This hub explores Roman gender roles only through the Twelve Tables and attempts, very briefly, to examine this in light of further Roman laws. In particular, it looks at the implied rights of women and children and attempts to determine the duties of adult men from these laws. Men’s supremacy over women and children is asserted in the Twelve Tables and is made more clear perhaps by its omission of women’s rights than by its inclusion of men’s rights. Children are disregarded almost entirely, except the defining of inheritance and the urging of infanticide.

From the Twelve Tables it can be first determined that the society in which these laws operate is universally patriarchal. This is evident in Table V, where it states, “Females shall remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority.” If all females transfer immediately from the guardianship of their fathers to the guardianship of their husbands, then it is clear they are not trusted either as independently acting individuals or as equals with their male counterparts. Table five adds that the “possessions of a woman under guardianship of agnates cannot be rightfully acquired by usucapio.” This is perhaps a good law to enforce, for it states that a woman’s possessions cannot be taken just because she has lived with her father’s kin for a long enough time for her possessions to be rightfully theirs. However, this does not mean that the possessions are hers to do with as she pleases. This same law continues with, “save such possessions as have been delivered up by her with a guardian’s sanction.” Therefore the law first states that the possessions are the woman’s and then states that she has no legal authority over them unless granted approval by her legal guardian. From these, it can be determined that one men’s role was over property, his and his wife’s and daughter’s property. As property ownership to women was to deny them rights as Roman citizenship. As all Roman citizen rights depended upon the owning of land, to refuse property ownership to women was to refuse them the right to basic Roman rights. Indeed, his wife and daughters are almost his property themselves.

Roman Law does attempt to give women some rights over their property, however. In Table VI, females are given a loophole through which they might retain possession of their properties. It says, “Any woman who does not wish to be subjected in this manner to the hand of her husband should be absent three nights in succession every year.” This breaks the long term possession and the property remains hers. Civil unions existed which declared that if a man and woman lived together for a year that they were married. This is similar to the law about property. If you own possess something for more than a consecutive year, it becomes yours. It seems that this again displays that women are possessions and are treated as such.

In addition to women having no control over the property and wealth, she also has no say in her children. Despite the fact that the woman has just carried a child to term, the father, patria, determines whether the child should live or die. This is clear in Table IV, entitled Patria Potestas. The first law of this table dictates that a deformed child ought to be killed. Several indicators can be examined from this law. It is clear that the mother has no say in this. This is the power and duty of the father. Further, the ideals of the Romans become more clear. Deformed children would be less likely to make it to adulthood. Child death rates were severely high for healthy children. A deformed or sickly child would be an unnecessary drain on resources. In addition, “obviously deformed” is still very vague. What exactly defines deformity? Adult men were expected to serve in the military. An adult male who could not serve his country in battle could not earn honor or glory. He would not have been able to better his situation through spoils. In short, his station would be fixed and, by Roman standards, his life would be unlivable. However, the law does not define what this deformity is. Does it include only physical deformity , or are weak babies also to be killed? Should baby girls be killed because they are deformed in respect to how a male baby would look? History shows that baby girls were frequently killed. This is perhaps because of Rome’s constant need for soldiers. Wars were bloody and costly affairs. In order to continue to expand and conquer, Rome always needs more soldiers. Women were not frequently in danger, and therefore their numbers were less likely to drop drastically. This practice of infanticide ensures that only those who can defend Rome and aid in its expansion are permitted to live.

For all that is said of women, there is much more that is not said. The omission of women from most of the twelve tables illustrates the ingrained supremacy that Roman men had over Roman women. Indeed, a final law to be considered is in Table X. It says, “Women must not tear cheeks or hold chorus of “Alas” on account of a funeral.” This suggests an oversensitivity of women. The prohibition is not against crying in general, but specifically crying by women. Perhaps this suggests only that Roman men are so stoic so as to not show emotion at the time of death. However, it might also suggest that women were seen as overly emotional. It seems likely that women, until this time, did cry at funerals. Why else would there be an explicit law forbidding them to weep? Thus, even women’s emotions were controlled. Men’s supremacy extends over even her reaction to death.

This interpretation of a few of the laws from the Twelve Tables shows a society which is dominantly patriarchial and extended privileges to men over women and children. In this society, men have even the power of death over their children and the right of property over the women. Women are constantly taken care of and looked after, first by her father and then by her husband. Since a woman can not increase her station through military valor, she can only do so by marriage. In this, though, we find that she could not increase her station overmuch, as marriage between patricians and plebeians was prohibited. Therefore, every arena of women’s life is structured and defined, while fewer laws seem to restrict the movements of men.

I also examine women's roles more in depth in my hub on Roman Dining. Women were not permitted to recline until after the Fall of the Western Empire. Previous to this, to recline indicated a certain virility. Prostitutes were the only women who were permitted to recline, on account of their inherant sexuality. In general, women were responsible for caring for the home and their children. Wealthier families would have slaves to act as nannies, so women in this family would spend their days planning the nightly dinner party and offering prayers and sacrifices to the gods. Some women were poets and teachers, but this reflects the exception rather than the rule. Poorer women would care for their children, clean their homes, and prepare the food for the day. This arrangement of men in the workplace and women in the home persisted until the 20th century.

For information about women and status regarding Dining and reclining, please check out my Roman Dining- Roman:Orgies? Hub here: