Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Note 518.0 gave my bibliography, and made a few acid comments on
    the way men have obscured the influence of goddesses and their
    followers.

    Notes 518.1-.4 described first how women had invented agriculture
    and created civilization, then how male-oriented societies took
    over as the norm, and lastly how this change was reflected in the
    myths and legends that we can read today.  (Addendum:  The goddess
    Mami is alternatively called Mama.  She also formed the wombs from
    which came the seven women and seven men who repopulated the world
    after the *Sumerian* flood.)

    Note 518.5 summarized how I felt that that basic change in civilization
    affected us to this day.

    Notes 518.6-.26 were comments and discussion by various readers.

    Note 518.27 gave me a chance to clarify and elaborate some points.
    (I still didn't get everything right.  I said there was no early
    male priesthood.  According to Eisler, however, there indeed was
    one at Catal Huyuk and Hacilar -- not, mind you, that the priesthood
    was a hotbed of privilege and luxury at the time.  Eisler also
    contests the idea of the sacrifice of the Corn God as being part of
    a matrilineal society.  That is such an appealing change that I will
    resist it, although that isn't scientific, and although (being a
    negative) it will be a very difficult contention to prove or disprove.)

    Notes 518.28-.48 started out as comments on knapping (shaping) flints,
    and meandered over into a discussion of the significance of stone
    rows in New England.  (Eventually (in .73), one reader was able to
    announce the publication of his friend's book on this subject.)

    Note 518.49 was corrections I made based on Eisler's book.  It
    added in her conclusion that women had domesticated most animals,
    pointed out that there are no signs of slavery in early matrilineal
    cultures, and made the correction given above about a male priesthood.

    Notes 518.50-.58 discussed the domestication of the horse and the
    dog, then transportation techniques of the pre-European Amerinds,
    and then manstruation in Amerind and other cultures.

    Notes 518.59-.67 was a general discussion of the Parnership Model,
    the governance technique proposed for those early matrilineal
    societies.

    Note 518.68 was me again.  I took some women from the Bible, and
    did some unorthodox analyses of their significance.

    Notes 518.69-.79 started with a response to .68, then we got into
    a discussion of the meaning(s) of the labrys and the society of
    Crete, with the announcement of that new book in .73.

    Notes 518.80-.84 was a (timely) discussion of the difference
    religious observances associated with the solstice, and about Mithras.

    Note 518.85 was an explanation of how archaeologists learned that
    the Venus figures of the Stone Age were the precursors of religious
    statues of the Great Goddess.

    Notes 518.86-.90 were a discussion of this, and of Venus figures
    in general.

    Note 518.91 was an explanation of king rule in matrilineal societies,
    such as that found in ancient Egypt and in fairy tales.

    And that brings me up to date!

    							Ann B.

    
    THE PAST IS ALL AN ILLUSION.  you can't touch it, feel it, smell
    it, or taste it.  and all "facts" from the past are 1% reality and
    99% distortions from the incredibly faulty thing we call the
    mind.
    
    a side note - i've heard it said that mankind (or womankind if 
    you'd rather -- maybe we should call ourselves itkind) became
    agricultural because they discovered alcohol.  so they started
    farming to have the ingrediants necessary for making alcohol.
    and i'd say that's an awfully good starting point for the race.
    
    

    
    The past an illusion? perhaps...some might say the present is an
    illusion. Be that as it may, the 'illusion' of time passing from
    before my birth, or before the living memory of anyone I know, and
    continuing on beyond dinner today and breakfast tomorrow is *real
    to me*. It makes a difference in my daily life that Jesus lived
    or the Magna Carta was written or Robert Kennedy ran for president.
    Therefore, I don't think it's foolish to try to learn about the past,
    if only to try to minimize the 'distortions'.
    
    To be specific, Ms. Broomhead's entries on 'pre-patriarchal' societies
    have opened my mind to a multitude of possibilities and I am eagerly
    looking forward to more. 
    

    re: .2
    
>    THE PAST IS ALL AN ILLUSION.  you can't touch it, feel it, smell
>    it, or taste it.
    
    and those who fail to learn from it are doomed to repeat it.
    
    ASP

    
    perhaps i was a bit antagonistic in reply no. 2.  That's what i
    get for coming in on saturday.  i am in fact a bit of a history
    buff myself.  i think its important to remember that much of
    the history that we read is extremely biased toward the historians
    particular philosophy and upbringing, thus the distortions,
    and realizing this today, we compensate with our own distortions.
    this brings to mind the research of eyewitness accounts where
    several people who have seen the same thing all recount it
    differently.
    
    re: .4
    
    those who dwell in the past never truly realize the present.
    (i don't make this up, i heard or read it somewhere)
    
    Bob

    Good question.  I was raised as a Catholic and am still a marginal
    member of the church, but I have a real hard time buying a large
    part of what is taught.  The God I believe in didn't create women
    as inferior to men...
    
    I don't think that feminism and Christianity are necessarily
    incompatible.  I do think that it _is_ incompatible with most organized
    religions today.
    
    -Tracy
     

    Entry .2 has a good point:  The past is hard to winkle out.
    As a criminalist, I do distrust eyewitness testimony, much
    preferring the silent statements made by physical (also called
    "real") evidence.  Fortunately, in this field we are doing a lot
    of talking about "belief" rather than fact, and then we don't
    have to worry about the accuracy of what was recorded, we only
    have to read it and see what beliefs it expressed.
    
    I'd like to think that 518.85 in the old file (among others) does
    a good job of touching on the point that researchers bring their
    social biases into the field with them.  Whether or not it does,
    I can point to _Missing_Links_ by John Reader (which is a delightful
    overview of the investigation into human ancestry) as a work with
    an excellent insight into the effect of personal bias on the
    interpretation of data.

    							Ann B.

    RE: .6 
    
    From one Catholic to another, I agree, as I believe many Catholics 
    (Roman) do.  If you've noticed, women are now Deacons and Extrodinary
    Ministers (at least in our church) and 60 Minutes just repeated
    a session about priests marrying and still practicing until (1)
    they were "found out" by the Diocese or (2) they chose to leave the
    priesthood because of their own moral beliefs.  Note that the
    parishoners never threw them out or denounced them.
    
    RE: Note 84 in general
    
    History I'm not too keen about, but Greek Mythology I am.  If you
    ever study The Theogony (literally, it means "The God Study" or
    in other words, the history of the Gods, as Greeks believed), it
    is said (and I can quote the exact passage, which is quite fluent,
    as soon as I bring the book in), that 'All which is and will be,
    Gods transparent and material items alike, are born of The Earth,
    Ge, (Greek Goddess (pronounced GAY)), the Mother of all that was,
    is, and can be...And only a Goddess has such power.'  (Something
    like that...Nice, huh?)
    
    The terms God and Goddess were used then to distinguish Male and
    Female Deities in the early writings, but the terms became synonymous
    with "all men" and "all women" as the writings began including mortals
    with gods (small "g" is the general term for Gods and Goddesses
    together); so the above passage can be interpreted as saying that
    '...And only a Woman has such power (to be able to create life).'
    
    Now, I'm not a Purple Power advocate (no offense) nor a die-hard
    Women's Libber (no offense, either), but I felt a sense of personal
    gratification to be "related to" such an ancient historical reference.
    It's nice to know that women were appreciated in that sense so many,
    many years ago.  There is a reguard for the female that still lives
    in Greece today (which I have never visited, but I do keep in touch
    with my Mythology instructor who visits there annually) that is
    almost chivalrous.  He says his wife just glows all over when complete
    strangers will turn their eyes because to gaze upon a female without
    her first inviting the encounter (by her glancing first) is an insult
    to her femininity!  Ah, the Days of Wine and Roses...
    
    -- Sue 

<    strangers will turn their eyes because to gaze upon a female without
<    her first inviting the encounter (by her glancing first) is an insult
<    to her femininity!  Ah, the Days of Wine and Roses...
    
I'm not sure this is an improvement over the old "put em on a pedestal" type
of thinking. Anyway, if they can't look till you do how can they ever tell 
that you glanced at them to begin with? liesl

    Of all the things I can think of which are insults to women,
    *looking* (not leering, looking) isn't one of them!
    
    I mean, really, if we can get protected from rape, physical and
    sexual abuse, have the wherewithal to feed our kids, and have
    access to education and good jobs, walk on the streets without being
    verbally assaulted....who *cares* who looks?!?!?
    
    Dawn
    

    I think the point here is that women are repected enough to have a
    choice of who looks at them. Men cannot automatically choose to look at
    a woman, the woman decides.
    
    - Lesley
     

    re .0:
    
    Is this an appropriate place to put in a plug for "Bill Moyers:
    Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth"? I know that there is a note
    announcing a single episode of this PBS series, but it seems to
    me to belong here. 
    
    Unless this note is reserved mainly for Ann's essay on this subject. 
    In which case I'd like to ask you Ann, if Campbell is not included
    in your bibliography purposely or if its just that you can't include
    everyone's books.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Steve,
    
    I have the entire series on video tape.  I will be making at
    least two video copies and (I suspect) one audio copy for friends.
    I haven't *read* Campbell yet.  _The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces_
    is in a catalogue I just got, and I intend to buy it.  The
    rationalization I've used for this particular lapse is that I've
    read _The_Hero_ by Lord Raglan, which is a precursor work and
    which will have to serve until I have the time.
    
    							Ann B.

    In the 60's and 70's, various feminists of a literary (as opposed
    to social scientific) slant maintained that matriarchy (women rule
    societies) was the way of life long ago.
    
    Kate Millett is one such literary figure to hold such a view.
    
    Millett revived a 19th century literary tradition, a tradition in
    which hard to understand fragments of Greek myth were seen to mean
    that the original condition of humankind was matriarchal.
    
    "To the extent there is historical validity to such myths, they
    appear to represent a confusion by the Greeks of relatively egalitarian
    societies among their antecedents, such as the Minoans, with a
    condition of female rule. While the Greeks' antecedents were not
    matriarchal, they may have seemed to be so when contrasted with
    the radically male-dominated culture of Athens at its peak of
    civilization."
    
    Believable evidence for primitive matriarchies is so thin that
    one can hardly believe the claims.
    
    To quote Charlotte G. O'Kelly (a feminist social scientist) "there
    is little evidence for the existence of truly matriarchal societies
    at any time." ( Women and Men in Society, NY: D. Van Nostrand, 1980).
    
    Another critic adds, "Theories that hypothesized a matriarchal form
    of society that prevailed 'at an earlier stage of history' made
    a certain, if tortuous sense, until findings gathered in the past
    50 years both failed to uncover a single shred of evidence that
    such matriarchies had ever existed and demonstrated the inability
    of all such theories to deal with reality." (Steven Goldberg,
    'The Inevitability of Patriarchy', NY: William Morrow & Co., 1973).
    
    The idea of the primitive matriarchies constitutes one of those
    hard to refute "big lies."  Evidence invariably gets yanked out
    of context, involves outright lies, or can't be verified.
    
    Who here cares to challenge Mr Goldberg's statement on this:
    
    "I have consulted the original ethnographic materials on every
    society I have ever seen alleged by anyone to represent a matriarchy,
    female dominance, or the association of high-status, nonmaternal
    roles with women ... I have found no society that represents any
    of these."
    
    In fact, reports of sexually egalitarian societies such as the
    Alorese, Arapesh, Bamenda, Berbers, Bushmen, Red Chinese, ancient
    Cretans, Communist Cubans, Eskimo, Filipinos, Hopi, Iroquois, Jivaro,
    kibbutzim, Marquesans, Mbuti, Nama Hottentot, Navaho, Nayar, Samoans,
    Semai, Shakers, Soviets, Swedes, Tchambuli, Yegali, and Zuni have
    been proven to be false.
    
    Books which try to convince the faithful (usually those non-social
    scientist types) have included Robert Graves's 'The White Goddess'
    (1948) which was in considerable vogue despite massive non-scientific
    arguements, and of course Elizabeth Gould Davis's 'The First Sex'
    (1971) and Merlin Stone's 'When God was a Woman' (1976).
    
    Feminist sociobiologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy ('The Woman that Never
    Evolved', Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1981) has also
    made well documented refutations of the idea of primitive matriarchies.
    
