Women in the Greek Myths

The Greek myths are predominantly patriarchal in premise. A superficial linguistic look at the texts helps to substantiate this view. ?Indeed I prefer her to Klytaimestra, the wife of my marriage..? (Book 1, Lines 113-114) Most translations, including the Penguin translation by Martin Hammond and the Samuel Butler translation interpret the Greek word alchos to mean wedded-wife, or the wife of my marriage. ?Are the sons of Atreus the only ones in humankind to love their wives?? (Book 9, 340-341) Martin Hammond again translates alochous as wives. However, the word alochos really translates as partner of one's bed (bed-mate), a distinctly deprecatory term. Similarly a man is almost never described as a husband. An analysis of the Iliad reveals the word being used a mere twenty-three times to describe a man in the course of the entire epic. Even in these twenty-three instances, most seem forced translations, as words as diverse as daimonios and have been translated as 'husband'. The greek word posis for husband has only been used approximately sixteen times through the course of the book. The Greek word for love - philein is used in several contexts to denote positive ties. It is used to denote a range of emotions from hospitality and kindness, and is in no way restricted to just denoting heterosexual love. Therefore the absence of words to denote 'a wife', purely heterosexual 'love' and the sparing use of the word for 'a husband' serve as markers to indicate the low opinion held of heterosexual relationships. Compared to the complexity and intensity of imagery employed to describe 'higher' relationships such as that of Achilles and Patroclus, it is that patriarchy in the Greek times works through the means of language to establish and consolidate notions of male superiority.
According to the eight book of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, since heterosexual relationships consist of unequal partners respect and affection must consequently be in unequal measure. Hence Penelope's distress at separation from Odysseus is far greater than his feeling of loss. However, this does not free Penelope from suspicion due to her because of her sex. In Book 15 of the Odyssey, Athena tells Telemachus: Thou knowest full well how the heart of a woman is set / to prosper the heart of the suitor that takes her to wife / and even the children she bore to her late wedded lord / no more she remembers or asks of their welfare again? (S.O. Andrew translation, Book 15, 20-21) Time and again, through barbs such as these the epics undermine the capacity of women for rational thought, moral fidelity and 'heroic' action. I cite these unconnected facts to affirm the first part of the aforementioned critical sentiment, that the Greek myths are patriarchal in sentiment and that the patriarchy establishes and consolidates control through the texts of the epics.
However, I do not entirely agree with the generalisation established by the second part of the critical contention since it seeks to create an invalid dichotomy. Women may and do transgress the social code (Helen is a very good example of the same) but it is certainly not the women alone who do this, and the men are not pitted in such a diametrically opposing position of being engaged solely in the pursuit of correcting the wrongdoing of the women. In fact, it is my contention that the primary breach of the social code is male in origin. The Iliad is thematically structured around the wrath of Achilles and its consequences. Hence the outstanding transgression is his. One may ask whether Achilles' wrath is at all a transgression of the social/martial code of the warrior? Certainly insulting a warrior's honour by depriving him of his war spoils was a serious offence, and Achilles' would be in the right to withdraw from the war and sulk in protest in his tent. However, the social codes enacted in the Iliad would also seem to indicate when placated with gifts from the offending party, a warrior must forgive his offender and consequently fulfill the calling of his martial code to wage war. As is frequently evident, an abstinence from fighting is looked upon in severe terms by the Greek warriors. It would only seem fit for Achilles' to accept the first offering of reconciliation and rejoin the war as soon as honourably possible. Not only does he fail to do this, but further appears inordinately proud and self-centred paying no heed to the rout of the Acharnian forces - certainly not in keeping with the martial codes of Greek. Even the longest speech in the Iliad (that of Phionix in trying to convince Achilles to give up his childlike recalcitrance) falls on deaf ears. His transgression would seem to be the primary violation in the Iliad, hence conflicting with the critical sentiment expressed in the question.
Looking beyond the scope of the immediate text of the epic, the cause of the war is the elopement/abduction of Helen. The terms of this elopement are never clear, obscured by interweaving myths of Aphrodite's intervention and the description of the event in obscure terms. If the transgression is Helen's, then the male intervention in terms of the war can certainly be seen as an attempt to reinstate the social code. The elopement of a guest-friend with the host's wife would be considered a serious breach of the social codes of Greek living. However one must also note that the heroes did not fight the war of their own accord, but only as a fulfillment of a promise they had made to Helen's father when she had decided to choose a husband. The promise was to the effect regardless of her choice, should any man abduct Helen, they would all wage war to win her back. Therefore the war is really not a conscious male desire to reinstate the social code, but merely the fulfillment of an unfortunate promise.
The involvement of the female gods is another important concern. Were it not for Aphrodite violating the codes of martial conduct, the war would have ended in Book 3 after the single combat between Menelaus and Paris. Were it not for Athena's and Hera's insistence on the destruction of Troy, Zeus would have ended the war in Book 4. In Book 14, Hera tries to change the inexorable course of events as decreed by Zeus by seducing him. However it would be problematic to see these acts of involvement as the breaking of a social code. The gods choose to interfere spasmodically, with no apparent motivation apart from personal jealousies and ambitions for their chosen mortals. The only immortal who seems to relish in breaking the code is Aphrodite. Athena never oversteps the code in any significant way. Aphrodite on the other hand assists in the abduction of Helen and rescues Paris from an honourable death in martial combat. It would seem that through the person of Helen, she is responsible for the overturning of the codes and that the Greeks fight the war to reinstate the same. I am loathe to agree with this, for reasons already stated, and also because I believe the onus in the epics is simply not on the transgressions of women alone, but also that of men. Helen, Aphrodite and Hera do certainly overstep the limits of the code, but then so do Paris and Achilles (in his cowardice and in his obstinance respectively). Although the primary concern of epic is the maintainence of a code created through the overlaps of household, kin, class and martial obligations and although (as I tried to prove in the first part of this essay) the epics are dominantly patriarchal texts, for all its misogyny, I believe the epic does not establish any clear dichotomies of female transgression versus male healing.