| > These restrictions prevented what these women saw as their right to be elegant in appearance. ... > The events that it set in motion on the streets of Rome created a precedent which saw Roman women stand up for their rights and make their voices heard. Recognizing that yes, women and men should have the same legal rights, I find it hilarious that the tipping point that year was that women had to limit their wardrobe in public. From [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Oppia) because I find the phrasing interesting: "Cato argued that the law removed the shame of poverty because it made all women dress in an equal fashion. Cato insisted that if women could engage in a clothes-contest, they would either feel shame in the presence of other women, or on the contrary, they would delight in a rather base victory as a result of extending themselves beyond their means." Again, men and women should be equal under the law, but it isn't an antiquated notion that women would engage in a "clothes-contest", particularly among economic classes. (Men, to be clear, are socially permitted far less peacocking with clothing, so there isn't anywhere near the same contest.) |
Im not an expert in that time period, but my guess would be that was the one thing women had of their own and it was being taken away.
Men did their peacocking with their more tangible possessions. With both women and men equally wanting to participate in the timeless human condition of wanting to show off and one-up their peers. Take that away from either men or women and I would guess it causes a tipping point of rebellion.