    Her work ignores important biological realities (thus enabling her
    to hold feminist views) but her sophistication is such to realize
    that claims of primitive egalitarianism or matriarchies are weak.
    
    
                                                       Russ P

    Oops, the quote (in .15) "To the extent....peak of civilization."
    is by Nicholas Davidson, 'The Failure of Feminism' Prometheus, NY.
    1987.
    
    Mr. Martel and I found the work, um, let me say - revealing.
    
    
    Russ

    "The overthrow of mother-right(1) was the *world historical
    defeat of the female sex.*"
    
                                - Friedrich Engels, 'The Origin of
                                  the Family, Private Property, and
                                  the State' ([1884] International
                                  Publishers, 1970).
    
    1. Mother-right, according to Engels, was the "reckoning of 
       descent in the female line."
    
       Now, you say "Taylor gives us the definition of 'matriarchy'
       that he and Briffault use:   "... not ... actual mother-rule
       through the maternal line, but ... a period in which women
       were socially predominant."
    
       Eisler clearly likes Engels and Marx over Briffault because
       she doesn't bother to go in-depth with the later at all!
    
       The least she could have said about the work can be summed up
       in the BRD circa 1927:
    
       Mothers; a study of the origins of sentiments and institutions.
       3 vol set, Macmillan.
         392 Marriage. Matriarchy. Women--History and condition of women
    
         "A vast amount of controversy has centered in the subject of
       this work, ranging around the question whether the male or the
       female must be regarded as the more important and predominating
       factor in human social development ... Mr Briffault plainly accepts
       the existance of a 'matriarchal theory of social evolution'.'
       ... The work begins with psychological and biological chapters
       designed to establish the author's main thesis. He then goes
       on to discuss social relations between the sexes as viewed in
       a number of their aspects. The effect of the character of 
       primitive social groups on the development of religious conceptions
       is next studied in a way to throw light on the uniformity of
       that development. Finally, Mr Briffault deals with the growth
       of the sentiments affecting the relations between the sexes
       which have arisen out of the interaction of those social and
       religious conditions." - Boston Transcript.
    
       Briffault's scholarship was praised all over, though opinions
       were mixed over whether or not he had established his main thesis.
    
       Eisler plays politics when she gets on the case of Reagan, pro-
       pounds a "weaker male voice" in families citing dubious examples
       that societies are strengthened by such emasculating measures
       ("Radical leftism's hostility to the family, dating back to Marx
       and Engels, is one of its most dishonorable traits. America was
       fortunate indeed that the revolution of the sixties failed; China
       less so, as Mao's hostility to the family helped precipitate
       the chaos and famine of the Cultural Revolution; while Cambodia,
       under pol Pot's policy of the separation of family members, showed
       the true fruits of which this view is capable if only it acquires
       power and freedom of action. Quoting Lenin, Greer writes that
       "Revolution is the festival of the oppressed." This may seem
       to be just an amusing conceit if the festival leaves behind it
       beer can mountains of America's privileged youth at Woodstock,
       rather than the bound skeletons of Cambodia's innocent men, women,
       and children in the killing fields. Those who fail to respect
       the conditions necessary to maintain human life exhibit a fund-
       amental disrespect for life itself. Because we are never as wise
       as we would like to think, tradition is an irreplaceable 'sine
       qua non' of human existance.  Irresponsibility is far too weak
       a word for the radical readiness to jettison all the institutions
       of society in the vague belief that progress will somehow there-
       by result. - N. Davidson).
    
       Her insistance that men take on *traditional* feminine virtues
       (a T-word she shrewdly avoids in favor of an original 'gylany')
       is known to be impractical and unworkable.
    
       She even ends up saying that families will continue in some form
       ....
    
       But what form, and by whose standards?
    
       It seems to me she incorporated feminist political principles
       in creating not a 'grand synthesis' but a 'grand illusion.'
    
       To quote the NYTBR reviewer, "Eisler's interpretation of history
       is less believable than Asimov's Foundation Trilogy."
    
    
                                                    Russ P.

        Considering how indebted the reviewer was to Issac, there
    was little need to. 
    
                                         
                                                 Russ
    
    
    
    Eisler, p. 221. (no comment).
    Hrdy, p. 10-11.
    Davidson, pp. 45-6, 182-4,
                  191, 252.
    Engels,
    Levin, Michael (Feminism and Freedom,
    Transaction, 1987: paper 20-, HC 40-) p.26-7.
    Reed, Evelyn (Problems of Women's Liberation:
    A Marxist Approach, Pathfinder, 1969).
    
    Levin and Davidson are World Class and cover Gender issues
    with strong analysis.  

    These are some excerpts from an article that appeared in the LA times a
    couple of weeks ago. I was going to type the whole thing in, but
    thought better of it. It's three pages, two columns each, I don't
    really know how to type and I'm communicating at 1200 baud over from
    California. Seemed like a lot of work for something that might not
    really interest anyone but me. If anyone is interested in the full
    thing, let me know and I'll send you a photocopy. 
    
    Anyway, the article was entitled: "The Goddess Theory - Controversial
    UCLA Archeologist Marija Gimbutas Argues That the World Was at Peace
    When God Was a Woman."
    
    Excerpts:
    
    It's hard to imagine a book less likely than "The Goddesses and Gods of
    Old Europe" to cause a sensation. Its subject matter, the spiritual
    practises of people living in Europe 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, usually
    holds appeal for few people other than a fraction of the world's
    archeologists... 
    
    Simply put, "The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe" argues that the
    original settlers of southeastern Europe lived in societies that were
    ideal in many respects. Men and women lived in harmony, Gimbutas says;
    women ran the temples and in doing so held predominant positions, while
    men performed such physical chores as hunting, building and navigating.
    The deities these people worshipped were overwhelmingly female, and
    their values emphasizing nonviolence and reverence for nature, came
    from the feminine realm. It was marauding Indo-Europeans, the
    forerunners of Western civilization, who destroyed these societies,
    Gimbutas says. Making incursions from the Russian steppes, starting in
    4400 BC, the Indo-Europeans were violent, indifferent to nature and
    dominated by men. Those features, she says, have been a part of Western
    civilization ever since and account for the political and environmental
    crises that now threaten the planet. 

    Ironically, Gimbutas' earlier work, which focused on the Indo-Euopeans,
    established her reputation among scholars as one of the world's leading
    archeologists, while her study of Old Europeans, whom the
    Indo-Europeans supposedly ravaged, has caused her standing to decline...

    While most scholars were not impressed by her interdisciplinary
    approach, feminists with a spiritual orientation who found wisdom
    and solace in goddess-oriented mythology embraced her as a heroine.
    To them the book offered hope that their ideals - including harmony
    between the sexes, reverence for nature and existence without warfare
    - were not just theoretical possibilities but realities of past
    societies...
    
    ...it was not until two eminences of the spiritual and feminist
    communities acknowledged Gimbutas that her ideas received wide
    exposure. One was Joseph Campbell, the celebrated mythologist who
    died in 1987....In the last few years of his life, Campbell turned
    to Gimbutas for insights into ancient cultures, and he wrote the
    foreward to Gimbutas' latest book, "The Language of the Goddess",
    which is scheduled for publication in October by Harper & Row.
    
    Equally significantly, a book called "The Chalice and the Blade",
    written by Riane Eisler, used Gimbutas' ideas as its cornerstone for
    arguing that features of modern civilization such as patriarchy,
    warfgare and competitiveness are recent historical development,
    introduced by the villainous Indo-Europeans. Far from being inevitable,
    Eisler claims, the ills of modern civilization can be blamed on its
    unbalanced embrace of masculine values... 
    
    ...Gimbutas remains a black sheep within academia; even her collegues
    who admire her other work express skepticism about her description
    of ancient Europe...Most archeologists think that Gimbutas'
    interpretation goes far beyond the tentative conclusions that can
    be drawn from her data...

    Ian Hodder, a Cambridge University archeologist whose field of
    expertise overlaps Gimbutas' calls her work "extremely important"
    because it provides a "coherent and wide-ranging review of the
    evidence", but he rejects her interpretation of symbols...

   While it may be true that the deities worshipped in Southeastern Europe 
were female, and that patriarchal Indo- Europeans brought violent, male 
oriented religion (and society) to Europe, there were a number of other old
cultures in Africa, the Far East, and the Americas that did not fit the 
pattern presented by Gimbutas. In fact, there were some cultures (Central
American cultures come immediately to mind, though there were others) that
worshipped goddesses of blood sacrifice and war, and built civilizations
based on enslaving and/or destroying other cultures. "Native American" and 
African deities were often male and embodied ideals of peace, balance between
the sexes, and harmony that rivaled those of the Old Europeans.

   I contend that the "peaceful, nature- respecting" cultures with female 
deities were more a European phenomenon than they were a world phenomenon. I
further contend that those cultures that truley were peaceful and had harmony
between sexes were more often those who worshipped a deity or deities that
embodied BOTH masculine and feminine principles. Certain aspects of Taoism,
Hinduism, Voudoun, and Shamanism are examples, as well as the Dual Deities of
Curridwin and Cernunnos (spelling may be incorrect), the Great Mother and
Horned God of certain pre- Christian European cultures.

   I will not deny that cultures who engaged in Goddess worship, in a small
part of Europe, were peaceful and harmonious cultures. But to link instability,
violence, and indifference to nature with so- called male oriented religion is
sexist and simply does not take into account the religious experience of all
cultures. Gimbutas describes one experience in one part of the world at one
time, and the impression I get is that somehow our "political and environmental
crisis" is supposed to be caused by men who are still following the patterns of
an obviously unbalanced bunch of marauders who no longer exist. Blaming men
alone for our current problems is, to me, no better than blaming Eve for the
sinfullnes that pervades "man"kind. I consider such ideas sexist and repugnant.

   As a male who acknowledges the power and importance of the Feminine
Principle, I feel insulted and outraged by the contentions of both Gimbutas and
Eisler. While they are correct in saying that much evil comes from an
overbalance of "masculine" values, they seem to forget that an equal amount of
evil can and has come from an unbalanced embrace of "feminine" values. Women
and men are equal partners in the perpetuation of evil in this world. Let's all
take equal responsibility and work as partners to deal with it.

                                                        -Robert Brown III

>While they are correct in saying that much evil comes from an
>overbalance of "masculine" values, they seem to forget that an equal amount of
>evil can and has come from an unbalanced embrace of "feminine" values. 

While I'm well versed in the former :-), I could use some examples of the
latter. Any cultures where that was so?
	Mez

	There was an exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston a 
	year or so ago that had artifacts from "The Oldest" known
	religion in the area now know as China.  It involved a tree
	of life and a Goddess who comes from the East.  The written
	commentary spoke of the beliefs and practices of this religion
	as being the basis of Taoism.

	It has been long know and documented that the teacher of
	Confucius was a learned woman.

	I think that when we talk about ancient religions we remember
	that almost everything written for the past 2000 years has 
	the bias of the society of male dominance.  This is lead to
	the writing out of history and religion the stories of women.
	What Elsier and Gimbutas are doing (have done) is writing the
	stories of women back in to history and religion.

	Since I take bits and pieces of everything I read and don't
	ascribe to a CREED on anything, I am able to take what has been
	written, process it and extract what "feels" right to me.  There
	is no way I would ever defend "all" the words or actions of anyone.

	Why must the criticism of a work or an idea have to be an "entotal"
	except it all or reject it all attitude?

	_peggy


		(-)
		 |
			The worship of the Earth Goddess is within
			The worship of the Sun God is without

Mez:

   The original intent of my statement in .22 was not to say that there were
cultures which were evil due to an overbalance of "feminine" values. I was
trying to say that even in the most repressive patriarchal cultures there
are/were individuals who have created and perpetuated evil by idolizing the
Feminine Principle at the expense of the Masculine. Though our Western society
equates aggressiveness, acquisitiveness, and a drive for power with the
Masculine Principle, it also equates stagnation, inertia, and passive
acceptance of the "way things are" with the Feminine Principle. I was not
saying that there were female- dominated societies that were as evil in their
own ways as male- dominated societies. I was saying that even in a patriarchal
society, evil is not the sole provence of the Masculine Principle. Both sexes
participate in the creation and perpetuation of evil, and members of both sexes
have their own modes of expression -- modes which come across as Masculine OR
Feminine.

