\n\tIt is even striking that while socially her relevant role is matron <\/em>of the house, we speak about the free women of the Roman noble families, instead in the Greek-Roman "pantheon" the goddesses, demigoddesses, heroines have an important presence, and if Zeus-Jupiter<\/em> responds to the paternalistic paradigm of the father-god<\/em>, the virginal Artemis <\/em>or Diana <\/em>represents the autonomous, free and breakthrough woman with the dominant patriarchal system.<\/p>\n \n\tAlso in art in general and in funeral epigraphy, for example, women are well present and represented.<\/p>\n \n\tI mean by all this that any statement about the ancient world, which we usually see with the eyes of the present, needs nuances and fine analysis.<\/p>\n \n\tBut I do not want to refer to it but to a very current issue, that of sexism <\/em>in language.<\/p>\n \n\tBoth Greek and Latin languages are flexible, very flexible languages; that is to say, the words admit diverse forms, generally different endings to express the diverse "grammatical accidents<\/em>".<\/p>\n \n\tWe say that Spanish<\/em>, like many other languages today, is derived from Latin<\/em>. We could also say that these languages are but a Latin<\/em> evolved over the years subjected to the influence of the substrate of other languages and various factors. This relationship is appreciated by those who are not specialists in languages, especially in the lexicon or set of words, but also in syntactic structures, despite variations. There are some other less obvious and less expected issues.<\/p>\n \n\tThus for example in Latin <\/em>there are two grammatical numbers, singular <\/em>and plural <\/em>and two there are also in Spanish; (in fact, there remains in Latin <\/em>a remnant of a third number called dual which is applied to beings or objects that generally appear in pairs, such as two hands, two eyes, two ears, etc.).<\/p>\n \n\tIn Latin <\/em>there are three genders, masculine<\/em>, feminine <\/em>and neutral<\/em>. In Spanish <\/em>the neutral has disappeared, there is only one rest in the article "lo<\/em>", in the pronoun "ello <\/em>(it)", etc. So the masculine and the feminine are only operative.<\/p>\n \n\tHowever, the use of grammatical genders in Spanish has generated, in addition to purely linguistic questions, others of a social and even political kin when "grammatical gender<\/em>" is identified with "physical sex<\/em>".<\/p>\n \n\tIt turns out that language, like other human activities, operates with an invisible "media economy<\/em>" principle and thus generally it uses substantive or "masculine<\/em>" adjectives to refer to both men and women. So when we affirm "man is a being endowed with intelligence<\/em>", we naturally refer to "man and woman<\/em>", without excluding the latter. In more linguistic terms, we would say that Spanish language "marks<\/em>" the feminine term, but not the masculine one, which, because it is not "marked<\/em>", can be used to refer to both genders.<\/p>\n \n\tIn that has naturally influenced the very historical formation of society, aptly defined as "patriarchal<\/strong>" given the preponderant role played in civilian and social life by the "pater<\/em>", the father<\/em>, and not the mother<\/em>, relegated generally and for many years to the interior of the home and her functions.<\/p>\n \n\tBut the roles of men and women in society have changed markedly in a process of equalization that has certainly not ended. This process thas not been kind, but has provoked great controversy among "patriarchal<\/em>", "sexist<\/em>" people in popular terminology, and "feminists<\/em>".<\/p>\n \n\tThis process of equalization has spread to all sectors of society. Thus in democratic countries equality has been achieved in laws, which no longer cover discrimination in the enjoyment of rights based on the gender or sex of individuals. Real equalization in society has obviously not yet been achieved and there is still a great way to go. For example, laws regulating labor and labor relations are not discriminatory, but in our country it is a sad reality that women often charge a lower wage than men, even when they do the same work.