How true is it to claim that history is merely a documenting of the lives of men and the societies that emerged due to the contributions and actions of men? Good question...

Undoubtedly, throughout history the patriotic divisions of society have illuminated themselves in many ways, but as an aspiring historian, the question lingers on, why is this the case?

It is certainly valid to argue that history is merely a documenting of the lives of men by men, from an early age society has been relentlessly fed the tales of empires, civilizations and governments fuelled by the action and proposed ideas of males.

An early example of this can be pictured through the historical presentation of the Roman ancient Empire. An empire established by the leadership of Augustus, the adopted son of Julius Caesar in 27BCE was founded on the idea of Roman superiority following the demise of the former republic and a drive for economic growth which resulted in some of the most monumental developments known and documented in history today. With the small town on the Timber River experiencing such exponential growth that its tale would be told to encapsulate entire continents, arguably morphing the values, social attitudes, behaviours, and implications of early Roman formalities with our world today. The empires undeniable significance, particularly following the addition of supposed, Romulus and Remus. Myth, or not their tale had an undeniable impact on society, particularly surrounding the role of women today.

Realistically the normalization of male dominance began from within, with law, a rule or regulation followed by the masses and feared by many. In the roman empire examples of such are reoccurring in historical documentation. Women's absence in the beginning was tackled by their forced, enslavement in a man's world, their lack of ability to speak, own, and contribute in a rapidly developing socioeconomic period globally influenced the misogynistic push on the continuation of such law of “normality”. However, this remains unchallenged, early documents and sources encounter an explore the brilliance of leadership, by men and exponential growth of empires such as Rome, as attribution of men but can often be seen to overlook the now-found blur of the significance of women. The fuzzed line of contribution given by females in Ancient Rome is apparent in the story of Lucretia, overlooked and underappreciated, yet a further example of how in time, only the immense suffering of woman, or the addition futile marital power can afford her any real recognition in a history almost entirely devoted to men.

Albeit it could be challenged that the accusations of misogyny lie centuries ago, I would argue this to be untrue as more modern aspects of history have only shown to carry on this globalized expectation of a society run by men.

[end of pt 1]