   But since you asked about such cultures:

   It can be argued that many of the  pre- Christian (even pre- Judaic)
cultures mentioned in .21 created unpleasent conditions for everyone in them.
Many of the Priestesses in such cultures (not always in Old European cultures,
but certainly a lot of the ancient Middle Eastern cultures) perpetuated
Mysteries which men could not participate in. Their Goddesses were not evil
deities, and the cultures were not sexually repressive towards men (sexual
repression AS WE KNOW IT TODAY does seem to be an aspect of a patriarchal
culture).  Unfortunately, men often had a "place" in such societies where their
expression as individuals was somewhat limited (a condition which many women
today may be familiar with). The Mysteries were seldom shared; what little of
them that were were used to keep people "in line". Note I said people, not just
men. Repressive patriarchal societies used aggression and physical force to
control their populations. Some matriarchal societies had another form of
repression -- one that was psychological.

   Most matriarchal societies did emphasize peace and harmony with nature.
Unfortunately, just because they weren't marauders and didn't make war on their
neighbors (there were exceptions) didn't mean that they were "better" than
those who destroyed them. During the period covered by Gimbutas, most cultures
were small (in terms of "country" size) and had customs and laws that varied
from place to place. Some places had a harmony between the sexes, peaceful
life, and respect for nature.  Many of them, however, were stagnant cultures
that suppressed the Masculine Principle as badly as the Roman and early
Christian cultures repressed the Feminine Principle. Their methods were
different, but the results were the same.

   Part of the reason for the repression of "feminine" values by patriarchal
cultures came from a fear of such values, but where did such a fear come from?
Where did hatred of the Feminine Principle come from?  Gimbutas seems to imply
that it comes from some inherent male aggressiveness and need for dominance. I
disagree with that. Women today can attest to the fact that their anger and
(sometimes) hatred of men is caused by what men do and have done to them due to
a distorted view of what women really are. I contend that in the past there
were women who had distorted views of what men were and through their religious
Mysteries and emphasis of the Feminine expressed this view at the expense of
the masculine. As a result women did not (and still don't) understand when men
rejected their world view.  Gimbutas says that cultures that emphasized the
feminine were harmonious, peaceful, and sexually balanced.  I think that men
looking at those cultures would tell a different story. 

   The fact that subsequent cultures all expressed hatred of the feminine
should tell us something. It shouldn't just tell us about the warlike
aggressiveness associated with patriarchies (something which we are all too
familiar with), but it should tell us to look for the source of such hatred. I
don't condone the repession of "feminine" values, and I certainly am not trying
to justify it. All I am saying is that men are as human as women, and though
they may express fear, anger, and hatred differently from women such emotions
are part of the HUMAN condition and do not appear in a vacuum.

   Hatred is seldom justifiable, but it comes from anger. Anger always has a
source. I contend that Gimbutas' interpretation of her facts ignores our common
humanity in favor of a distorted, sexist view of men. Her Old Europeans were
not necessarily perfect simply because women ran the cultures. The destroyers
of those cultures were not necessarily evil just because they were run by men. 

                          *                *                 *


Peggy:

   I had hoped to hear something from you. I am honored.

   Yes, Taoism did have its basis in the worship of a Goddess, but my original
point in mentioning Taoism was to give an example of a "religion" (it really is
a kind of religious philosophy with disciplines associated with it, like Yoga
and Kabala) which emphasizes the balance between the Masculine and Feminine
principles. You can argue that this balance had its roots in the Feminine, but
the fact still remains that Taoism really evolved when learned people (female
and male) began recognizing and incorporating the Masculine equally with the
Feminine in their religion/philosophy. Taoism is not a "feminine" religion. It
is not a "masculine" religion. The primary symbol (known by most) of the Tao is
not a Goddess or God but the Yin- Yang symbol, which describes the interaction
(as EQUALS) of the Feminine and Masculine, respectively. In 84.22 I stated that
the truley peaceful cultures that had harmony between the sexes were those that
recognized the importance of balance between the Masculine and Feminine
principles.  Taoists had a kind of subculture in China that was not only
extremly peaceful and harmonious, but endured for thousands of years despite
changes and upheavels which occurred periodically in China.  Its ideas have
spread throughout the world, influencing the philosophical and religious ideas
of millions of people.

   I do not deny that there is a bias toward the masculine when people look
back at ancient religions. I applaud those women (and men) who are working to
"put women back into history and religion". The problem I have with Eisler and
Gimbutas is in their interpretation of the facts they present. I reiterate what
I said before: women and men are EQUAL PARTNERS in creating and perpetuating
evil on this planet, whether they care to acknowledge this or not. Attributing
all of past evil and the "ills of modern society" to some supposed inherent
flaw in men is sexist and places the women making such claims on the same level
as those men who have blamed women for all of society's problems.

   Know also that my criticism of their work is not "entotal". I am sorry if
you got the impression that I was "rejecting" Gimbutas completely because of
one aspect of her work. I was not. In this and my previous entry, I only reject
what I saw as a sexist idea -- that the world was a great place when women and
their deities were running things, and that it all turned sour when men "took
over". Worse, there is a component of racial and cultural arrogance here,
because the sexist statements were based on a European experience -- almost
totally ignoring the rest of the world. 

   I do not discount the whole for an error in a part. I am only 
discounting the part that has the error.

   As a man, I acknowledge that men in general have certain faults. I just
wish that when people like Gimbutas and Eisler make statements emphasizing these
faults, they do not forget that women aren't perfect, either. Members of both
sexes, regardless of their society, have participated to bring good and evil
into the world. Men have no special corner on evil. Women have no special
corner on good.

                        *               *                  *

Mez and Peggy:

   I acknowledge that you can argue that the things I have said above come from
a male perspective. I hope that this does not invalidate my view in your eyes.
I have been studying religions and cultures for a number of years, both from
the so- called "traditional" male perspective and the feminist perspective.
There is validity in both perspectives; I am certain that the real truth about
"ancient" religions and the relationships between the sexes during ancient
times lies somewhere between them.

   I strongly suggest that a positive approach to the study of ancient cultures
would be to place more emphasis on how feminine values have contributed to
ALL societies, rather than on how "unbalanced" patriarchies in Europe brought
so much trouble into the world.

   Thank you, Mez and Peggy, for your questions and comments. They gave me much
to think about.

   I can't resist this ;-):

            The worship of the Sun God may be without,
          But the True Spiritual Sun, which is neither Goddess nor God
          is within All.

                                                    -Robert Brown III

    re: .25
    
    Well written and VERY thought provoking....
    
    -Jody
    

    re:.25
        
    ... individuals who have created and perpetuated evil by idolizing the
    Feminine Principle at the expense of the Masculine. Though our Western 
    society equates aggressiveness, acquisitiveness, and a drive for power 
    with the Masculine Principle, it also equates stagnation, inertia, and 
    passive acceptance of the "way things are" with the Feminine Principle...
    ...even in a patriarchal society, evil is not the sole provence of the 
    Masculine Principle. Both sexes participate in the creation and 
    perpetuation of evil, and members of both sexes have their own modes of 
    expression -- modes which come across as Masculine OR Feminine.

    >is that really the best you can come up with? that Masculine is 
    aggressive and Feminine is passive? and that these contribute to equal 
    amounts of evil?

    ...Gimbutas says that cultures that emphasized the feminine were 
    harmonious, peaceful, and sexually balanced.  I think that men looking at 
    those cultures would tell a different story. 

    >i don't know; these societies look pretty good to me

    The fact that subsequent cultures all expressed hatred of the feminine
    should tell us something. It shouldn't just tell us about the warlike
    aggressiveness associated with patriarchies (something which we are all too
    familiar with), but it should tell us to look for the source of such 
    hatred...

    >sounds like 'blame the victim' to me

    ...women and men are EQUAL PARTNERS in creating and perpetuating
    evil on this planet, whether they care to acknowledge this or not...

    >i really do not believe this. i really believe that men have caused far
    more evil and that our societies have promoted both men and that evil
    for thousands of years

    ...I only reject what I saw as a sexist idea -- that the world was a 
    great place when women and their deities were running things, and that it 
    all turned sour when men "took over"...

    >seems pretty reasonable to me; see above

    I strongly suggest that a positive approach to the study of ancient cultures
    would be to place more emphasis on how feminine values have contributed to
    ALL societies, rather than on how "unbalanced" patriarchies in Europe 
    brought so much trouble into the world...

    >i should think we would be doing exactly the opposite: stop this 
    namby-pamby 'look at nice things from feminine values' stuff and really 
    examine just how much horror our pathologically unbalanced patriarchies have
    perpetrated. now *that* might have some positive effect.

		Robert Brown III

	I think that one of the key issues you are missing is that
	most, if not all, of the people writing about the ancient
	cultures/primitive cultures are not saying that women ran
	the society or the religion but that the main deity was a
	female image - an image of fruitfulness - of life giving.
	Now if you look at  that image it is very hard to miss the
	connection between women and life-giving.  So woman was the
	symbol - just as the cross is a very powerful symbol for
	Christians.  It is not that the cross rules or that women
	rule but that they represent on of the basic tenets of the
	religion/society being looked at.  (By the way the cross is
	a symbol of death, is it not?)

	If when reading the works of the people who are taking a
	new prespective about other cultures, you have to do a little
	work yourself - you have to unload all of your learned ideas
	and try putting yourself in the culture being looked at.  
	You then have to decide based on being part of that culture
	if ideas make sense to you as you would be in that culture.

	For most people this is a very difficult and very uncomfortable
	thing to do.  When I first studies about Sappho, I went from
	hating the culture she existed in to understanding that not
	everything we are told about that culture is good or bad.  That
	there were pockets of freedom in the Hellenic and Pre-Hellenic
	times.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			To be able to walk in another's steps
			is the greatest means of understanding

Peggy:

   No, I do not believe I am missing the key issue you describe. I certainly am
NOT implying that all of the ancient or primitive cultures described were "run"
by women. But Gimbutas at least implies this in her work (which I have
studied); and in the second paragraph of the excerpts mentioned in .21 it is
clearly stated that the women "ran the temples and in doing so held predominant
positions", and that the Indo- Europeans were "dominated by men". The use of
the words "predominant" and "dominated" alone carry implications of benevolent
rule on the part of those cultures with female deities, and malevolant control
imposed by men.

   I acknowledge the connection between the Giving of Life and the image of the
Female (The Goddess, Curridwin, Isis, Shakti, etc). In fact, Goddess - images
form a basic part of my own "religious" beliefs (I do NOT follow any of today's
"major" religions). However, we are both aware of how the ideals of a society
do not always reflect its practical reality. The Cross, for example, is indead
a symbol of death -- and a symbol of life (Jesus died for our sins and rose,
showing us that through him we attain everlasting life). The Cross stands for
everything about Christianity -- peace, harmony, sacrifice, love (and
obedience) of God, love of your neighbor. Yet the history of Christianity shows
that its followers were seldom bringers of peace and harmony, "loved" their God
in the strangest ways (often arguing and fighting with each other over HOW to
love God), and almost never loved their neighbors, especially if those
neighbors believed in a Goddess or anything else that didn't strictly follow
their doctrines. No, the Cross does not rule Christians, but their ideals don't
always rule them, either.  Worse, those who do follow the Christian ideals
acknowledge that there are many who call themselves christian, yet whose idea
of what Christianiy is all about has taken some narrow and even twisted forms.

   The sex of one's deity does not protect it from emerging in debased forms.
For example, the Goddess Kali is an image of destruction and rebirth, much like
the Christian cross is (though from a different angle). The meanings of Kali
are beautiful; she purifies, protects, strengthens, gives wisdom, and preserves
us. Yet in India there was a cult whose worship of Kali took some very
unpleasent forms -- including blood sacrifice, murder, and terrorism. "True"
worshippers of Kali are strong, very spiritual people, yet those who worship
her in narrow and twisted ways are evil and dangerous people.

   You suggest that when looking at a culture from a "new" perspective, that I
should try "putting myself in the culture being looked at". I respectfully
suggest that you do not know enough about me to suggest that I have not. I
reiterate again: my only problem with Gimbutas' work is in her interpretations,
not her facts. The cultures she studied were made up of people, regardless of
who may have "run" them or what sex their deities were. The strength in
Gimbutas' work is in how she exposes the beauty and power of the original
images and ideals of the Goddess as conceived by ancient Europeans. But the
Goddess did not express Herself only in European forms, Her forms were not
always those of peace and harmony, and even where they were her ideals were
seldom met. To say that Goddess- worshipping cultures were inherently more
peaceful than God- worshipping cultures is like saying that American culture is
inherently more sophisticated than the cultures of Indochina.

   The ideas and ideals of the Goddess make sense to me from the context of
being in the cultures described by Gimbutas. But as a human being in such a
culture -- male or female -- I have feelings and attitudes that don't always
meet the ideals. My village, in fact, may not even interpret its Goddess-
images in the way they were meant to be interpreted when they were conceived by
the original Priestesses. Harmony may be the goal, but sometimes those (fill in
some group -- hunters, gatherers, maybe even priestesses) can be a real pain.
In fact, they're different from Us because thry're (fill in some attributes)
and are a really disruptive influence. Maybe harmony can be attained if we
(fill in some repressive act here).

   Consider how a theoretical "masculinist" of the future could view America.
What a beautiful culture it was, until those (whatever) destroyed it! The
deities worshipped in America were primarily male. The American ideal was one
of freedom and equal opportunity for all. Sounds good!  Except that women are
second- class citizens here. And American culture can be inimical even to males
if they are not white protestants.

   Whether your deity is Curridwin (which, incidently, is another name for the
Goddess), Cernunnos (The Horned One who was originally a God of death and
rebirth who balanced Curridwin, but who later "priestesses" made a lesser god,
then a god of evil; who the Christians renamed Satan and who is largely ignored
by today's Goddess worshippers), Sekhmet, Isis, Ra, Thoth, Artemis, Jehovah,
Allah, Brahma or the Great Mother, you will never truley attain the ideals that
She or He represents. That is why they are deities; they are beings greater
than us who we try to grow toward. We don't always succeed because we are
human, subject to faults and fears and prejudices. Gimbutas tells us of the
beauty of the feminine ideals of the ancient EUROPEAN cultures, but then she
also implies that these cultures were somehow "better"; that they WERE their
ideals and that cultures who worshipped "male" deities (and who were also
"male- dominated") were inherently evil. I do not agree with this, because the
ancient WORLD had Gods AND Goddesses of life, harmony, peace, and respect for
nature.  The ancient WORLD also had Gods AND Goddesses to justify every evil
thing that people did.

   I have no problem with the statement that there were cultures whose
principle deities were goddesses of life and harmony. I have no problem with
Gimbutas' description of those deities (forms of one deity?), and of the ideas
they embodied. But I will not accept her contention that simply because the Old
European deities were goddesses, or that women had predominant positions in
their societies, that their cultures were somehow more "good" than anyone
else's. That is all I have been trying to say since I entered my original
reply. I have said this same thing in a number of different ways; I can think
of no other way of saying it.

   In 84.22, you said that you wouldn't defend "all" the words and actions of
anyone. Well, I don't have to, either. You also said that you extract what
feels right from what you read. Well, that is what I am doing here.

   Agree with me if you wish. Disagree if you wish. But just because I don't
believe that the cultures of Old Europe necessarily attained their ideals, that
doesn't mean that I reject their ideals as Gimbutas presents them. Just because
I don't believe that worshipping "male" deities always lead to unbalanced and
repressive cultures doesn't mean that I deny that those repressive cultures
distorted our view of the older ones.

   Wow!! This is a stimulating "conversation"! I hope you're getting as much
out of it as I.

                                                   -Robert Brown III

	I think that we are in somewhat agreement but that we do
	disagree on one point or maybe it just has not been mentioned.

	The difference between the "male" dominated society/religion we
	now live under and the society/religion where "females" were
	predominate is best illustarted with the use of two other terms.

		1. dominate - could be (should be) equated to "power-over"
				others - that there are "lesser" valued
				groups of people who are to be controlled.

		2. predominate - could be (shoulde be) equated to "power-with"
				others - that there are no groups of people 
				who are of greater value and that there are 
				no groups of people they need to control.

	This is all very difficult to explain in written words - the words
	of our society are the words of the "dominate" group.  In the 
	two definintions I feel a need to define what I mean by almost every
	word in them.  Instead I will reference Starhawk's book, "Truth or
	Dare", chapter 2 (I think, since I don't have the book with me I
	will check tonight and get the exact page if requested).  Starhawk
	give a very good definition to three types of power - "power over",
	"power within", and "power with".

	It is in the concept of "power with" that I see the "betterness"
	of ancient cultures.  Since I am of European stock I am interested
	in the myths and stories of that cutlure.  I do know something of
	the myths and stories of other cultures but I respect their place
	and my place in relation to them.

	Where did Satan come from?  What is the reality of the concept of
	Satan? and how does Satanism relate to the worship of the Goddess?

	Frist, let me say that (to me) the Goddess is not a single enity
	but is made up of ALL components of the universe.  This includes
	everything.  And that everything is part of the Goddess.  Was that
	a broad enough definition?

	Second, (to me) Satan is a human concept (and in our culture a truly
	Christian one) and is representative of the problems facing our
	world.  Satan is considered evil - was Jim Jones evil? was Hitler
	evil? were these two men also very, very sick individuals?  Is death
	in and of itself evil? Is war evil?  

	Finally, I would like to add that the concept of "peace" does not
	mean unconditional "happiness".  There will always be loss, and
	struggle, the difference is that each loss and each struggle is
	valued and honored in the society/culture.

	(Was that enough of a rambling?)

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess just is.
				

Peggy:

   It seems that we have, indeed, reached a kind of resolution.

   It appears, however, that our major disagreement is in one area: that is in
whether or not the European Goddess- worshipping cultures actually reached the
ideals that Gimbutas says they did, and whether or not "the world" went bad
when men "took over".

   I appreciate and accept your definitions of "dominate" and "predominate";
though they were not exactly the same as my original definitions, I think they
are much better than mine were. They also strengthen my point in some areas,
while weakening it in others.

   If, indeed, your definition of "predominate" is the same as Gimbutas'
definition, and if the ancient Europeans were able to reach the ideals they
believed in, then yes: those cultures were "better" -- at least socially --
than later ones.

   Based on my understanding of Gimbutas' work, however, I doubt if her term
"predominate" and yours (Starhawk's?) had the same meaning. Eisler's certainly
didn't. And while Gimbutas does good work in exposing the ideals of those
cultures, she has not proven, to my satisfaction, that the cultures she
discusses reached those ideals.

   Consequently, I see no proof that the ancient cultures were "better" than
those that replaced them. The "patriarchal" Indo- Europeans had ideals, too --
ideals that were at least as high as those of the Old Europeans. Those ideals
were different (or perhaps the same, but approached from a different angle),
but they were ideals that the Indo- Europeans obviously never reached. I
reiterate: just because "God" was a woman did not make Her cultures "better".
All deity- concepts are ideals which we, as humans, try to reach but which
often lead us into errors. The kinds of errors associated with "God" concepts
are well known. The kinds of errors associated with "Goddess" concepts are
different, and have been largely forgotten (a consequence of our patriarchal
society), but are still errors and imperfections nonetheless.

   Of course, you may have decided that Gimbutas has proven, to your
satisfaction, that the Old European cultures were "better". If so, then you and
I must simply agree to disagree on this point.

   I agree with you that the concept of "peace" does not mean unconditional
happiness; I never meant to imply that it did. I do not believe that either of
us can say with certainty whether people's "loss" and "struggle" was really
valued and honored in ANY society/culture.

   I gathered that you were from European stock by the very fact that you so
easily accepted Gimbutas' picture of Europe while appearing to miss the fact
that (a) Gimbutas speaks of Europe while mostly ignoring the rest of the world,
and (b) that the European concepts of Goddess, God, Masculine, and Feminine do
not represent the only concepts of their kind. No insult is intended here, but
since I am not of European stock (my anscestors were African and Native
American), it seems to be easier for me to notice the unconscious arrogance of
people like Gimbutas and Eisler when they base their ideas on a European
experience while forgetting that Europeans and their concepts represent a small
minority of the peoples and ideals that exist on this planet. While you may like
to think of your Goddess as universal (though at the same time personal), She
is still a European concept, based on European ideas of the Feminine. For this
reason, there are a few billion people who simply will not relate to Her. At
best, they will agree with some of your concepts and ideals. Maybe.

   You may respect the myths and stories of other cultures, but if you buy into
Gimbutas' European views of what made a "better" culture, I respectfully submit
that your respect may be somewhat limited. Even if Gimbutas is right and the
Old European cultures were "better" than those that supplanted them (which by
now you know that I do NOT believe), then that doesn't mean that the "world"
was better when God was a Woman. It would only mean that Europe was better.
Africans, Asians, Indians, and Native American experiences may (and often do)
tell a different story.

   Of course, since Europeans did end up conquering most of the world,
destroying whole cultures, and imposing their patriarchal systems on everybody
else, maybe the world was better off when the European god was a Woman. Hmmm...
definitly something for me to think about... ;-) ;-) ;-)

   ...but then, the Artemis-, Sekhmet-,or  Ishtar- worshippers might have
conquered us all. Oh, well!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

On some other things you said:

   You might be interested in knowing that your concept of the Goddess is not
too different from the concept of God as described by the ancient Kabalists.
Kabala, like Tao, is a religious philosophy which recognizes and acknowledges
the balance between the Feminine and Masculine principles. Unlike Tao, its
roots were in the worship of a god (Jehovah, to be exact), but it really began
to evolve when the Feminine was acknowledged and incorporated into it (FYI:
the current form of Kabala evolved in EUROPE. Where its earlier deity- concepts
were overwhelmingly masculine, its deity- concept today is a union of the
Masculine and Feminine). The ancient pre- kabalists believed that God (Yahweh,
Jehovah) was made up of the entire universe (though they also said that there
was a part of God that was seperate), and that everything in the universe was a
manifestation of God. No point being made here; just thought you'd be
interested.

   I agree with you that Satan is a human concept (though Christians will
disagree with us). Satan in HIS (isn't it interesting that the chief "good guy"
and "bad guy" of the Christians are GUYS?) current form is the Christian
interpretation of Cernunnos, the Horned One of the Old European religions. It
was convenient for the Christians, when they were seeking converts in Europe,
to identify Cernunnos with their concept of ultimate evil. But Cernunnos was
not an "evil" entity originally; he was the balancing force (had "power-
with"?) the Goddess. A question for you: why has he been forgotten by so many
of today's Goddess worshippers? How is it that so many followers of The
Goddess say that they represent such concepts of "power- with" the Masculine,
while repressing or forgetting this important representation of the Masculine
Principle? Again: no point being made here. I'm just curious.

   Since you asked: Satanism and Goddess worship do not relate at all.
Satanism, believe it or not, is a creation of Christianity. When the Christians
became horribly repressive in Europe, there were people who bought into the
Christian concept of Satan and turned to that "deity" as a rebellion against
Christianity. Satan and Cernunnos are NOT the same deity, though there are
those who would like to believe they are.

   This has been an enjoyable discussion, Peggy. It has caused me to reexamine
(for the umpteenth time) the balance between the Feminine and Masculine within
my own attitudes. Since we have both expressed our positions reasonably well,
and since we seem to agree on most things, perhaps an exchange of ideas and
information is appropriate now. There are a few things about the Goddess I
don't completely understand. Perhaps we should open a new topic and discuss
Her? 

                                                   -Robert Brown III

    Robert,
    
    You seem to have slipped from "Indo-European" to "European".  If
    you had not done that, you would not have been so rash in your
    statement about beliefs outside of Europe.  We all already know
    about Goddess-worship in the Middle East (since the Bible complains
    so bitterly about its prevalence).  And about Nutt and Hathor of
    Egypt (but that's not really Africa).
    
    You seem to have forgotten about Kali Ma of southern Asia, and
    may well have never known that she is also Parvati, Maya, Kari,
    Shakti, etc..  You forgot Kwai Yin of China (There are different
    deities in different districts, but there is always Kwai Yin.) and
    Amaterasu of Japan (Ancestress of the Emperor, and the foundation
    of Shinto).  You forgot Hine of Polynesia  ("*All* Polynesian
    stories are about Hine!  She is the Moon." - Joseph Campbell).
    You forgot Nokomis ("Old Nokomis, daughter of the Moon") of North
    America and Tlalteuli/Ixciuna of Central America.
    
    But how could you forget Odudua of Nigeria or Massassi and Morongo
    of Zimbabwe?
    
    Why do I think that Goddess-oriented societies are exceptionally
    nice?  First, because the archaeologists excavating their cities
    (Knossos, some cities in India) described them as delightful, carefully
    planned, well laid out, even before they knew anything of the people
    who made them.  (Perhaps preferring the thoughtful and pleasant
    is only a Western prejudice?  No?)  Second, because the oldest of
    these cities (Catal Huyuk and Hacilar in Turkey) have no walls and
    no other traces of warfare.  There are other reasons, but those
    come first.
    
    						Ann B.

Greetings, Anne:

   You mention a number of Goddesses on non- European cultures, but I do not
understand the point you are trying to make in doing so. I am familiar with all
of the deities you mention, and I have not forgotten about them. In fact,
Shakti is one of my favorite female images, as is Odudua, and much of what they
stand for is part of my own beliefs. Other images I like are Sekhmet, Kali,
and, of course, the European Goddess (Lately, though, I have had a preference
for Sekhmet, for some reason.).

   I think you have taken my comments about non- Europeans out of context. I
am sorry that you somehow got the impression that I was ignoring or forgetting
the female deities of other cultures, but all I was really saying is that the
deities, historical, and cultural experiences of non- Europeans are not
necessarily the same as those of Europeans. That their concepts of the
Feminine are not necessarily the same as the concepts of the Europeans. Some of
their attributes may be similar, but if you look closely at the attributes of
the deities you named, you will see that most of them embrace concepts
different from those associated with the Goddess.

But since you are naming deities:

   For each of the non- European female deities you mention, I can name male
deities that also stood for non- agression, respect for nature, and equality
between sexes. I could have named some of the Manitous of Native America.
Krishna. Brahma. Nannar. Immanual. Ghanesh. Shamesh. Nusku.  Damballah. The Ten
Names of God -- the list is as great as the number of different cultures in the
world. I did not do so before because I didn't think it was necessary. I did
not want to start a deity- naming contest.

   The point I was trying to make in focussing on the "European" cultures was
that the cultures of "the world" do not necessarily have the same experience as
those of Europe, and that all cultures are not "better" when they worship
female deities simply because they MIGHT have been better in Europe
(archaeological finds in India and Turkey are NOT proof of what happened in
Europe). I was not trying to say that non- Europeans did not worship Goddesses
(Peggy and I even discussed the Goddess of the East, whose worship formed the
basis of the Tao), nor was I "forgetting" any of them. In .29, in fact, I gave
an example on how certain debased worship of Kali was the cause of a lot of
murder and terrorism.

   African, North American, and South American cultures, unlike the European
cultures, were not destroyed by "patriarchies" because they worshipped female
deities; indeed, much of Northern Africa was Christian or Muslim before the
European began exploiting that continent. Those cultures were destroyed by
Europeans who looked down upon anything non- European, and who wanted land and
control of the people in them.  Europeans exploited and destroyed those
cultures regardless of the sex of the deities worshipped -- and not all the
cultures of America and Africa worshipped female deities. Non- European
experiences, consequently, were different from the European experience and do
not prove that Goddess- worshipping cultures are "better" than others.

   Europeans began with Goddess- worshipping cultures, which were destroyed by
patriarchies. Asians worshipped female deities, but shifted until both
Masculine and Feminine aspects were equally acknowledged and expressed.
Africans worshipped different deities in different places -- some male, some
female, and some African cultures shifted to worship of Allah and Christ long
before others did (Christianity in Africa predates the Roman Catholic
church by almost a century). Your female deities of Egypt were worshipped in
some parts of Egypt (before the "Great Kings"), but there were also a number of
male deities worshipped in other parts (Konshu, Seth, and Min come immediatly
to mind. There were others). By the time Egypt became a "world power" (when the
different parts of the country united), their deities became a panthaeon (sp)
which consisted of both Female and Male deities; Nut and Hathor never became as
important as Isis and Sekhmet, (or Ra and Osiris) though they were major
deities. Again:  different experiences in different parts of the world.

   Were some cultures of Africa "better" when they worshipped female deities? I
think not; they were mostly peaceful and harmonious regardless of the sex of
their deities. Was Chinese culture "better" when SOME parts of Asia were
worshipping goddesses?  Again: I think not; the balance between Masculine and
Feminine that they eventually evolved was the real basis for all that they
eventually accomplished in the areas of spiritual thought and cultural
development. And despite the power of the goddess- images of Japan, Japanese
culture had, for centuries, been one of the most repressive patriarchies in
history.

   Your naming of Goddesses in non- Europeans proves my point: that their
cultural experiences were different. They do not prove that goddess-
worshipping cultures were "better",  only that they were different, with
different strengths -- and different weaknesses.

    Were the European cultures "better" when they worshipped the Goddess?
MAYBE. You might think so.  I don't.

   By the way: saying that Egypt is "not really Africa" displays a European
bias. Some Africans consider Egypt to be part of the continent.

   You are obviously of the opinion that cultures which worship female deities
are inherently "better" than those that don't. I disagree with you. Your
mention of the female deities of non- European cultures does not change my
opinion, because (a) not all cultures had the same experience as the European,
and (b) not all peaceful cultures worshipped female deities. In Europe, they
may have, but not everywhere else. And a lack of evidence of warfare does not
necessarily mean that a culture didn't have other internal problems that
eventually destroyed it.

   I hope I have shown here that my statements about non- European cultures
were not "rash", nor was I implying that there were no goddesses outside of
Europe. All I was trying to say was that the experience of a few European
cultures is not the same as those of the entire world. This was a minor point I
was making, because what I am really trying to say is that I DON'T AGREE with
the contention that any culture is "better" simply because its deity is female.
There are too many examples of non- agressive, balanced cultures which happened
to worship male deities to support such claims, and there is insufficient
evidence to make the claim that a goddess- worshipping culture, even if it is
inherently more non- aggressive, is actually "better" than one that does not.
It is different. It has strengths that other cultures may not have. But it is
not necessarily "better".

                                                     -Robert Brown III

RE:  .-1

Also Quan Yin was mentioned out of context (as I understand it).  Quan
Yin is a symbol for the compassion in ourselves and the compassionate
force in life that presents us with the matierial with which to grow.
In many Buddhist cultures there will be a Buddha with Quan Yin on one
side and Manjuri on the other side - Manjuri is a symbol for
discrimiting wisdom developed thru meditation.  So there are male and
female bodhisattva's (and principle's) in Buddhism.

I wonder what the point is though.  Do we really need any of these
symbols?  I think that in the history of religion, much suffering has
been caused by people getting too attached to the symbols and
mythology and mistaking that for the truth.  The next thing you know,
they want to make it the univeral truth for everyone and you have
things like the inquisition and people telling you that you are going
to hell if you don't "believe" in the same symbols that they do.

I think it is obvious that different cultures have different symbols.
I like to think that ultimately they are all *pointers* to the same
thing.  That is, that within ourselves is the right direction, right
understanding, and love to know what our direction is in life and to
love and help other people.  Isn't it wonderful that there are so many
different teachings to help get "there"!   But they are just that
pointers and methods.  The real thing is not to be found in any
belief, symbol, or idea.  Already these things are too late - after
the fact.  In Zen we have some sayings.  One is:  "This is my finger
pointing to the moon. It is not the moon."  Religious teachings are
like my finger; don't mistake fingers for moons.  Also:  "If you see
the Buddha on the road, kill him."  What a saying!  This would be
heresy in most religions.  What this is getting at is not to get
attached to the methods and teachings.  Eventually, those will get in
the way.

If I have an idea about something, I no longer have the freedom to
experience the thing in itself.  Isn't this so?  How could I really be
free to experience something if there are already ideas about it? 

What we believe in counts for very little.  What we do is paramount.

Some teachers like Krishnimurti and Toni Packer see any symbolism and
teaching as a problem and tell us that their experience is that only
in moment to moment awareness and mindfullness is true freedom and
real loving found.  

A lot of discussion about male/female aspects of religious symbols
remind me of these concepts.  I do recognize that western tradition
has removed much of the "feminine" from their traditions to the
detriment of women (and everyone really) and I think it great that
many people especially women are finding Wicca and Paganism as
beneficial spiritual paths.  I've done some reading and these and
participated in a few rituals and found them quite interesting and
much in tune with some the methods I have found useful.  For myself, I
don't experience "spiritual" things as male or female and don't relate
to ritual very well, so I have found other teachings more suited to my
personality.

From what I have read and talking to Wiccans there
is also God along with Goddess.  I guess the Dianic cults concentrate
on the Goddess aspect and ignore the God aspect and there is a lot of
contraversy about this. 

I think as men we have to acknowledge some of the reasons some of
these things come about and not be threatened by it.  There are good
reasons that some women just don't want to deal with men, have a lot
of anger towards men, and want to be in women only spaces.  It may not
be logically "correct" but this is what people are feeling based on
the experiences they have had.  Ideally, this would not be the case
and we could acknowledge and value men and women without regard to
gender and also value both the traditionally male and traditionally
female characteristics and principles.  

I was also reminded of this in many other notes when issues around
anger towards men and separtism come out.  Yes, it is difficult to
understand, yes it doesn't seem fair but let's start by acknowledging
the pain and suffering and conditioning that causes these things to
occur.

There are many paths to the top of a mountain.  Each one is unique and
right for the person climbing it.  I hope (and ask Quan Yin - they say
if you ask sincerely, she will help you) that someday we can value
each and every one without regard to gender, orientation, age, class,
religion, race, and culture and see that all these things make up the
wonderful world that has been provided for us to appreciate, cherish,
and love.

john

PS:  I may not get to answer any replies my reply since I am starting
on a month long vacation tomorrow.

	I am a little concerned that I may not be communicating	
	with Robert very well.

	I am not sure but I don't think that I ever stated that
	the only deity was female and that there weren't any
	male deities around.

	Definitions:

	Goddess	= the universe and everything that makes it so
		  part of everything and everthing is part of the
		  Goddess

	Now this definition says EVERYTHING, not just female things.
	It includes males.  Taken to the next level.

	Goddess = one from whom ALL things come and to whom ALL
		  things return

	Since females (at least for homo sapiens) are the sex that
	gives birth, the Goddess then would have female attributes
	of bring forth life.  The second part (return) is a little
	more difficult to anthropromophize and the image of the
	planet we live on (you know Mother Earth) usually works.

	Now we all know that females need males to produce offspring.
	So there are sons, consorts and Gods who help the Goddess or
	in a more base term "service" her needs.

	The reason that some people see this cosmology as representing
	a "better" culture is because in the terms of academics it is
	a symbol of a UNIVERSIAL TRUTH.  Women/females bring forth 
	life with the help/aid of men/males.  Not that one is primary
	(top dog) and the other is secondary, no it is more that both
	sides are needed to fill the void.  This would lead to the
	conclusion that cultures that revered the Goddess valued life
	(which by the way in case you missed it I do not think that
	our culture does), since the Goddess is the symbol of life,
	that culture would also value the contributions of women and
	men equally.

	BTW - I don't care where the culture is on this planet if the
	Goddess (the Earth) represents life there will also be the 
	darkness that is represented (death).  The cycle is there, it 
	can not be changed, it must be faced.  The difference is which
	is worshiped (life or death).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The darkness is not evil or bad
			it is another part of the Goddess

John:

   You may not see this for a month, but:

   You and I are in complete agreement, at least in the context of what you are
saying.

   My entire motive behind all I have been saying (about ideals, different
cultural experiences, etc.) was to point out that while the symbols, deities,
and myths of ancient civilizations have beauty, power, and relevance, they do
not necessarily represent the reality of the culture that created them.
Cultures are not "better" or "worse" depending on their deities' sex; deities
represent ideals that we, as humans, reach for. They influence a culture. They
are not the culture.