<\/p>\n \n\tWell, some people consider that language, in which some masculine gender terms are used to refer to masculine and feminine beings together, is discriminatory and "sexist<\/em>", that is, it exalts gender or masculine sex for the detriment of feminine. Thus language is also a field of confrontation between those who cling to traditional uses and those who demand a renewal that does not hide the reality that approximately half of the human beings which inhabit the planet earth are women.<\/p>\n \n\tThe solutions that have been proposed are diverse and their general acceptance is nothing short of impossible. Thus it is proposed to replace the terms of specific gender with others of more abstract meaning, for example using "humanity" instead of "men<\/em>", or use indistinct or alternatively one or the other, so we would sometimes say "men<\/em>" and other "women"; "The boys" and "the girls<\/em>"; or simultaneously use the two, thus "men and women<\/em>", "boys and girls"<\/em>, etc.<\/p>\n \n\tThis question of sexist language is not definitively resolved, despite the normative efforts of some institutions. Moreover, the issue sometimes provokes controversies, such as recently emerged between two academics of Royal Spanish Academy <\/em>that has resulted in several articles of replicas and counter-replies loaded with ad hominem<\/em> arguments.<\/p>\n \n\tAt this point in the article, more than one reader will ask the story or reason of all this exhibition in a blog dedicated to the ancient Greek-Roman world<\/em>?<\/p>\n \n\tWell, I can not say that this question of the "sexist<\/em>" use of language arose in the ancient world, but there is evidence as old as the Greek Iliad <\/em>in which the male and the female term are simultaneously specified and used simultaneously. It was precisely a recent rereading of the Iliad <\/em>that caused me to stumble with verse 350 of Book XV<\/em> and that motivated this article with such a long introduction.<\/p>\n \n\tHomer says in Illiad, XV, 346-351<\/em><\/p>\n \n\tAnd Hector shouted aloud, and called to the Trojans:“Speed ye against the ships, and let be the blood-stained spoils. Whomsoever I shall mark holding aloof from the ships on the further side, on the very spot shall I devise his death, nor shall his kinsmen and kinswomen give him his due meed of fire in death, but the dogs shall rend him in front of our city.”<\/strong><\/em> (English Translation by A.T. Murray, Ph.D.Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 19)<\/p>\n \n\tIn this occasion I will also cite the text in Greek <\/em>so that it can be verified by the reader that the use of " male and female relatives, kinsmen and kinswomen"<\/em> is not merely an effect of translation, but it is seen in the original: γνωτο\u03af and γνωτα\u03af are the masculine form and female of the same word:<\/p>\n \n\t\u1f1dκτωρ δ\u1f72 Τρ\u03ceεσσιν \u1f10κ\u03adκλετο μακρ\u1f78ν \u1f00\u03b0σας \n\tLet us now turn to this other example of Pausanias <\/em>(eight hundred years separate it from the previous text), which in his Description of Greece<\/em>, when speaking about Delphi<\/em>, referring to Homer <\/em>and Pindarus and to the source Casotide<\/em>, says in 10: 24,2:<\/em><\/p>\n
\n\tνηυσ\u1f76ν \u1f10πισσε\u03cdεσθαι, \u1f10\u1fb6ν δ' \u1f14ναρα βροτ\u03ccεντα·
\n\t\u1f43ν δ' \u1f02ν \u1f10γ\u1f7cν \u1f00π\u03acνευθε νε\u1ff6ν \u1f11τ\u03adρωθι νο\u03aeσω,
\n\tα\u1f50το\u1fe6 ο\u1f31 θ\u03acνατον μητ\u03afσομαι, ο\u1f50δ\u03ad νυ τ\u03ccν γε
\n\tγνωτο\u03af τε γνωτα\u03af τε πυρ\u1f78ς λελ\u03acχωσι θαν\u03ccντα,
\n\t\u1f00λλ\u1f70 κ\u03cdνες \u1f10ρ\u03cdουσι πρ\u1f78 \u1f04στεος \u1f21μετ\u03adροιο.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.antiquitatem.com\/imgs\/arts\/lex_salpensana2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n