It is unfortunate that we only have male historians who speak to us from the past. I usually take these male perspective histories with a grain of salt when they deal with issues about women. What is important is to not apply modern criteria to them.

In ancient Hellas, women were assumed to be non-political animals. Their job was to bear citizen children and weave. They were, almost by definition, incapable of taking the responsible, informed decisions demanded of the (male) citizen body. Different from us, of course; but that’s how the ancients were. I am not sure I would consider this perspective hostile.

The problem is trying to imagine what it would actually be like to think of women in those terms. What would it feel like to feel that women were, by definition, excluded from political power, that it would be simply bonkers to allow them the vote let alone be allowed any other important role outside the home.

It would be interesting to know whether, in general, contentment overcame any desire by the women of Hellas for change. Correlation of present day rigid society structures in less developed parts of the world with measures of happiness with the status quo does suggest that, in some cases, change for the sake of it may sometimes be a double-edged sword.

We should be careful not to impose modern standards where they did not and probably could not apply. To view the Greeks (or almost any other historical culture) through the lens of 20th century feminism is to miss the point. The first steps of the long road that has led to today's world were taken back then and that is the lesson we need to remember.