>>3
That notion is absurd. While the wealth of knowledge the Roman Empire, or the lesser chronciles of ancient Greece talk about women, they were almost entirely accounts of women as written by men and by majority deal with generics or the aristocracy. There is almost nothing in way of their ideals, hopes, dreams, in their own personal accounts. Even if you bound all the propaganda of Lesbos into a single book, you have tablescraps.
Even with the rose tinted goggles of antiquity, the role of a of-age maried woman in Roman civil structure was concerned was that of a childbearer, mother, and wife, and even in that her father, then her husband, was the final arbiter. They couldn't keep office; they couldn't vote; they couldn't even own property under normal conditions (I believe "abnormal" conditions existed, but it basically boiled down to some man liking you). Sometimes, they didn't even have a formal name, where they were not fortunate enough to get a vaguely feminized variant of their father's middle name.
Thought it's not saying much, the primary thing a woman of Rome had over a woman of Athens was that at least the latter was considered a citizen of their country.