familia your family name could not be respected. Everyone in the family had to play his or her own part and had a specific role or purpose to fulfill in order to be a successful family.

Whether you were the head of the family, a wife, or a daughter or son, everyone had their own role and duties to execute. There was a very specific hierarchy and structure in which the Roman family was set up. It started with the oldest living male and stemmed down to the children. At the top of the social hierarchy was the oldest living male, usually the father, known as the “paterfamilias. ” This paterfamilias had supreme power within the family, not only in terms of respect but also legally and politically. He held the right to sell family members if he deemed necessary (although rare).

Regardless of age, a son was always legally subject to obeying any living Paterfamilias and was also in charge of fulfilling said duties if the current Paterfamilias passed away (eldest son would become the paterfamilias). Although their legal capabilities allowed them to kill a child, wife or any member of the family, most fathers only used this ability as more of a threat than an action. The idea of a strong family bond proved to be valid throughout most familial in that the Paterfamilias for the most part was an affectionate, caring, and kind father.

The respect for the Paterfamilias came from the idea of respect for their elders and ancestors. Every patrician belonged to gen, which was essentially a group that lineage back to common ancestor. With that being said all patricians were required to include their “third name” which indicated their gens. All Roman males had a person and a family name, yet only the elite and well off would have a middle name. This basically set them apart from everyone else and would indicate their wealth. Similar to most societies of their the time the Roman woman never became independent from their familias.

For the most part woman would be considered more of an object than a member of a family. Instead of receiving a personal name like men, a daughter would be referred to by her fathers’ gens. The paterfamilias was only responsible for the first-born daughter in the family. He would be responsible for his wife, son, and daughter yet if second daughter were to be born he could legally renounce her and let her die. Although for the most part abandoned daughters would survive and be raised as slaves.

Not only did the paterfamilias have the ability sell his daughter to slavery, kill her either by abandoning her or by actually sentencing her to death as punishment, but he also reserved the right to marry her off to whomever he pleased. Although it seems that the paterfamilias would not really treat his daughters with respect, for the most part fathers still loved and cared for their daughters. Once married off to other familias, the wives would commonly be among the rest of the family during meals. Unlike classical Greece, woman had much more influence behind the scenes.

Husbands would often look to their wives for advice on certain issues being that wives were taught to take an interest in their husband’s lives outside the realm of the household. Divorce was very common among Romans throughout the existence of the empire. Without question if a divorce were to occur the father would retain custody of the children. An article titled “Roman Family Structure” quoted that, “In later years, women had the choice of retaining loyalty to their birth family or their husband’s family. They also had expanded rights to seek divorce themselves; but, the children still remained with the father’s family. In later years is in reference to the fact that women’s status underwent changes throughout the Roman empires period of domination (750 BC to 480 AD). The son was given the responsibility of carrying on the family name by marrying a woman (most likely in the same social class) and reproducing an heir. A son was also given the responsibility of carry out any and all tasks his paterfamilias asks of him. If the paterfamilias were to pass away (usually around ages 30-40) the eldest son would take on the responsibilities of the head of the family.

This would only take place if he were the eldest male member of the family. Not only did blood relatives take part in the familia. Almost every Roman household contained a large family but also at least one slave. Whether you were a patrician or a plebian it was seen as a necessity to own a slave. Most slaves would be in charge of taking care of household tasks. Such as cooking, cleaning as well as gardening. If intelligent enough and actually literate (not common) slaves would also tutor children and help them with their studies. In some households slaves would be treated like family and given certain rights.

Most Romans believed in the idea that if a slave were treated well they would work harder than if they were treated poorly. Although all the statistics point to the paterfamilias having supreme right over everyone, only in times of need and punishment would the paterfamilias use their rights. Otherwise he would be a loving, caring father figure who also tried to do what was best for his family. This is all thanks the Roman morals as well as beliefs that through a strong family bond, they could acquire and hold power. Many of these beliefs as well as morals have been passed down to our society today such as a strong family bond.

Annelore Wolfelt World Religions Mr. Rocco Final Essay: “Religion Makes Women Subservient to Men” The differences between “eastern” and “western” religions are many and varied but there are some fundamental similarities within all religions. One of the common threads that run through almost every religion is that women are made to be subservient to men. The need to control and dominate women is found in both “eastern” and “western” religions. Confucianism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam all discriminate against women (to varying degrees), by placing women beneath men.

Each religion states the need for male dominance over women as a divine order that must and will be obeyed. Women are not featured much in the Bhagavad Gita except as a reference to something else. Therefore based off of classroom sacred text alone it is hard to tell what women’s status is in Hinduism. Although one may look at the lack of women in sacred scripture as an obvious sign that women mustn’t be very important if they aren’t even worth mentioning. However in the Laws of Manu, another Hindu scripture, women are briefly referred to.

