Marija Gimbutus, Her Works

Post Reply New Topic

It's interesting that I never even notice the dildo possibility but most of the neolithic goddess statues are so made since they were usually placed into the earth in an upright fashion, much like a spade and then buried as funeral or earth/fertility rituals so I think the actual configuration is accidential but intriguingly symbolic.

Thanks, Belladonna. I really appreciated that comment.

I have little doubt that they oversaw large segments of daily life in neolithic times and most probably were the 'bosses of everybody'. has anything changed?

Comments like this really piss me off. Women are second class citizens world wide. Even in places like Sweden women feel threatened by male violence.

On another note, I was reading a book (The Chalice and the Blade?) about matriarchical vs patriarchical culture, and I was a little alarmed that Gimbutas was the sole researcher cited in the evidence for earlier matriarchies. I spent years doing the feminist neopagan thing, and I always got the feeling that we were inventing, rather than going back to a previous cultural norm. There's a famous quotation: "Remember when you were free . . . or failing that, invent." Can't remember who said that or the whole quotation.

The disorganized nature of preliterate cultures is based on my own unpublished research. I don't mean total chaos, but a haphazard one-task-at-a-time organization, instead of the systematic organization of more complex societies, which limits the size of the organization. People have always lived in organized groups, and conducted organized activities. It's more a question of how organized. There are some interesting theories about earlier thinking. Sorry, can't remember the ref.

Being second class does not in any way mean that one does not have an impact on the environment that can be more significant in some cases than so-called first class people have.

Yes I agree, yet there are even more concepts and distinctions than this to do the sexes anthropologically.

If one of the sexes was only a device, a means to and end. They could be exploited much more efficiently and without exception to that end. But in reality we need each other more than that, even though exploitation still apart of our behaviour; it is just not the only part. We like other animals have odd protocols, memes, and cultures even. Besides one sex wouldn’t have enough self control over itself to conspire against the other That would be self defeating.

Yet each one of us is different. We have many ideas and wants. These are not selfless things at all, but we are able to fulfil some sort of "reciprocal" roles anyway, but really we are feeding our brains with input (which is like colourful electrical storm on a functional scan), whilst at the same time we are reacting to more primal urges, which can often be the opposite of what comes out of our mouths.

You could say some of the more abstracted complex behaviours, having in their essence a primal urge. We tend to forget that we are still animals. We are not exempt from such things.

We should be amassed at our ability to go against the grain some of the time. Also our ingrained behaviour is not static, it react to our environment and like few other animals were able to shape our own environment in a very short space of time. It is perfectly fitting that we can choose to be vegetarian. We don’t need the same diet as our ancestors.

Going back there has to be a point at which were not sentient enough to understand such modern political concepts we think of today. We have to have developed more abstract thinking before this.

There is really not much point of fabricating and elaborating on past culture we do not know all that much about. The reality was probably totally different, yet there is sliver of truth is almost everything.

Unfortunately all anthropology is based upon the actual observation of exisiting so-called 'primitive' peoples and then projected backwards in time so indeed much is pure speculation but you have to admit that it is doubtful if it was a male dominated world on a universal basis.

Anemone, sometimes I'm certain that there will never be a way to explain to men how terrible it is to constantly, and I do mean constantly, be on guard due to the continuous threat of violence towards us. I don't even think they're doing it to be mean. They just can't comprehend having to think about how to protect themselves from rape at least once every day. This isn't just women who have already been assaulted, but all women. Somehow some (not all, but some) men don't see this as part of our oppression. If not being able to move about freely without the endless threat of being raped or murdered isn't oppression, I'm not sure what is. And as much as this society would like to pretend that we're beyond victim blaming, we are far from it. "She knew better than to be in that parking garage at that hour." "What did she expect, jogging so early in the morning, with nobody around?" It just goes on and on.

