From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Early Female-Centered Societies? (was Re: books)
Date: 8 Apr 92 06:55:32 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <7APR199209464364@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <wTguiB1w164w@cellar.org>, revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes...
>>        The next CSICOP conference is actually titled "Fairness, Fraud and 
>>Feminism: Culture Confronts Science," and I have a sad feeling that CSICOP 
>>will find itself wedded to a reactionary, authoritarian point of view that is 
>>fundamentally anti-intellectual. I might be wrong-- my expectations on 
>>theanimal rights panel were certainly off the mark-- but after seeing the 
>>pathetic, let-ME-set-this-foolish-woman-straight strutting on this newsgroup, 
>>I get the strong feeling that certain individuals aren't happy unless they 
>>can Soundly Thrash these infidels with the full weight of CSICOP.

>I suspect you will be wrong, based on the list of who will be on the panels
>(e.g., Carol Tavris, author of _The Mismeasure of Woman_).

	I've read Carol Tavris's book, and it might not hold much
consolation for those who believe that women are naturally submissive
to men.

	On the question of feminist prehistory, I do find her a bit
naive. She makes the common criticism of the "Mother Goddess"
interpretation of the fat Paleolithic "Venus figurines" by pointing
out that many gatherer-hunter tribes have limitation of fertility as
one concern. That strikes me as a Non Sequitur, because just because
one does not want too many children does not make one anti-child (an
accusation sometimes leveled at birth-control advocates). She also
repeats the speculation that they illustrated an ideal state of being
well-fed. I find it difficult to take that seriously because why just
women? Why not also men? Why fat women are shown but not fat men is,
IMO, most consistent with the hypothesis that the "fatness" is
pregnancy.

	I may note that an alternative to the "Mother Goddess"
hypothesis that is certainly plausible is that these statuettes were
offerings made in hopes of successful pregnancy; maybe the two are not
mutually exclusive.

	I find it curious that Tavris did not mention Marija
Gimbutas's very detailed work on the subject of Neolithic Europe; if
there is anyone with any real competence advocating the hypothesis
that it was female-centered, it is Dr. Gimbutas. One fortunate aspect
of her work is that she does not confine herself to interpreting the
cultures' symbolism, but that she goes into such things as cemetery
and settlement evidence. I wonder if this conference will discuss her
work in detail.

	I find it curious that the same critics who criticize
Gimbutas's reconstructions on the ground that we cannot know for sure
are not willing to criticize familiar reconstructions of Paleolithic
symbolism on exactly those same grounds. Maybe it is what Gimbutas
advocates that they don't like. I was told on sci.archaeology that
someone had asked several prehistorians to comment on Gimbutas's work,
and several of them broadly agreed, despite some inevitable nits to
pick.  But they didn't want to be quoted on that. 

	But Tavris is probably correct in criticizing the notion that
women are naturally nicer than men, a traditional stereotype taken up
with pride by certain feminists. It is not too difficult to come up
with numerous counterexamples. Even some male-dominated societies have
not held that women are naturally nicer than men; simply consider
Classical Athens, described as _The Reign of the Phallus_ by Eva
Keuls. 

/Loren