It states that it is women’s nature to “seduce men in this (world); for that reason the wise are never unguarded in (the company of) females” (2:213). “For women are able to lead astray in (this) world not only a fool, but even a learned man, and (to make) him a slave of desire and anger” (2:214). Fear of being seduced by a woman and becoming powerless to her is a contributing factor to the need men have to dominate women. This fear that men have of women’s sensuality is a common thread throughout other religions and cultures. Men’s need to control women might stem from the fear that they themselves can be easily controlled by women.

In Confucianism we find the idea of equality between men, but that equality is based on a social hierarchy organized by the Five Constant Relationships: 1) sovereign to subjects, 2) father to son, 3) husband to wife, 4) older brother to younger brother and 5) friend to friend (Smith 175). This hierarchy establishes relations of dependency between men, including the duty to offer respect and obedience from those in a lesser position to those in a higher position, as well as the duty to show benevolence from those who hold a position of power over those who don’t.

The relation between the husband and wife shows the position of the woman as one dominated by the husband within the marriage. In all of the other relationships age and social standing is what decides who will hold the position of power within the relationship. But in the relationship between males and females, age and social standing don’t play the deciding factor of power in the relationship, gender does. By merely being a woman she is automatically given the role of obedience instead of one of power.

But in all fairness Confucianism does not show the systematic discrimination against women that is found in western religions. In Christianity women are blatantly made to be the weaker sex. “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. ”(Colossians 3:18). “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing. (1 Timothy 2:11-15) Christians put the full blame of the Fall of Man on Eve, (and therefore all women). Because of this women are seen as easily corruptible and in need of the rule of man. Merely being born a female is seen as some sort of penalty: “if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. ” (Leviticus 12:2) “But if she bears a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12:5) Since its beginning Christianity has sought to dominate and discriminate women, and it continues to this day with women fighting for their reproductive rights against the Catholic Church. The West has (hypocritically) accused Islam of degrading women, chiefly because Islam permits plurality of wives. But the reality is that Islam gave more rights to women by making a stronger emphasis on the sanctity of marriage, giving girls rights to inheritance and outlawing female infanticide. But that is as far as Islam got to giving females any sort of ‘equality’.

Islam states that there is no equality between men and women: “The wives have rights corresponding to those which the husbands have, according to what is recognized to be fair, but men have a rank above them. ” (Quran 2:228) Women are still expected to be obedient to men and to serve them out of fear of punishment. “So virtuous women are obedient and guard in the husband’s absence what God would have them guard. As for those whom you apprehend infidelity, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them. ” (Quran 4:34) Women are not even considered human beings but a man’s property: “Your wives are your fields.

Go, then, into your fields as you will. ” (Quran 2:223) The mere fact that women must cover themselves when they are in the presences of males so as to not tempt men (Quran 24:31) puts all of the responsibility on the woman instead of the man. I find it ironic that it is the woman’s fault for being desirable and not the man’s fault for having no self-control. As Simone de Beauvoir said in her book The Second Sex, “Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being.

For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female. ” When I am asked if I belong to any religion I say, “No. ” As a female I don’t want to belong to an institution that routinely discriminates, dominates, and exploits women the way these four religions do. Works Cited The Bhagavad Gita. Ed. Betty Radice. Trans. Juan Mascaro. London: Penguin Books, 1962. Print. The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version. Edited by Catholic Scholars Under the Patronage of The Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. New Jersey: St. Anthony Guild Press Paterson, 1941. Print. Laws of Manu. Trans. George Buhler. Sacred Texts Archive, 2011. Web. 1 June 2012. http://www. sacred-texts. com/hin/manu. htm Quran. Ed. Farida Khanam. Trans. Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. New Delhi: Goodword Books, 2009. Print Smith, H. The World’s Religions. New York: Harper One, 1991. Print.

Our marriage is in one of the most critical moments of our lives; in fact it is between a rock and a hard place. It has now been six years since we got married in one of the most colorful church weddings I have ever witnessed.

It is not that we have not gone through some minor conflicts previously, but at least we were able to resolve them immediately by counselors, friends, our pastors and ourselves.

The previous disagreements had to do with our monthly spending, pressure from our parents, time to arrive home and our choice of friends among other issues. At present, things have escalated from being bad to worse, with no signs of a possible solution at the horizon.

Before we got married, I had vividly known that my fiancée at that time was a committed Seventh Day Adventist though I am a member of the Assemblies of God Church, an evangelical group of the Protestant church.

Our parents, friends and the best couple had asked us if we foresaw any future collision since our churches’ doctrines were different; our answer then was a big no. We believed that our love for each other would conquer any disputes that would arise in our marriage.

My wife’s father is a very staunch Adventist; in fact, one of the senior elders at the local church and had never had the thought that any of his five children would ever desert the church which he helped found; an action that made him become respected in the entire locality. My wife loves his father so much and thus has no intent of betraying him.

Being an evangelical, a born again Christian and the head of my family, I am not comfortable with the idea of having a divided family with my wife attending church on Saturday making her not attend to her domestic and marital duties from six in the morning to six in the evening (according to their beliefs). On the other hand, I attend church services on Sundays and other fellowships on the weekdays.