   My own religious/spiritual beliefs do not acknowledge the Masculine or
Feminine principle per se, but deal mostly with a "union" between the two which
transcends both. In fact, in my own spiritual writings I avoid the use of those
terms because I've found them to be limited and limiting. Much of my belief
centers around a duality -- that there are two major energies that are the
primary source of all manifestation. These energies can be expressed in sexual
terms, and can sometimes be described as such, but they are really more like
the poles of a battery than a "male" or "female" force. My beliefs are
difficult to describe in a discussion of this type (and a detailed description
of them is inappropriate here), but what I have said should give those who read
and replied to my earlier statements some idea of the basis for all I have said
on this topic. While I have used the terms feminine, masculine, male, and
female, I used them only so I can "speak" within the framework others seemed to
be using. The role of deities -- female and male -- in my Disciplines is
different than the roles they play in most other religious/spiritual beliefs.

   I agree with you that men must acknowledge how the feminine has been
repressed in modern cultures and that women may seek "women only spaces" due to
less- than- pleasent experiences with men. The anger some women feel towards
men does not "threaten" me; indeed my beliefs strongly emphasize the importance
of acknowledging and accepting PEOPLE's experiences without judging anyone. 

   In 84.25, I stated that hatred comes from anger. I also stated that anger
always has a source. I recognize that some women's experiences have been a
source of anger, and I am more than willing to recognize the pain and suffering
that is a part of their conditioning. I'll even lend support if asked to. But
the anger some women feel is theirs, not mine. I don't own it, I don't want it,
and I have no use for those who blame me for it.  While Gimbutas' conclusions
did not blame me personally for the world's current problems, they present a
distorted, sexist picture of a group to which I belong (that of people who
happen to be male). As a black person, I am all too familiar with the
consequences of allowing distorted pictures of people in particular groups to
go unchallanged.

   I reiterate, John: we are in agreement in all that you've said. Although
you've approached this discussion from a different angle than I, you have
elucidated most, if not all, the basic attitudes behind all that I have been
trying to say in this discussion. Thank you for doing so.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

Peggy:

   I suspect that you are correct: there is a communication problem. It may
not, however, be in the area you think it is.

   I never accused you of stating there were no "male deities around"; my
mention of male deities in ancient cultures was intended to refute the
assertion (made by Gimbutas, not you) that a peaceful, non- aggressive culture
is one which necessarily worships a female deity.

   Thank you for your description of your Goddess- beliefs. Though I think we
should open a new topic to discuss them (because nowhere am I trying to refute
Goddess- images and ideals), they were very helpful.

Ann:

   Based on your entries, I do not see what we are "disagreeing" about. 

1: If you are not saying that goddess- oriented societies are "better", then we
   are in agreement. We are still in agreement even if you assert that
   something was "lost" when those societies were destroyed. I never suggested
   that something wasn't lost -- but then, whether or not something was lost
   was never an issue in anything I've said previously. And I've never accused
   anyone of saying that this current society should be "replaced".

2: While I disagree with you about the God always standing apart from his
   creation (the source of my disagreement comes mostly from the modern
   Kabalistic concepts of "God", though there are other beliefs I can name), 
   and I also have problems with your assumptions about my attitudes
   (implying that I am defending the "god" and suggesting an attitude of
   "dichotomy" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what my attitudes really
   are), your concepts of God and Goddess -- as well as mine -- have little 
   to do with what I have been trying to say since 84.22.  Nowhere have I said 
   that a fondness for goddess- oriented things leads to an absolute fondness
   for the feminine over the masculine. In fact, in 84.22 I was objecting to 
   Gimbutas and Eisler's implication that to follow male- oriented deities
   inherently leads to an imbalance of the masculine over the feminine -- an
   implication that she supposedly "proves" with her picture of Old European 
   history.

3: As I indicated in 84.33, I do not wish to engage in a deity- naming contest.
   Doing so will cause us both to lose sight of what I am trying to say. The
   names of female deities, their age, whether or not male deities are "sons" 
   or "consorts" has little to do with what I was trying to say in 84.22 -- and
   in all my replies since. Arguing over the sex and names of deities can
   easily lead us into a rathole and get us nowhere.

4: Your "summation" (that all "men things are not 100% bad or 100% good") 
   actually summarizes what I have been trying to say since I entered 84.22.
   Again: where's the disagreement? Unless you are saying that all woman-
   things are 100% good, we have nothing to disagree about.

Peggy and Ann:

   Since you, Peggy, are accusing me of accusing you, and you, Ann, are making
accusations about my attitudes, I think I'll share some of my observations
(accusations? ;-)):

   I have carefully reread everything we have all said since 84.22 (for the
umpteenth time). I suspect that Peggy's concerns about communication stem from
some assumptions both of you appear to be making about "where I am coming
from".

   In 84.22, I attempted to refute what I saw as a sexist belief: namely, that
ancient cultures whose deities were female were inherently non- aggressive,
non- violent, and "better" than other cultures. This is the implication made by
Marija Gimbutas in her study of Old European cultures, as described in 84.21.
Having studied Gimbutas' work (her WORK, not just 84.21), and disagreeing with
her CONCLUSIONS concerning the inherent "betterness" of goddess- worshipping
cultures, I decided to voice my opinion: that no, I do not believe that all of
Gimbutas' conclusions were correct.  My reasons for disagreeing were (a) that
she speaks mostly about the European experience, (b) that I know of a number of
male deities whose followers were non- aggressive and non- violent (and had
respect for nature), and (c) I believed that even in cultures where goddesses
were worshipped Gimbutas, at best, describes the cultural ideals and beliefs --
not the cultures themselves.  My contention was (and still is) that while
goddess- worshipping societies were influenced by the ideals embodied by their
goddesses, that didn't mean that they were inherently "better" -- just
different. They would have certain advantages over modern societies, but they
would also have flaws which people like Gimbutas and Eisler seemed unwilling to
acknowledge or even postulate.

   The above describes (for the umpteenth time) what I have been trying to say.
Unfortunately, both of you somehow seemed to get the idea that I was rejecting
the entire idea that goddesses were among the most ancient and influential
images of humankind.

   All of your replies seemed to express a need to "enlighten" me. You both
seemed to assume that I was some ignorant male who did not understand what was
being said in .21, and who was threatened by the very idea that female deities
really had something to offer to the ancient (and modern) world. I was all but
accused of rejecting the entire notion of ancient goddesses (84.24's question
about "entotal" criticism). Both of you have pointed to examples of ancient
female deities who influenced not only the ideals of ancient cultures, but a
lot of current spiritual beliefs as well (84.32 was an excellent list, by the
way. I was really impressed by it!). I was even lectured about how I should "do
a little work" when I encounter a "new" perspective about ancient cultures, and
that I should "try putting" myself in the culture being studied (84.28). And
despite my attempts to discuss things in a respectful manner, the tone of some
of your replies (84.28 and 84.36) were not respectful -- indeed, they were even
a little condescending.

  The entire tone and direction of this discussion has been an attempt by both
of you to make me "understand" the concepts and importance of the feminine in
various ancient and modern cultures, and an attempt on my part to say that I am
aware of and acknowledge that importance --  but that I simply disagreed with
certain sexist claims being made about goddess- worshipping cultures by
Gimbutas.

   Is it any wonder, Peggy, that you are concerned about whether or not you are
communicating with me?

   Rhetorical questions, asked in anger:

   Why is it that when a man disagrees with one aspect of someone's (feminist)
ideas, it necessarily follows that he rejects everything???

   Why is it that a "feminist" perspective on ancient cultures must always be
"new" to a man??? Isn't it possible that a man could have been exposed to such
perspectives years ago???

   Where does it say that a man MUST be ignorant of Goddess- concepts, or
ignore/reject their importance, simply because he speaks of different
conceptions of the Masculine in different cultures??? Where does it say that his
mention of the Masculine -- in trying to strengthen one small aspect of a point
he is making -- means that he is rejecting the Feminine??? Or implying that
"man- things are 100% good"???

   Just because a man is rejecting SOME sexist assertions of ONE feminist
scholar, does that necessarily mean that he is accusing ALL feminists and
Goddess- worshippers of saying the same thing???

   And why a man's disagreements indicate an attitude of "dichotomy" (you
really ticked me off with that one, Ann), or even that his "deity" is
necessarily male???

   Okay. I'm calm again.

   What I am trying to say here is that while I enjoyed my exposure to your
perspectives, and gained some enjoyment from this discussion, I have noticed a
pattern to your side of the discussion that suggested that you were acting on a
set of assumptions about me PERSONALLY, instead of what I was trying to say. If
your assumptions had been correct, then I would have had little else to say;
Peggy would have effectively ended the discussion back in 84.24, and by 84.29 I
would very likely have acknowledged the valuable information I would have
learned from her.

   But your assumptions were wrong. And they are an increasing source of
frustration for me. What I was trying to say and what you were addressing were
two different things (a dichotomy, Ann? ;-)).

   Of course, the pattern I was seeing may be wrong. Based on my observations
of your entries in this and other topics, I'm sure you'll correct me -- whether
I am really wrong or you decide that you want to call me wrong.

   I will admit this: I had doubts about becoming active in this notesfile. I
had doubts about entering 84.22. Some of your reactions have reinforced my
doubts; not only have you "rejected the whole" of what I have been trying to
say, but I don't think either of you really know what that "whole" was. I am
not afraid of your views. I am not afraid of having my ideas tested and
disagreed with. But when what I say is filtered and misinterpreted, despite all
of my attempts to clarify my points, then I question the usefullness of saying
anything to you at all.

   Hmmm... maybe I'm still a little mad, after all. Or am I just frustrated?

   Anyway, I reiterate: I have enjoyed being exposed to your views, and I have
nothing but respect for the way both of you present them. I respect both of
you. I sincerely hope that someday we'll  have other opportunities for
discussion -- and that we communicate better in the future.

                                            -Robert Brown III

	Robert,

	I have no personal assumptions about you or your beliefs, I 
	am only going on what has been said.  I do not think that 
	what I was doing was to prove or disprove either of our
	beliefs or points of view but that I was engaging in a very
	interesting discussion.

	I have the feeling that you do not wish to continue this
	discussion which is fine with me.  Maybe Ann and I could
	take up the task of presenting differing opinions, her for
	the non-Indo-European point of view and myself from the 
	Indo-European point of view, and then each of us could then 
	also extend to include each others areas in the discussion.
	And then maybe just maybe we would swap points of view completely.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			There is no either/or 
			but there is lots in between.

    Ann, Peggy, and Robert,
    
    Please do continue with your interesting and informative discussion
    of early religions.  I've found all of your obviously well-informed
    offerings to be fascinating and a welcome change from the usual
    "you said," "no I didn't" exchanges of Notes.
    
    Please don't let this subject break down into finger-pointing, too.
    You all seem to have so much to offer as food for thought and
    enlightenment to those of us who are reading your comments.  Whether
    you all agree to agree or agree to disagree isn't important.  What
    is important is the learning and sharing that was taking place here.
    
    Won't you please continue with the discussion?
    
    Karen

    
    yes! i have found this to be one of the most consistently interesting
    topics in =wn= it challenges our thinking on some of the most basic
    levels
    

	I am willing to continue the discussion.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			    

   Okay, Peggy:

                 Let's discuss.

                                              -Robert Brown III

   In my previous entries, I have attempted to describe my objections to
Gimbutas' claims about ancient civilizations that I considered to be distorted
and unproven -- namely, that the "world" was "at peace" or "better" when "God"
was female.  My objections can be summarized as follows:

1: That at best, Gimbutas can describe the cultural ideals, not necessarily
   the cultures themselves. Since all history (ancient and modern) is full
   of examples of the differences between ideal and practice, the only thing
   Gimbutas can say about the cultures she describes is that their ideals
   were better than those of the cultures that destroyed them. And that 
   is a matter of opinion, subject to disagreement depending on one's
   subjective ideas of what constitutes "better" or "worse".

2: Gimbutas' contentions speak from a European perspective. The European 
   perspective has all- too- often ignored the experiences of the peoples
   of other continents. While it is true that there were a number of
   non- European peoples that were violent, overly patriarchal, and had little
   respect for nature, not all of them followed the patterns suggested by 
   Gimbutas. Some warlike cultures worshipped female deities. Other more 
   peaceful cultures worshipped male deities. Most cultures had pantheons
   of Gods and Goddesses who interacted with each other a great deal.
   Perhaps Southeastern Europe was at peace when God was female, but 
   Southeastern Europe is NOT the world.

