Matriarchal Societies of Ancient times, did they exist?
I had written a story on the Great Mother and the Matriarchal Societies, but as it seems there were many who swore up and down there were never such societies ever.
I have read many books of the Great Mother, and from my understanding there were such societies that only worshiped the Great Mother.
Such books I have read are the Great Cosmic Mother, The Once and Future Goddess, and many others.
There has been statues discovered in all countries depicting a Female body with large breasts, big hips and huge bellies that suggest they worshiped the Female Pantheons before the Male Pantheons where worshiped. Some people on PS went on to say that they were only "TOYS"
I don't think that was the case, I do believe that they were real true statues, what do you think?
Do you think there were Matriarchal Societies? And if not what information have you read that would confirm your opinion?
Yes, but we made up that word. How a society might have been run by women in the ancient past doesn't mean it has to meet our definition of it.
Perhaps it's meaning in the Minoan sense would be deference to, and not dominance like Xuchilbara suggests.
Nope. Gimbutas is an anthropologist. It's a legit anthropological term. She actually uses some good evidence, but her conclusions are always, if ever, wrong. She isn't taught in anthropology. It's not as bad as teaching creationism in schools, but it is close with these ideas such since it's used by the Goddess movement to justify their paganism.
It's such a faulty argument and excuse. I think it frustrates me more because people refuse to look at current anthropology or anthropology at all, which has newer evidence, to see how debunked it is. That, and it's backed by people who are generally TERFs which also go against anthropology.
Just because it is popularly believed or oft repeated does not make it true.
Also, men = physically stronger, does not translate to "they conquered women, installed patriarchy, sexism exists now, but we are more advanced because women are too dumb/weak to make civilization". The only reason men are stronger than women is because it is for competition over mates. It has jack all to do with making women look inferior as this theory does because it is a spill over from outdated Victorian attitudes.
Hell, Gimbutas can't even cover other genders such as trans. Nor does she make any statement about intersex people existing. That alone is enough to question it since many cultures have multiple genders.
It has an anthropological definition, so it has meaning. And guess who is an anthropologist? Gimbutas. She probably did not invent that term.
All words are "made up". SO that seems to be a poor argument.
Yes, all words are made up, so to assume that a past culture where women had an equal position in society to men or perhaps even more exalted, doesn't necessarily mean women had dominance as per our word for what we THINK a society like that would be like.
We're ascribing characteristics to a society we know nothing about based on OUR definition of a word we think describes it.
I didn't state that. I previously said that mankind's natural pre-civilization and pre-tribal states are egalitarian which is a word for equality that includes gender. But "Matriarchy" does not equate "gender equality". "Egalitarian" is the word that one is looking for concerning prehistoric human societies.
What I am specifically attacking is Gimbutas's conclusions touted as facts, when she has been debunked. Now it's a white feminist theory no different from the Afrocentric theories. It's being used completely as a political tool.
Make no mistake--I never said gender equality never existed nor that Matriarchies never did. i sais Gimbutas's feminist utopia is a myth.
I agree with Aurelia.
On this day in history, July 5, 674 CE, Ix K’atun Ajaw was born. She became one of the most famous women in Maya history. The Ancient Maya were patriarchal, but if you pissed this woman off, heads were going to roll on the ancient ballcourt.
The feminist/New Age "Idyllic Goddess" theory is not an intellectually-respectable hypothesis. It was invented by conjecturing far beyond what available facts will permit, guided by a political and sexual agenda, and "validated" by intuition. While a belief in a universal Goddess of the Neolithic was widely-held by scholars several decades ago, recent scholarly critiques have exposed serious difficulties with this view, and it is now quite discredited within academe. The overwhelming majority of anthropologists and archaeologists reject the late Prof. Gimbutas' interpretations and conjectures on "the Goddess"; however, most of them were reluctant to speak out too strongly, out of sympathy for their ailing colleague, and for her feminist goals.
Yet in spite of its rejection by scholars, the Idyllic Goddess theory has found enormous support among certain segments of the general public, because it appeals to their preconceived beliefs. Like the "Afrocentric" history being promoted by certain professors of Black Studies, "Goddess-centric" history is motivated by politics, not scholarship, and grossly misrepresents history to promote a political goal. Gimbutas' Goddess theories, like those of Velikovsky and Von Daniken, are belief-systems which, while enjoying a cult-like popularity among certain groups of laymen, are rejected virtually in toto by scholars who have worked in the field. They are classic examples of pseudo-science.
Now that I think about it, it is like the theory that black people created everything. People are going to believe in it, because people.... with an agenda.
Ancient Matriarch - Ukraine. pdf