Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Goddess movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Matriarchal societies[edit]

Before the rise of state-level society, I believe there were many cultures that were more matriarchal-orientated (albeit probably not female-worshiping). There's an anthropological theory or hypothesis concerning the shift from round to square dwellings that discusses the change to a more patriarchal culture. Sam Tally-ho! 23:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Goddess cultists claim a universal, or at least pan-Eurasian, matriarchal structure. The thing is, no one really knows. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to take on "academics" here, but I do think it is logical to assume that people see woman as (a) "god" at one point, as she is life. She bleeds and does not die. She magically makes babies (9-months is a long time to hook up the act of sex with the coming of babies, in my mind). Death and sickness would be the other "god". But i see no reason that this would make a matriarchal society. Our closest relatives, the "apes", are largely dominated by an alpha male, though there are one or two ape species that are dominated by the alpha female. For all woman makes babies, man is and has been stronger. he doesn't like one woman, he phyically pushes her aside and says "why are we listening to her"? I don't see where this is going to lead to women-controlled cultures, much less the "universal woman cult". Also, as soon as we start to amass "things", ie., property, and we have heirs is the first time this shit matters anyhow. And if you are a guy, you have to enforce a rule so you can have "stuff". and that means you have to prove your child is yours. which can only happen if you restrict who your "woman" mates with. and thus starts the lovely connection between property and enslavement of women (to me, anyhow).Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're a Rousseau-ian noble savage type, your favorite apes are bonobos. If you're a Hobbesian "nasty, brutish, and short" type, you cite chimps. The world is a pretty damn big place and humans lived over much of it even 40,000 or so years ago. We don't know a whole lot about the social behavior of hunter-gatherer bands besides that they were nomadic and probably mostly egalitarian (which is a problematic term in itself because it masks specific social dynamics that could occur without a specified or rigid hierarchy such as "Big Man" systems). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think when you look at the most, hum "primative" (i hated even typing that word) societies we know of today, they are *most of the time* small family bands. This was true of most of the native american clusters in the midwest, and extreme north. You can't really survive most of the hunting cycle in these big tribes. You have one or two mated pairs and their children most of the year, then they come into a large community for various social events (including finding new partners) throughout the year. There seems to be good reason that this is what much of our primative life would have been like. the idea of too much "structure" doesn't mix well with that image. But this is "Godot theory" from thinking about it, not actual academics or science. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not all of them were organized strictly around hunting, though. One way modern humans out-compete Neanderthals in Eurasia was by adapting to climate change and local conditions more adeptly by restructuring bands and tribes as well as alliance and communication with other human groups through early forms of symbolism carved on projectile points, necklaces, etc. Plus, you can't extrapolate all the way back into the Paleolithic from modern hunter-gatherer and horticultural groups -- they can give us clues but are not themselves "artifacts of history." In any case, none of this tells us whether they were worshiping Ugg the God of Tasty Juicy Steak or Unga the Goddess of Fertility and Hot Cavesex. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but i've had cavesex. it is simply NEVER hot.  :P (ok, i've not had cave sex, but it sounded like something my alter ego would have done)Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish![edit]

This isn't the first page I've seen on RationalWiki that is utter rubbish, but it IS one of the most offensive! Did the creator even do any kind of real research before posting this trash?? It doesn't look like it. This looks like a page of opinions instead of any kind of researched fact. -Sebastian — Unsigned, by: 12.41.124.2 / talk / contribs

Thank you for your highly specific criticism. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 13:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Interestingly enough, this page has far more citations than most here. Care to elaborate? Omar (gibber) 13:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem was the name, which is my bad, I guess. Sebastian may be a wiccan or other goddess worshiper, and not know of the "Ancient Matriarchy is uber perfect" meme. I changed the title. --Cyan mowse 2.pngGodot 14:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sex-birth conection[edit]

"no human group has ever been discovered that fails to make the connection between intercourse and pregnancy, or that each child has a father" What about this then?--90.165.120.226 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

A story I came across somewhere:

Missionaries come to a remote community, which has not made the connection and start on 'God the Father.'

'Explain what a father is?'

The missionaries do so.

'Prove it.'

And should there be a passing nod at [1]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Motivation[edit]

From talking to a number of modern goddess worshippers, I get the very strong impression that there's more going on than the usual golden age/ancient wisdom/noble savage stuff here. They seem to believe that if it weren't all true (especially the parts that contradict each other—everyone being matristic until the Indo-Europeans, and also until the Christians, and also until the printing press…), equality between the sexes in the future would be impossible, or maybe even undesirable, but as long as it was true in the past, we can make it true again in the future.

I think the same thing may be going on with some third-world nationalist pseudohistory ("our people are the descendants of the Sumerians" must be true, or else… or else there's no argument about the Turks oppressing us?), but I'm not sure.

Is there a name for this? It's obviously related to the golden age fallacy, the naturalist and moralist fallacies, etc., but it's not really the same as any of them. (I suppose, before I ask that, I should ask whether there's anything to my observation in the first place. Maybe I just know a handful of especially odd witches who aren't representative, or who just don't explain themselves well.) --157.131.168.209 (talk) 07:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)