3: That blaming men and "the patriarchy" for all the evils of todays world is
   to present a distorted view of history that totally ignores the part
   women played (and still play) in the perpetuation of institutionalized evil.
   While many will disagree with me here (and have, both in NOTES and in MAIL)
   I still contend that women are EQUAL PARTNERS in the perpetuation of evil, 
   have always been, and always will be.

   The three points given above represent my main disagreements with the
theories put forth by Gimbutas. Please note that my disagreements are specific;
there are no "hidden" disagreements, no implied religious beliefs (such as a
"dichotomy" between good and bad), and no "entotal" rejection of everything
Gimbutas has said. What you have read is all there is, as far as my objections
are concerned.

   In the paragraphs below I shall attempt to expand on my arguments against
Gimbutas' conclusions. I shall try to do what I wanted to do for quite some
time: to describe some of the thought processes that have led to my
disagreements. Not all of them (yet), just some.

                  *                 *                 *

   I have been exposed to many "feminist" views on ancient civilizations as
well as their views on modern society. Some of them have been very enlightening
to me. Others have been offensive. All have helped broaden my perspective both
of myself and my role on this planet.

   From what I have learned, I've long known that there is no one "feminist"
view or "line" about anything; it appeared to me that there is a wide spectrum
of belief with extremes of "subservience" vs. "get rid of men" on the ends and a
variety of beliefs in between -- most of which have more to do with discovering
the power and meaning of being a woman than anything else (FYI: when I think of
some of the women I have encountered, there is no way I can call any woman who
participates in WOMANNOTES a "radical feminist" or a "man- hater". I've known
radical feminists. I've encountered man- haters. Female WOMANNOTErs ain't it!).

   This was/is the value of the "feminist" view as I saw/see it: the discovery
of the meaning and value of womanhood in all areas -- from day- to- day life to
its role in ancient cultures. In theory I realized that for women this
discovery would be an empowering force in their lives, helping them to discover
(and bring forth) a major part of themselves. In practice I knew that for me
the discovery of the meaning and value of womanhood would help me to release
the "feminine" part of my own Self -- a part that this patriarchal society
tends to repress in men.

   Please note that what I said above is a simplification; to express all of my
ideas on this subject in the proper manner would take quite a few books. I've
only written two.

   Unfortunately, the so- called "feminist" literature -- especially in its
view of history -- has incorporated into it the ideas of (in my opinion)
extremists who have chosen to distort some of the facts that they are trying to
bring to light. People like Gimbutas and Eisler have their adherents, but they
may have actually done more to advance masculine values than they have to bring
feminine values to light.

   Black American history contains an example that will help explain what I
said in the previous paragraph.  Some of us may remember an extremist group
called the Black Muslims. The Black Muslims were an Islamic- like group who
(under the leadership of Elijah Muhammad) literally rewrote the Christian (and
Islamic) story of creation as well as world history. Some of what they believed
was fascinating: that in ancient times Black and Brown people were the only
ones in the world, and the world was a garden- like place. That an evil
"scientist" who was seeking power created these twisted, devil- like people
that are known today as Whites. That when Black People discover their true
power, potential, and destiny, the world of the "white devils" will be
overturned and Black people will usher in a new era of peace. Justification of
these beliefs was easy: all one had to do was look around. Every evil in the
world, all the pain and suffering that had occurred throughout history, was
usually caused by some "white devil" whose inherent greed, lust for power, and
insanity drove him/her to perpetuate limited, narrow, evil societies.

   The ideology of the Black Muslims was very seductive -- especially since it
provided some real "culture" for many Blacks who, throughout their lives, had
been told by Whites that they were nothing, that their race was useless, and
that they would never be anything. Unfortunately, even if you ignore the
extremism and racism of their attitudes, the fact is that the theology of the
Black Muslims was more European than African.

   The concept of "color- coded" physical and mental attributes is European.
For centuries Whites have described Blacks as being inherently inferior in
intelligence, physically and sexually aggressive, incapable of rationality or
discipline, and prone to violence. All the Black Muslims did was turn these
descriptions around by describing WHITES as aggressive, violent, and
irrational. Whites spoke often of being genetically superior to Blacks in every
area. The Black Muslims said that Blacks were genetically superior.

   In short, the Black Muslims taught a doctrine of white racism in
"blackface". Their religion bore little resemblance to anything African; all
they did was assimilate the more insidious evils of the white racists they were
fighting against. Worse: they were more susceptible to these evils because they
could "justify" race hatred by reminding the world of how Whites had oppressed
them, and "forgetting" certain less- than pleasent facts about Black history
(for example: how some African tribes cooperated with Europeans in
creating/maintaining the slave economy). By blaming all evil on Whites, they
denied the power that Blacks have always had to fight or perpetuate racism.
Instead of empowering themselves and finding their true Selves, they projected
the weakness and self- hatred that America imposed on them onto "white devils".
Though they accomplished some things and won some minor victories, they always
operated from a position of inner weakness, and few of their works (other than
the peretuation of hatred) had any real permanence.

   I see a similar kind of trap when I read the works of a Gimbutas or an
Eisler.

   Before I continue: I am NOT equating so- called "feminists" like Gimbutas to
extremists like the Black Muslims. I use the Black Muslims here for two reasons:
(1) they are an obvious example of how extremism among Blacks can actually keep
them down, and (2) during a difficult time of my life (when I was trying to
define for myself my own identity as a Black person), I came close to becoming
a Black Muslim; I am familiar with how seductive its theology can be and the
traps that one can fall into by believing in it. Gimbutas is not as extreme as
Elijah Muhammad was, but the principles she and Elijah are following seem, to
me, to be the same.

Point 1:

   It is a characteristic of most patriarchies to blame the problems of
the world on women. In mythology we have the examples of Eve who first
disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit (and convincing Adam to do the
same) and Pandora who opened the box containing all the world's evils. During
the Dark Ages, woman- haters gained power in the churches and women became
"vessels of sin", "stealers of essence", and other even less complimentary
things. Even today, men often blame women for their own reactions; one major
weakness of the so- called "patriarchy" today is that it demands that men
project their inner weaknesses outward, rather than actually deal with them on
their own terms.

   By projecting the evils of the world onto men, Gimbutas perpetuates the
patriarchal conception of women as helpless and powerless. After all: if men
had such power that they were able to completely repress the feminine (a
contention not supported by history, incidently. Consider the worshippers of
Artemis, Hera, and Athena in Greece, Isis, Maat, and Sekhmet in Egypt, certain
branches of Kabala in Israel, and the Gnostics of Christian Europe, to name a
few), then surely women had NO influence on anyone, anywhere, for quite a few
centuries. In short, Gimbutas is doing what any good patriarch does: projecting
an inner "feminine" weakness outward. Projection of this sort removes all self-
responsibility from women. This "plays into the hands" of the "patriarchy"
which desires to define womanhood and womanly responsibilities. Another effect
of Gimbutas' "projection" is that it can create an outer sense of self-
rightiousness among women (after all, it is MEN who are the cause of our
problems, isn't it?), while perpetuating inner feelings of helplesness. The
inner feelings of helplessness would come from the fact that their causes
(mistreatment/invalidation by men) are not really being dealt with or overcome.
As long as women do not deal with their inner weaknesses on their own
terms, the patriarchy will win. Women will be playing the same kinds of
emotional games with themselves that men have played on them; their worst
enemies will be themselves, not men.
   
Point 2:

   By speaking of the world in the terms of Southeastern Europe,
Gimbutas falls into the uniquely (male) European habit of defining everyone's
experience in narrow terms -- in the process presenting a distorted view of
World experience to justify a prejudice. In fact, most of the characteristics
of the "patriarchy" so often "exposed" by Gimbutas (and others) are related to
the more repressive aspects of European Christian culture. But European
(Roman Catholic) Christianity was not the same as African Christianity. Or
Polish Christianity. Or Greek Christianity. Or any of the non- Christian
religions that existed in and outside of Europe. But like the European 
Christian patriarchs, Gimbutas makes generalizations about the world
experience based on the experience of a small section of Europe.

Point 3:

   Selective memory is one of the favorite tools of an overly patriarchal
culture. Consider all the Gods and Goddesses of ancient times that have become
demons in modern times. How many people know, for example, that half of the
all- male demonic forces named in the Goetia were GODDESSES in earlier
cultures? Another example: the reinterpretations and omissions of the Bible, so
that it is one of the most incomplete religious works in existance today.

   Gimbutas seems to have selective memory, too. I implied some of of it in
my previous points; anyone who studies the real ideals of some of the Indo-
European as well as the Jewish and Christian religions will realize that in
many instances their ideals were not too different from those of Gimbutas' Old
Europeans. These facts seem to be forgotten. Some of Gimbutas' adherents (and
some women in this notesfile), have implied that Christianity was a religion of
death -- the rebirth aspect of Christianity has been missed (NOTE: The
Christian concepts of death and rebirth have similarities to the death and
rebirth myths of Ishtar, Isis and Osiris, as well as the Cycle of death and
rebirth ruled by the Horned One [Forgotten Cernunnos again!]). Gimbutas not
only "forgets" certain aspects of the ancient religions she describes, but she
also presents a distorted view of the "evil" Indo- European religions that
replaced them. Again, she is doing what any good patriarch will do: present
distorted visions of the "evil" ones in order to "prove" how much "better" the
good people were.

   This has the effect of reducing the foundation for her observations. The
"patriarchy" can easily tear her apart, simply by claiming that she has a
"limited" understanding of the cultures she is talking about. She is in a
position where the "patriarchy" can easily justify rejecting all of her ideas
"entotally". Those who accept all or part of her conclusions will be in the
same position I elucidated in Point 1: they can be loyal to her beliefs and
accuse the "patriarchy" of trying to repress them, but their loyalty will be
founded on a position of inner weakness -- especially if they are exposed
to any of the historical and archaeological proofs that can be used to
disprove parts of Gimbutas' conclusions.

Conclusions:

   I believe that most of Gimbutas' work serves an important purpose: (a) to
make women aware that at least at some point in history the Feminine Principle
was revered and respected, (b) to remind men that the importance of the
Feminine cannot be ignored, and (c) to help insure that the Feminine is not
repressed ever again. But when she concludes that the history of the
"world" is represented by the history of a small part of Europe, that the
cultures she describes were inherently "better" simply because of the sex of
their deities, and that the world's evils are the sole -- or even the main --
province of the "patriarchy", then she validates the male- oriented belief of
female weakness, takes on the same mental attitudes that have held women back
for so long, and helps to perpetuate the inner weaknesses that the "patriarchy"
has been imposing on women since it started. Her facts do much to advance the
feminine in our culture. Her conclusions do much to invalidate it.

                      *            *               *

   The above is a small sample of the thought processes behind my objections to
Gimbutas' conclusions about ancient cultures. They are submitted so that they
can be considered, challanged, assimilated, rejected, or thoughtfully discussed
-- nothing more. Or less.

                                                   -Robert Brown III

    
    re .44
    
    
    Wow...

    ... and thank you.
    
    I particularly like the point that simply inverting a belief structure
    serves to reinforce it, rather than supplant it with a different/better
    world-view.  That is going to require some time and thought to
    assimilate and apply.
    
    Alison

Note 84.44            Beliefs in Early Civilizations, rev.              
                        -< More Objections To Gimbutas >-

	Did we read the same book?????

> Gimbutas' claims about ancient civilizations ... that the "world" 
> was "at peace" or "better" when "God" was female.  

I've re-looked at the book, which by the way is clearly an anthropological
study of artifacts found in an area and from a time that is referred to by 
anthropologist as Old Europe.  This book for the most part is VERY difficult
reading, there is very little that is easy to get through.  (Remember I
consider reading historical text books fun.)  I do not necessarily agree
with Gimbutas' descriptions of the artifacts pictured in the book, but
then I am not sure that her peers disagree with her and they have much
more knowledge on the topic then I do.

> 1: .... Gimbutas can say about the cultures she describes is that their 
>   ideals were better than those of the cultures that destroyed them. 

Well, as a Historian, Gimbutas can not even make judgments about the
"ideals" of the cultures she describes, but she can make correlative
references based upon similarities with extant cultures.  In my opinion
this is what she does.

