Sad, but true.Having said that, I don’t think we are any further ahead today than the Celts were all those years ago.
Though I've only read the reviews, I always appreciate the portrayal of strong female characters in any book.
Sad, but true.Having said that, I don’t think we are any further ahead today than the Celts were all those years ago.
Well, I believe that's unfair as the men were also married off the same way. In general royalty worked that way, regardless of gender. In other aspects the Celtics seemed to have full gender equality.gali wrote: ↑01 Sep 2018, 05:16I liked that too.cristinaro wrote: ↑01 Sep 2018, 05:05 One of the things I liked about Linnea Tanner's novel is the portrayal of strong women. What is more, there are both positive and negative female characters such as Catrin, Queen Rhiannon, Vala, Mor or Rhan.
What do you think of their roles in the novel?
Is there any difference between the way Celts and Romans saw women and their roles?
Was the Celtic system genuinely promoting gender equality or not?
There was certainly difference between the way Celts and Romans' women. The Celt women had more freedom, were equal to the men, and could choose their own husbands (most times), while the Roman treated women as inferior. I am not sure the Celtic system genuinely promoted gender equality, as in some cases the women were forced to marry people of the other tribes in order to strength political connections.
True. It's often forgotten that women weren't the only ones who often didn't have a choice. Most royal marriages were between two teens who met just a few days ago. And even when they weren't young and powerless they still didn't have that much choice. For instance, the marriage of Louis XIV and Marquise de Maintenon was never publicly acknowledged due to their different social status.Shalomsamuels1 wrote: ↑27 Sep 2018, 12:38 Well, I believe that's unfair as the men were also married off the same way. In general royalty worked that way, regardless of gender.
I think that the author may have exaggerated the difference of how the Romans and Celts treated women to make the Romans seem more villainous. The Roman senator Lucius is being set up as the bad guy.AliceofX wrote: ↑01 Sep 2018, 15:36So I've been doing some reading and from what I understand there was no such thing as "Celts." Instead, it was various different tribes and people from the British Isles to Anatolia. There is no answer to that question because there was no such thing as a Celtic system.cristinaro wrote: ↑01 Sep 2018, 05:05 Is there any difference between the way Celts and Romans saw women and their roles?
Was the Celtic system genuinely promoting gender equality or not?
Besides that, as a history lover, I have grown extremely skeptical about claims of ancient matriarchal or gender-equal societies. There's no solid evidence for them, just wishful thinking that doesn't align with reality. I'm just sick of certain feminists who think rewriting history is going to "inspire women" or something like that when all it does is delegitimize the movement and makes them appear like quacks.