The conflict is arising from the fact that we do not agree in very many issues that pertain to the different doctrines that the two groups advocate for. My wife does not eat pork or any related products; she does not take either tea or coffee for to her both are drugs, classifying them in the same group with tobacco or marijuana.

My wife and I are both civil servants, my wife working with the department of Education and I as an army officer though at the moment I am on the study leave enrolled in the University in an undergraduate program.

We have two daughters, Shari and Shako aged five and three respectively. It is our obligation as parents to bring them up in a way that is honorable so that they can become great members of the society. What makes me uncomfortable about our religious differences is because our little children look confused (especially the elder one). Sometimes they go to church on Saturdays and on Sundays; to their mother’s and father’s churches respectively.

The older daughter has severally asked me why I do not go to their mother’s church and she has, I suppose, asked her mum a similar question. She has made me understand that her friends usually go to church with their both parents and looking at her anxious face, it is obvious that she will be very happy if we would start doing the same.

My greatest desire is for us to attend the same church for the sake of our unity and our children. Since I have never thought of myself becoming an Adventist and have always regarded myself incompatible with their doctrines (that I find very conservative) and because our church is a bit liberal, I have severally suggested that we choose a neutral church where we would all be attending together with our children but she has categorically stated that this would only happen “over her dead body”. This definitely explains why I am a stressed man.

The phrase “battered woman syndrome” was first coined by Walker to provide a clear picture about the recurrent events of violence occurring in a relationship. In this concept, some psychological structures are defined such as learned helplessness. This terminology will aid in the discussion of the reasons behind why certain women, who experience violence and assault, still remain and cling to the batterer and their relationship.

Battered woman syndrome has become the subject of court cases in the past years, ranging from the prosecution of the batterers up to the testimonies of the battered woman. It is also traditionally applied as a reason for self-defense of a woman, who is believed to be in an imminent danger at the time she killed the batterer (McCann, Shindler and Hammond, 2004). However, issues conjure in response to this traditionally accepted claim of the victim. One of which is that battered women are masochists.

Fulero and Wrightsman (2009) tackled issues about the battered woman syndrome. They also compiled myths about the battered woman syndrome and one of which is the masochism of battered women. Since it is a myth, there are insufficient proof that the said issue is true and factual. Englander (2007) further added that theories about masochism as being normal for women have no scientific foundation and empirical data to support these theories. It is also not necessary that a woman experiencing battered woman syndrome is a masochist.

Different angles of the issue must be viewed first. Consider the social status of the person because having an inferior social status does not necessarily mean that one is masochistic. Consider also her behavior. Although she behaves masochistically, it does not necessarily mean that she is suffering from masochism. Her act of masochism may be due to the fact that she needs to increase her chances of surviving or to eliminate the tension building inside her. A woman may not be able to leave her husband because of the benefit she gains from him (e. g.

, her children has father) or she cannot find any other man to satisfy her emotional needs (Rancour-Laferriere, 1995). Other factors to consider would include the following: social or financial dependence on spouse, insufficient marketing skills, limited independence and mobility due to continuous childbearing, uncertainty about the severity of the problem, fear of becoming single, poor and alone, and knowledge deficit about other options that may help her (Englander, 2007). If a woman is a masochist, then she enjoys the suffering or the pain inflicted to her.

However, Okun (1986) noted that masochism enlisted here does not imply enjoyment of suffering. Instead the suffering is endured because of the woman’s low self-esteem and failure to understand her role in their relationship. Battered women are then suggested to be suffering from a subtype of anxiety related disorder. It is said to be under the subclassification of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since the cyclical act of violence has become a serious threat to the health of the victim and her life.

The battered woman often reports flashbacks, nightmares, emotional detachment, numbness, sleep problems, disrupted concentration, hypervigilance, startled response, guilt, and fears of experiencing recurrent violence. Other symptoms would include depression, indecisiveness, low self-esteem, self-blame, passiveness, social isolation, and unwillingness to seek help from others (Keltner, Schwecke and Bostrom, 2007). In conclusion, one must first consider several factors before making assumptions about battered women.

They may have some psychiatric disorders that render them incapable of leaving their abusive partner. They may have deeper reasons why they chose to experience physical rather than emotional pain. Knowing that some of these women are mothers, their love for their children may be the only bond that ties her to an abusive partner. References Englander, E. K. (2007). Understanding Violence (3rd ed. ). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Fulero, S. M. & Wrightsman, L. S. (2009). Forensic Psychology (3rd ed. ). USA: Wadsworth. Keltner, N. L. , Schwecke, L.

H. & Bostrom, C. L. (2007). Psychiatric Nursing (5th ed. ). USA: Elsevier. McCann, J. T. , Shindler, K. L. , & Hammond, T. R. (2004). The Science and Pseudoscience of Ecpert Testimony. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, J. M. Lohr, & C. Tavris. (Ed. ) Science and Pseudoscience of Clinical Psychology. USA: The Guilford Press. Okun, L. (1986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths. USA: State University New York Press Rancour-Laferriere, D. (1995). The Slave Soul of Russia: Moral Masochism and the Cult of Suffering. USA: New York University Press.