![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badstarFor my IE Studies book, I chose The Myth Of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future by Cynthia Eller. As a pagan, I find myself frequently bombarded withthe idea that once upon a time, life was peaceful, women were considered to be equal or superior to men, everyone coexisted happily and there was enough food, enough shelter for everyone. Until the evil patriarchy took over that is- at least that is what Marija Gimbutas, Merlin Stone and a host of others would have us believe.
Eller wrote The Myth Of Matriarchal Prehistory not to show that women really always have been second-class or worse (And illustrates clearly in chapter six, it can be extremely difficult to determine the status of women in a particular society when examining the evidence from different directions, and that may be further colored by the observer's bias) but because "...it's my feminist movement too, and when I see it going down a road which, however inviting, looks the wrong way to me, I have an obligation to speak up." (pg. 7)
I personally do not identify as a feminist, which Webster's Dictionary defines as "of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women". I am much more apt to refer to myself as egalitarian, and there are those who would say that I am nitpicking over semantics, but I do not believe that the word "feminism" can be used to describe equality of the sexes any more than "masculism" could be. I would so much love to believe that there waws a time, even in the distant past that women and men were truly equal and if we could just get it together we could return to that way...but as Eller points out, when properly considered, all evidence underlines the fact that this simply never was, however she goes on to conclude that even if it never was, and even if it were never fully possible, equality is still a most worthy and necessary goal to work for.
Reading this book was interesting, if not necessarily pleasant at some points. I had to stop to consider my chosen Hearth Culture and their gods. As Eller points out, the Ancient Greeks were hardly friendly to women, quoting Aristotle's position that men are far superior to women, and that even a good wife will bring her husband trouble. I questioned that I should be honoring the deities of these people, it was not an easy question. But it was not the gods that brought such treatment of women to this world, it was happening well before the worship of these gods was in place.
I found this book to be worth reading because it does address the very common myth which is presented far too often as historical fact. Eller writes of the risk of breaking up the ranks of the feminist cause, but felt that it was far more important to write about how all evidence in truth points to the contrary. She concludes though, by saying that the idea of matriarchal prehistory is still valuable- as a myth that we can learn from for building a future where women do have equal status in society.
Eller wrote The Myth Of Matriarchal Prehistory not to show that women really always have been second-class or worse (And illustrates clearly in chapter six, it can be extremely difficult to determine the status of women in a particular society when examining the evidence from different directions, and that may be further colored by the observer's bias) but because "...it's my feminist movement too, and when I see it going down a road which, however inviting, looks the wrong way to me, I have an obligation to speak up." (pg. 7)
I personally do not identify as a feminist, which Webster's Dictionary defines as "of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women". I am much more apt to refer to myself as egalitarian, and there are those who would say that I am nitpicking over semantics, but I do not believe that the word "feminism" can be used to describe equality of the sexes any more than "masculism" could be. I would so much love to believe that there waws a time, even in the distant past that women and men were truly equal and if we could just get it together we could return to that way...but as Eller points out, when properly considered, all evidence underlines the fact that this simply never was, however she goes on to conclude that even if it never was, and even if it were never fully possible, equality is still a most worthy and necessary goal to work for.
Reading this book was interesting, if not necessarily pleasant at some points. I had to stop to consider my chosen Hearth Culture and their gods. As Eller points out, the Ancient Greeks were hardly friendly to women, quoting Aristotle's position that men are far superior to women, and that even a good wife will bring her husband trouble. I questioned that I should be honoring the deities of these people, it was not an easy question. But it was not the gods that brought such treatment of women to this world, it was happening well before the worship of these gods was in place.
I found this book to be worth reading because it does address the very common myth which is presented far too often as historical fact. Eller writes of the risk of breaking up the ranks of the feminist cause, but felt that it was far more important to write about how all evidence in truth points to the contrary. She concludes though, by saying that the idea of matriarchal prehistory is still valuable- as a myth that we can learn from for building a future where women do have equal status in society.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Response to Review, Response to Ideas...
Date: 2006-06-21 05:53 pm (UTC)I have time now, so I'm bouncing around a lot of ideas your review has stimulated in me. So bear with me. These thoughts are simply a work in progress.
I've ordered Eller's book. I'll be reading it this summer and giving a more informed appraisel then. It also can count towards my DP.
Let me also admit that I am a feminist. My attraction to Neo-Paganism is primarily the connection to the Goddess as I see her. So I definitely have a bias.
With that said, this is where I stand on the whole historical accuracy/inaccuracy thing. IMO Neo-Paganism is a hodgepodge with two main ingredients: history and imagination. Modern Pagans tend to either lean towards one or the other. I think both are very valid approaches. The two were closer together fify some years ago, when it began. People did put a lot of weight on Murray and Graves, Leland and Frazier. But as Eller points out, historical research and interpretation have changed over the years. I'll be able to comment on this much better after I've read the book.
But my initial response when Pagans stress to me that the burning times never happened, the Goddess was never in control, patriarchy has always been the way of the world, is to think so what? It is a myth. Our myth. It is a myth that could positively transform the world into a more positive place. Not a utopia, but not a distopia either.
My problem with the pagan who makes history his or her dogma, who builds his or her faith on historical reconstruction, which is a valid path, but not a path for me, is that know historical reconstruction is pure. If Celtic religion is the way to go, what year do I choose? Even if I know which geographic location I'll study, when is the time period that I study it. Cultures are constantly changing. The Celts in 200 BCE were far different from those in 200 CE or 800 CE or 1100 CE. They kept changing for historic reasons and for creative inspirational reasons. We modern Pagans aren't the only ones with imagination.
Which brings me back to the kind of Pagan I am. I love history. I want to learn as much as I can about what historians think really happened. But it isn't my path to deity. The creative smorgasborg that formed in the minds of Gardner, Crowley, Leland, and so many others do inspire me. Not as history but as myth and story.
So I do believe in matriarchy. I believe in the values of matriarchy. I believe that after 10,000 odd years of doing it one way, it might be time to try another. I see a lot of values arising that haven't been tried before by a dominant culture. It would be nice to give it a try. Maybe there wasn't a universal Goddess culture 30,000 years ago. But I sure would like to see one a 1000 years from now in the future. I'd like to see one 100 years or 10 years or 1 year in future as well. It is that option that I think Paganism can offer to the world at large. It is that option that I choose. It is a very un ADF direction perhaps, and most definitely unscholarly. But most sincere.
Enough of my ramblings....see you at Midsummer.
Jack in the Green
Re: Response to Review, Response to Ideas...
Date: 2006-06-21 06:08 pm (UTC)I believe, as I've said before that a balance needs to be found between the two. I don't believe that religion or spirituality should be entirely historically based, or entirely myth-based, but a balance needs to be found between the two, and we need to know when to look to myth and when to look to historical fact.
The author of this book points out, and I definitely agree, that we can learn from the myth of matriarchal prehistory, and there are goals within that myth that we can work towards, but how is it going to serve us to believe that something that never really happened happened, and to propogate that falacy? How does it help us to present this myth as historical fact?
I don't see any way that it could.
So, we address it as myth, and take from it what can help us to better the world and we move on with that.
Yes, I find it problematic to have things that never happened being presented as historical fact.
That does not discount their value in a mythical context, and sometimes myth is stronger than fact, and is very easily blurred with fact- as evidenced by the Christian religion. Do I believe that Jesus was a man who had some very valuable teachings and lived on time two thousand years ago? Sure. Do I believe that he walked on the surface of water or took a loaf of bread and used it to feed a crowd of thousands? No.
Do I believe that the world was once inhabited by a peaceful, matriarchal regime where women were equal or superior to men and everyone was cared and provided for? No. Do I believe that we should work towards a world where everyone is equal and is properly cared and provided for? yes.
Re: Response to Review, Response to Ideas...
Date: 2006-06-21 06:27 pm (UTC)Jack
no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-03 09:02 pm (UTC)