There is a fundamental disjuncture between the ideals of proper female behaviour, which involved sitting quietly and stilly out of sight, and the variety of things that Medieval Roman women did, which included ruling the empire. The conceptions of gender explained thus far would seem to lead to a society in which women did quite little aside of child rearing and weaving. Yet this image of complete repression simply does not square with the rest of the evidence, in which women are seen as engaging in numerous other activities. Women served as doctors and attendants in imperial hospitals. Women owned and ran factories, mills, and estates. Women were investors and engaged in commerce. Women successfully conducted disputes with bishops and other prominent male landowners. Women built churches and endowed monasteries. Women wrote hymns, poems, and history. And women engaged in politics and occasionally ran the empire. Obviously, not all these options were open to everyone, but neither can the experiences of these women be dismissed as exceptional. Some of the churches built primarily by women are tiny structures reflecting limited economic resources. You didn't have to be a rich woman to leave a prominent mark on your community. Women apparently acted with relative autonomy and power continuously through the history of the Empire.

The answer to the apparent contradiction between the fundamental ideology of female subordination and the relatively abundant evidence for women's exercise of various kinds of personal authority, is that women were able to play with their society's ideas about gender in ways that advanced their own agendas. I see two main modes women used to act with independence and authority. One was to claim exceptional strength of character that allowed one to act with masculine levels of rational self-control. This was the mode used by female saints and their hagiographers to explain why they were able to be so staunch and courageous. With proper ethical training, women could be like men. The other mode was to act with the feminine weakness that called on men to protect and help them. This stance of exaggerated femininity could also be used to effectively empower women. Both modes rely on and reinforce the theories of men and women's natural capabilities and responsibilities outlined in chapter three, but they allow for outcomes in which women have far greater self-determination than casual interaction with those theories would suggest.