From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Wake of the Goddesses (OH NO!)
Date: 16 Apr 92 22:13:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: s1.1992Apr16.221333.6044
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA

In article <+8zjz=f.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <3735@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
::I read an announcement of a book titled:
::In the Wake of the Goddesses.  Women, Culture, and the Biblical
::Transformation of Pagan Myth.
::
::by Tikva Frymer-Kensky
::(who is said to be a biblical scholar).
::
::From the announcement I gather that the author says that in the ancient
::Middle East (Sumer and Akkad) the "complex of antiwoman, anticarnal
::ideas" did not exist, and that this complex arose out of the confrontation
::of Israel with Greek civilization, and that it was inherited by
::Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
::
:Well, I haven't heard anything about the book prior to this. I just
:wanted to point out that she contradicts Leacock and others concerning
:the origin of Badness (all that male-oriented stuff). According to
:Leacock, Patriarchy originated in the ancient Middle East, and raidated
:outward from there to Europe. Sumer was Badness; she writes of "The
:classical patriarchy of the ancient Middle East." Whereas Frymer-Kensky's
:demonology has Goodness in Sumer and Badness in Judaism. 

	There isn't such a conflict! Look at the times involved.
Assyria was very MCP long before Rome was even founded. See Barbara
Lesko's contribution to the second edition of _Becoming Visible_

	Once again, I urge you to get a UCB library card. It shouldn't
be too hard for someone with your academic credentials. The next time
I go there, I'll ask about any special procedures that might be involved.

:You can't tell the angels from the devils without a scorecard! But one
:common feature of such theories is: all such 'female paradises' are
:placed among cultures that did NOT survive, and especially among those
:about which details of its social life are scarce, since all *known*
:societies are patriarchal, anywhere in the world.

	Dubious inference, for reasons I have tried to explain.

:An interesting aside: given the contemporary vehemence of feminist
:activists toward censoring and prohibiting ANYTHING having erotic
:content (even private speech!), it strikes me as hilariously funny
:to claim that a supposed woman-centered society would be "pro-carnal"!

	True, some feminists sound like prudes, but I think that is
because the sexuality they target is the exploitative kind.
Non-exploitative sexuality is much more OK, but it is unfortunate that
more feminists have spoken up in public for (say) non-exploitative
erotica. I note that some feminists make a distinction between
non-exploitative "erotica" and exploitative "pornography"; see Gloria
Steinem on that subject in _Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions_.
I know that the term "erotica" might be taken as another name for
"good" porn, but that's probably what it is.

	Some feminists do relish what some would interpret as
pornography; have you ever heard of the performance artist Carolee
Schneemann? (No, she never get into trouble with the NEA) I've seen a
picture of her bare naked, fully exposed, with some snakes crawling
over her. Not surprisingly, she identifies a bit with the Minoan Snake
Goddess.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic