Goddess movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
I'd rather be a


Icon paganism.svg
Suckled in a creed outworn
Fiction over fact


Icon ancient aliens.svg
How it didn't happen

Goddess movement and the Matriarchal religion are all terms for a post-feminist movement (1970) to "reinvent" religion to glorify the woman. It is often tied into Wicca, neopaganism, or other New Age beliefs. This religious and cultural movement is based on a pseudohistorical claim that all cultures were once matriarchal, and that matriarchal cultures would clearly have been superior to the war-mongering, penis-worshiping patriarchal cultures that quickly dominated the world with the advent of technology.

Like many instances of pseudo-history, there is a grain of truth to the theories, but the vast majority of it is just woo.


[edit] Claims of the historical religion

[edit] Nonsense

  • All religions in the world started with a goddess religion
  • The vast majority of ancient agrarian cultures not only worshiped goddesses, but were run by women.
  • These cultures were more peaceful than their male counterparts, since women respect love and emotions, and men are war mongers.

[edit] Truth

  • It is likely that one of the first deities in the world was "woman" because she brings new life into the world and because she bleeds without being ill or dying. Both of these could well appear to be magical to a population that didn't know any better. Some of the earliest religious artifacts are in fact female fertility figures (Venus figures) with large breasts, large hips, and often with child.
  • Goddesses were important to agrarian religions. Male and female come together to make babies. It is not at all clear that a goddess translated into a matriarchy, though in some cases it might have.
  • Many of the early goddesses were bloodthirsty bitches, such as Ishtar, the Semitic deity of sex, war and ultra-violence, or outright murderous, such as Kali, Cybele, Hiutzilopochtli or Hecate.
  • Even in cases where there were women in charge or shared power (some recent examples include the Oneida, the Onondaga, the UK under Margaret Thatcher, and India under Indira Gandhi), there is no indication that they are less warlike, more successful, or more egalitarian.

[edit] Pseudoarchaeological claims and statuettes

[edit] Venus statuettes

The Venus of Willendorf. Definitive proof of the ancient gynocracy or prehistoric pornography?

Much of the basis for the claims of an ancient matriarchy are based on the arguments put forth by the late archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (although Gimbutas herself preferred the term "matristic" to denote a sense of egalitarianism).[1] Gimbutas' claims are recycled in many works of Goddess pseudo-scholarship, most famously Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade.[2] This hypothesis is widely regarded as crackpot within both "mainstream" and gender/feminist archaeology.[3] It relies on a specious interpretation of ancient "Venus" statuettes and figurines. One of the glaring problems with this is that the artifacts range greatly in their depictions -- the "Venus of Willendorf," pictured at right, is a famous example but not wholly typical. Positing a single religion and social structure on this basis would require a massively speculative hypothesis that much of the peoples of the Eurasian landmass shared either a unified or very similar social structure and religious ideology over a period of approximately 30,000 years from the Late Paleolithic to the Neolithic. Besides this tiny complication, there is also no reason to assume that all the figurines represented a goddess. For one, not all the figures are actually female -- many are male figures and a number are ambiguous in terms of sex. The context that some of the figures were found in (e.g., trash pits) does not suggest that they were sacred items. In fact, there is no definitive consensus on how the various statuettes should be interpreted.[4] In addition, even if they were meant to represent goddesses, that doesn't necessarily imply that these societies were matriarchal or matrifocal. The ancient Greeks and the Catholics produced many depictions of Athena and the Virgin Mary respectively, but neither came out of a matriarchal society. This interpretation also ignores the numerous depictions of animals, violence, and death in Neolithic-period art.[5] Animals were widely depicted in prehistoric art, therefore our ancestors worshiped and were ruled by animals, QED.

[edit] Snake Goddess statuettes

Another set of statuettes claimed to be evidence supposedly depict a "Minoan Snake Goddess." The original Snake Goddess figurines were found in Crete during the early 20th century by Arthur Evans. What, exactly, the figurines represent is also unknown, but Evans claimed them to be central to a Minoan religion of goddess worship. Contemporary reanalysis demonstrates that many of the them were forged or made to conform more to Evans' idea of the alleged goddess during restoration, though a couple of the statuettes and some shards appear to be legitimate.[6] After Evans had completed his excavation, claims for the existence of the Minoan goddess religion were further inflated by a cottage industry of Snake Goddess forgeries and other fake "Minoan" artifacts.[7]

[edit] Irony

Before the modern iteration of this idea came about, it was originally popularized by J.J. Bachofen in his 1861 book Das Mutterrecht ("Mother-Right").[3] Bachofen, however, did not view this ancient matriarchy as a golden age, but as a dark age before patriarchal systems arose due to the "natural superiority" of men. And so the story is today repackaged and sold as a tale of empowerment to women.

In fact, the idea of "matriarchy" fuses two types of nineteenth century racist myth-making. The first of these comes from nineteenth century armchair anthropologists, who concluded on the basis of travellers' tales that there existed societies so primitive that they did not know about the birds and the bees: they did not understand that there was a connection between sexual intercourse and childbirth. These tales in turn were the result of primitive techniques of field work: when oddly dressed foreigners roll into town and ask where babies come from, you're likely to tell them about storks and cabbages. This "matriarchy" was a purely hypothetical state that supposedly existed before the "discovery" of fatherhood. When paternity was discovered, men realized that they were the fathers and instituted male dominion over women. These ideas were popularized by Johann Jakob Bachofen and later made it into influential books like Friedrich Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.[8]

The second strain of nineteenth century racial mythology that created the Goddess is more familiar: it involves Aryan supermen. These handsome white devils are imagined to have put an earlier pastoral and egalitarian utopia worshipping a universal Goddess to the sword, imposing warfare, male dominance, and male deities in its stead. This tale was popularized by Robert Graves's well-known work of pseudohistory, The White Goddess, and more recently by Marija Gimbutas.[9] There is simply no archaeological evidence for this tale of conquest, but in addition to the new religion, it's also become a stock trope of historical fantasy fiction.[10]

[edit] Female gods don't mean high status for actual women

There is no necessary relationship between the worship of female deities and the status of women in a culture. Hinduism worships a large number of goddesses, but is associated with suttee, male polygyny, and similar practices historically.

In the seventeenth century Netherlands, worship of female cult images was rigorously suppressed, and no one prayed to goddesses. Women enjoyed relative autonomy in this commercial, bourgeous society. They were considered competent to own property and to manage businesses, unlike in many Western European societies of the period. By contrast, in seventeenth century Spain, female quasi-deities were prominent in popular devotions. The idealization of women (and of female chastity) promoted by the deified women simply did not translate into autonomy and high regard for living women. Rather the opposite: the ideals embodied in the goddess were themselves a part of a network of social control, and living women would always fall short of the idealized virgin.[11]

[edit] Pseudohistory of the European witch-hunts

See the main article on this topic: European witch-hunts and pseudohistory

Goddess worshipers rely on a pseudohistorical account of the European witch-hunts, usually inflating the number of casualties to the absurd figure of nine million. They are also fond of calling it the "burning times" or "patriarchal genocide," selectively leaving out male victims of witch-hunts.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

[edit] References

  1. Idyllic Theory of Goddesses Creates Storm, New York Times
  2. Beth Grindell. Rewriting the Past to Save the Future: A Review of The Chalice and the Blade. Arizona Anthropologist 10:119-130.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Ruth Whitehouse. "The Mother Goddess Hypothesis and Its Critics," in Handbook of Gender in Archaeology, Sarah Milledge Nelson (ed.), pp. 756-758
  4. Margaret Conkey and Ruth Tringham. "Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Context of Feminist Archaeology", Ch. 8 in Feminisms in the Academy, Domna C. Stanton (ed.)
  5. Ian Hodder. Catalhoyuk in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:105–20
  6. Breathing New Life Into Old Art: The Minoan Snake Goddess Meets the Internet, Melissa Benne, Drury University
  7. Kenneth D.S. Lapatin. Snake Goddesses, Fake Goddesses. Archaeology, Volume 54 Number 1, January/February 2001
  8. [www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02.htm The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State], ch. 2
  9. Ronald Hutton, The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (ISBN 0192854496)
  10. Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future (ISBN 0807067938)
  11. See Dijkstra, Bram, Idols of Perversity (Oxford, 1986; ISBN 0195037790), pp. 1-15
Personal tools