> 2: Gimbutas' contentions speak from a European perspective. 

Excuse me but that is the area of the world that is her area of expertise.
I would be VERY disappointed in a work such as her's if it was written
about Pre-Columbian American Culture, that was written by someone who's
area of expertise was Indo-European languages and their effect on culture.

> 3: That blaming men and "the patriarchy" for all the evils of todays 
>     world is to present a distorted view of history that totally ignores 
>     the part women played (and still play) in the perpetuation of 
>     institutionalized evil.

I must again ask - Are we reading the same book?????

>   I still contend that women are EQUAL PARTNERS in the perpetuation of evil, 
                                   ^^^^^
Are you trying to say that men and women are equal?  Well, I guess I
can stop fighting for an amendment to the constitution to get equal
treatment - and Hey, I should get a raise and a promotion so that I get
EQUAL pay for equal work.

>   The three points given above represent my main disagreements with the
> theories put forth by Gimbutas. 

If these are your disagreements then you have a real problem because
the main premise of your disagreement is not in the book but in your
reading (if in fact you have read the book at all).

>   I have been exposed to many "feminist" views on ancient civilizations as

Why did you put feminist in quotes?

>   Unfortunately, the so- called "feminist" literature -- especially in its

Excuse me again but what is "so- called "feminist" literature" supposed to
refer to?

>   I see a similar kind of trap when I read the works of a Gimbutas or an
>Eisler.

Are you discussing Gimbutas or Eisler?  There is a world of difference in their
writings - one is easier to read than the other.  Eisler references Gimbutas
a lot for evidence not theory.

>   Before I continue: I am NOT equating so- called "feminists" like Gimbutas 

What is this "so- called "feminist" " stuff????


> Point 1:
>
>    It is a characteristic of most patriarchies to blame the problems of
> the world on women.          ^^^^

> ... weakness of the so- called "patriarchy" today 

Well, now we have "so- called "patriarchy"."

>   By projecting the evils of the world onto men, Gimbutas perpetuates the
> patriarchal conception of women as helpless and powerless. 

Again, which book are you referencing?  By stating that the basic premise
of Patriarchy is the root of many of societies problems is not to place
blame on anyone but the NAME THE ENEMY of all people in the society.  Which
by the way was not stated, in my opinion in Gimbutas' book.
   
> Point 2:
>
>   By speaking of the world in the terms of Southeastern Europe,
> Gimbutas falls into the uniquely (male) European habit of defining everyone's
> experience in narrow terms 

Would you prefer she wrote about Pre-Columbian America?

> ... Gimbutas makes generalizations about the world
> experience based on the experience of a small section of Europe.

It is not the world that is being discussed by "a small section of (what
is now) Europe."  Just what is your complaint?

> Point 3:
>
>  Selective memory is one of the favorite tools of an overly patriarchal
> culture. Consider all the Gods and Goddesses of ancient times that have become
> demons in modern times. How many people know, for example, that half of the
> all- male demonic forces named in the Goetia were GODDESSES in earlier
> cultures? Another example: the reinterpretations and omissions of the Bible, 
> so that it is one of the most incomplete religious works in existence today.

HUH!!!!!

Again, I ask which book, which author are you talking about?


> Conclusions:

>...
>
> ... But when she concludes that the history of the
> "world" is represented by the history of a small part of Europe, that the
 cultures she describes were inherently "better" simply because of the sex of
 their deities, and that the world's evils are the sole -- or even the main --
 province of the "patriarchy", then she validates the male- oriented belief of
 female weakness, takes on the same mental attitudes that have held women back
 for so long, and helps to perpetuate the inner weaknesses that the "patriarchy"
 has been imposing on women since it started. Her facts do much to advance the
 feminine in our culture. 

Again, I am getting tired of this, I ask which book, which author are you
taking about?

	As much as I might respect someone with the ability to write
	long notes - for the most part I do not read past line 150
	unless it is better written then Shakespear and more pertinent
	than a memo addressed directly to me from KO.

	In this topic I have fallen prey to the longwinded Goddess and
	I apologize to the other noters who have decided to read through
	it all.

	As for this topic - I am willing to discuss the topic, Gimbutas'
	book or the use of this book by other's as reference but I will
	not confuse the two and call the eagle a mouse because feeds
	the other.

	_peggy


		(-)
		 |

			Who believes in the truth of the Goddess
			and the beauty of all life.

    Peggy,
    
    I found Robert's note interesting, and informative, and well worth
    reading the whole length, just as I found yours. This is a subject
    that fascinates me, and I do hope that you'll continute the
    discussion.
    
    thanks
    
    Bonnie

   I am in a hiatus at this time; I have been somewhat swamped with
work lately. I don't have much time, so my response must be limited.

Lauren:

   Thank you.

Alison:

   It seems that you got my main point exactly. Thank you as well.

Bonnie:

   I will not speak for Peggy, but I intend to continue this discussion.
My earlier decision to do otherwise was a mistake.

Peggy:

   Your response was, to understate, both fascinating and enlightening.
There are a number of statements in it that "cry out" for a response. Due
to my limited time, I cannot properly reply to you. My next reply
to this topic will address your statements.


                             I will return.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

Robert; I haven't read the referenced texts, so I'm not getting much out of
your replies. My reactions feel like a parallel of Peggy's; she's read the
texts and doesn't know what you're referring to, and I haven't and don't. You
might be more informative to people like me (if you're talking to people like
me) with quotes.
	Mez

Peggy:

   I believe at last that we are communicating. Your reply 84.47 appears to be
addressing the actual points I have been trying to make before, as well as some
of what I was trying to convey in 84.44. It is gratifying to know that, at
last, I have been able to convey to you what I have been trying to say.

   While you make detailed objections to specific statements I made in 84.44,
it is unclear what your position is concerning the main point I was trying to
make: that if one attempts to expose previously repressed information by
inverting the belief structure of one's oppressors/exploiters, then one becomes
more like the oppressor/exploiter, weakens his/her own inner position of
strength, and actually "plays into the hands" of those who would perpetuate the
system he/she is trying to change. 

   Your entry, however, exposes a grave error that I made in 84.44: I did not
properly include all the sources of my objections. My "objections to
Gimbutas" really comes from three areas:

1: Certain theories in the actual work about the Old European artifacts and
   civilization (as well as what happened to them) that I felt were not
   adequately proven.

2: Conclusions made by Gimbutas, expressed not in the book but in statements
   and other writings (this, I suspect, is what made some of her colleagues
   nervous about her).

3: Certain interpretations of Gimbutas' work made by others.

   My error was in not properly distinguishing these areas in 84.44, and in
giving the impression that Gimbutas' work was the sole source of my objections.

   I also did not realize that you (and apparently others) desired to limit our
discussion to the validity/invalidity of any objections I have to things said
in her book "Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe". I shall limit my discussion
accordingly.

                      *                *                    *

   One pattern I find in Gimbutas' book is that she describes a number of
deities and describes how they evolved in the area that she describes as Old
Europe. But then, she describes how the Old European goddesses were the
original images behind a number of deities worshipped in Classical Greece.
While this in itself gives me little to complain about, it seems to contradict
her statements in the beginning and end of the book concerning what actually
happened to the Old Europeans. Gimbutas says that the female deities of the
"matrifocal, and probably matrilinear" and "peaceful" Old Europeans were
"largely replaced" by the male divinities of the "patriarchal, stratified" and
"war- oriented" Indo- Europeans. She speaks of how the proto- Indo- Europeans
"infiltrated" the lands of the Old Europeans and "superimposed" their culture
and deities into the areas. She states that the earliest European civilizations
were "savagely destroyed" by the Indo- Europeans, yet at the same time she
states that they enriched European culture. The evidence she presents
throughout the book indicates that though the feminine images underwent changes
over the centuries after the establishment of Greek culture, there was more of
a merging and evolution of these images and cultures than there was a
destroying and/or subjugating of one by another. There may have been conflict
between the different cultures when they encountered each other, but all of
Gimbutas' descriptions of the evolution of female deities indicate that the two
cultures (Old European and Indo- European) merged into a third culture
(Classical Greece?) which incorporated matriarchal AND patriarchal images into
its panthaeon.

   In other words, even assuming that the Indo- Europeans originally worshipped
primarily male deities (which I tend to doubt since Gimbutas seems to forget a
number of important female deities worshipped by the Indo- Europeans, whose
attributes became blurred and changed by the Old European influence), when they
encountered the Old European culture this certainly could not have been the
case. Based on Gimbutas' descriptions of the evolution of the Greek deities, I
cannot see how she can claim that the Old European culture became a
"substratum" of Indo- European culture. It seemed to me from reading her
evidence that the culture which existed after 3500 BC replaced the Indo-
European as well as the Old European culture. The deities worshipped by that
culture were both male and female; it was only the misinterpretations of male-
oriented scholars (from the post- Roman up until the Modern era) which created
the suggestion that the Greek gods were "more important" than the goddesses.

   In her description of the Snake and Bird Goddess, for example, Gimbutas says
that their images could be found all over the Balkan Peninsula (in the "driest
regions" such as Greece, Macedonia, Southern Yugoslavia and the Adriatic
Seaboard). She describes these goddesses as being rulers of all places where
the "Cosmic Waters" lie -- meaning that their influence was everywhere from the
earth to beyond the sky.  She describes how the various Old European cultures,
from about 6000 BC- 3500 BC, had variations on the Snake and Bird Goddess in
their mythologies. She then links these images with some of the primary female
images worshipped by the Greeks: Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite.  She attributes
the development of those images to the "influence" of the same Indo- Europeans
who she later says "savagely destroyed" the Old European cultures!

   All that Gimbutas says about the Snake Goddess, the Bird Goddess, and the
aforementioned Greek goddesses indicates that the Greek goddesses evolved as a
result of a merging of Indo- European and Minoan influences. She says that
these goddesses were originally among the most "highly revered" of deities.
But the Indo- Europeans were supposed to be primarily patriarchal, revering the
male image before the female. How, for example, could Hera have been revered
more than Zeus (as Gimbutas suggests she was originally) in such a culture? I
can see only two possibilities: (1) either she is wrong about the importance of
Hera in Greek culture, or (2) the Indo- Europeans were not as patriarchal as
she suggests they were in her preface and conclusions. Frankly, I doubt that
Gimbutas was wrong about Hera.

   Another problem I have with the work is related to Gimbutas' tendency to
look primarily at only two forces that molded the development of Greek culture:
the Old and Indo European. The fact that Gimbutas attributes so many of the
Greek deities (the goddesses mentioned above and others, as well as gods like
Dionysius) directly and solely to the influence of the Old Europeans
demonstrates, to me, the European bias I had been mentioning before. While it
is true that a focussing on the European experience is to be expected from an
expert on European prehistory, such a focus should, in my opinion, reflect all
the things that influenced that experience. Gimbutas barely mentions the Asian
influence on the development of the Greek deities, and seems to completely miss
the body of evidence that suggests that many of the Greek deities (like
Athena!) had African roots. Some of these African influences are said to
predate the Indo- European influence;  there are many similarities between the
animal deities (snake, bird, and fish to name a few) of the Old Europeans and
the deities worshipped by certain primitive African societies. 

   Many of the sources Gimbutas uses to back her claims about the Old European
culture (and deities) were the same sources that ignored the African influence
on that culture. Consequently, her picture of the development of Greek deities
is selective (selective memory?). She describes them primarily as Indo-
European forms of Old European deities while de- emphasizing the Asian
influence and "forgetting" the African influence.

                        *            *               *

   There are a few other objections I can mention, or I could expand on the
basic things I've said above. I do not do this because I wish this note to be
less than 150 lines.

   I know that my writing is not on a par with Shakespere's -- and I certainly
am not Ken Olsen.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    In Science News Sept 9 1989...
    
    New Archeological workd in Northeastern Belgium have shown that
    the image of the northen European farmers (roughly 6500 BC to
    5900 BC) as simple peaceful communities is open to doubt.
    Three villages have been excavated completely and each was
    surrounded by a ditch and a palisade defensive barrier with
    a 'baffled' gate. (The baffled gate, a short passageway through
    which one had to twist and turn to enter is typcial of
    fortresses before the advent of gun powder). 
    
    Bonnie