Talk:The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The book has some interesting points, but explaining the predominance of early female statuettes merely by asserting that depictions of women almost always outnumber depictions of men in human cultures is lame, since it cavalierly brushes aside the specific differences between the stone age and modern media-saturated societies -- not to mention that there were significant historical periods in a number of civilizations during which depictions of women did not conspicuously outnumber depictions of men... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AnonMoos, my brother is an artist. His favorite subject is the female body, especially undraped. He did NOT grow up in a goddess worshipping matriarchal society. My bet is neither did the creators of the assorted 'venus' figures. ---Roxana -- 22:47, 6 April 2009 216.120.218.244
That really doesn't directly address what I said above... AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

maybe you can explain what 'specific difference' you are talking about. because roxana just says that guys have always liked painting (nude) women, now and in the stone-age. and the reason for that is not because they are looking for a religious experience (though they might sprout some lines about 'zen/nature/goddess/sex' if they are trying to disrobe a particularly gullible woman) Selena1981 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing external link[edit]

The Max Dashu external link is somewhat substantive and scholarly, and has apparently been published in a print publication, but the other link from mother-god.com selectively picks over some old popularizing literature and some quotes from quasi-occult sources, without very directly discussing the Eller book at all... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Marler aside[edit]

Marler (2003) bemoans that Eller, who in her 1993 Living in the Lap of the Goddess had been "hailed by leading spiritual feminists as an illuminating study of the feminist spirituality movement in America" with her 2000 book contributed to "eviscerating" the same movement.

So what? Who is Marler? Why is his/her opinion important? Why is this passage even in the article, except as a drive-by attack on Eller?
--69.196.135.9 (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Eller's position is accepted and mainstream among historians and anthropologists. This marler remark seems like an unremarkable criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The basic fact that there have been extremely few, if any at all, matriarchal societies (in any exact meaning of the word "matriarchal") is broadly accepted and mainstream, but all of Eller's particular reasonings and various side-assertions are not necessarily accepted... AnonMoos (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right. We should remove the Marler stuff, for that very reason. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

real-life comparisons[edit]

i think the author is completely right if she says that no modern-day 'primitive tribe' or any recent civilization is/was unaware of the fact that babies are made by sex (even all matriarchal societies know, but most don't care: the mother's brother is more important than the father). and therefore the whole hardcore-feminist theory of there once having been a world-wide fertility-based matriarchy that was dethroned the moment men 'found out the big secret' (of conception) is rather unlikely.

but if she says that 'patriarchy was always the standard' than i can point at several modern tribes that have a long history of matriarchy, and others where men and woman are basically equals. so i don't think there is enough proof for that: maybe patriarchy is a human tendency, but it might also be that primitive tribes had a mix of matriarchy and patriarchy and the worldwide dominance of patriarchy is only a recent development.Selena1981 (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

//But it might also be that primitive tribes had a mix of matriarchy and patriarchy and the worldwide dominance of patriarchy is only a recent development.//
Extremely unlikely. If you go back to the early toolkits, such as the Oldowan toolkit made and used by Homo habilis (and this would remain true much later than that), the weaponry was really only good against clumsy grazing animals, and not against carnivores who could outmaneuver a human. The latter would have to be killed with one's bare hands because the weapons of the era were too dull and clumsy. In 95% of cases--maybe not 100% but certainly 95%--the person who could kill a lion or a wolf with his bare hands was in fact a he. Tribal leadership to H. habilis was almost certainly based on brute strength for that reason, and in subsequent evolution it would have been hereditary.
All that said, you are exactly correct in your first paragraph. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)