When arguing in support of Gimbutus's theories, it is for the sake of dispelling the myth that patriarchy is the natural order. I see it for the evil, destructive force that it is, but that seems to make a lot of people angry, even some that have been harmed by the present system. It's not like women are the only ones who have suffered under patriarchy, as plenty of men have, too. Patriarchy denies men the ability to acknowledge their true source as being female. The patriarchal myths like Adam and Eve, have males giving birth to females. Yet in reality, all fetuses are female, and then some become male. So men not only come from females, they were at one time females themselves. I truly do not believe that males are inherently violent. Instead, I believe they're conditioned to accept certain roles, contrary to their authentic nature.

Anemone, I struggle with trying to figure out why women were oppressed in the first place. I have some ideas, but haven't been able to come to a certain conclusion. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I'm not Anemone, but I think that males are inherently violent. The one's that don't have the physical prowess to aid themselves, have outlet in other ways. It's something all males have to deal with at some point. Society and parenting are supposed to help, but we all know it's not enough. I'm not making the statement that men are always violent, or that they have all raped a woman, but I believe that they are hard wired to be aggressive when it's their time to show that side of themselves. I've almost sworn off men completely, more than once because I just keep on seeing it over and over again.

I used to be really prejudiced towards female separatists, thinking that they were "hurting" the feminist agenda. Then I learned why they felt as they do, and that it takes a lot of sacrifice to lead that lifestyle. I'm fortunate to be surrounded by feminist men, and feel no need to separate, but at least now I understand why it's done. Since learning how valid their points are, I no longer ever knock other women for any reason whatsoever.

I've thought a lot about why males are slowly becoming extinct. Nature/God always seems to find a way to improve us, allowing us to adapt, to get beyond some threat or frailty. I've wondered if males becoming obsolete has to do with the massive destruction caused by patriarchy, as well as the blatant war on women, thus causing their demise. I doubt that Nature can distinguish between who is a good guy, and who is not. Instead, I think She may adjust us according to our collective needs, and is weeding out the threat. Who knows. But something is definitely going on there, otherwise they would not be dying out.

If I am considered a separatist, then I have definitely made sacrifices. On the contrary, I sometimes come into contact with men who are more than feminists and identify with the notion of Female Supremacy, with a counter instinctive belief that women are superior to men. Most of the social ideas about this are totally loony. However, if men have been premising patriarchal social structures on the false belief that man came before woman, thereby making men genetically superior, then I think I can tout the more supported theory that women are in fact, genetically superior, having been the first sex.

I don't identify with male feminists whatsoever. However, I more than likely have AS, and I just can't identify with them socially enough for any to accept me and vice versa. I've known plenty, none have ever emotionally reached out to me in real situations or for just a casual purpose. A few have called me foul names, and the rest find something else wrong with me somehow. Although, it's not the kind of help I've ever needed. Not to sound harsh, but unless they have something wildly in common with me, they are of no use to me in my life, at all.

Reactionism. That’s is what it all about.

You could say wanting someone to reach out to you personally is a selfish thing. Ok not completely, but it is not selfless either. Not that there is anything wrong with it, it is pretty normal. It is a common need that can be satisfied in a number of ways, depending on mentality. You say that male feminists have not reached out to you, but have you tried to reach out to them? Do you think it always so trivial reaching out to someone? If that were true you wouldn't place great importance on it.

I always think, with those who say men can't be feminists that maybe they don't really want our help with anything so let them be. They have got it all figured out in their heads, and it is going to be all hunky dory in the end according to them.

But female separatists / supremacists did cause harm to women’s lib, and during the 80s they spent much of their time in-fighting as identity politic took hold. Far from being free communes, they strengthened stereotypes, and dictated how people should lead their lives, and this went so far prescribing a person’s sexuality, and cutting links with their children in some groups.

That is a good example of human nature, full circle. We are violent, we are demanding, we are selfish. Women can be aggressive and just like men be aggressive towards women as well as men.

Everybody lives with the threat of violence. For some it is more imminent, but for everyone it its there.

Aggression is much like neurosis or anxiety; it can be like feral beast that takes hold. People are also attracted to violence, even if at the same time they don’t always like it, it is a conundrum that doesn’t make much sense on the surface.

I like martial arts because it is an outlet for my aggression, and is also more controlled than otherwise.

Sometimes we talk utter tripe (I’m no exception ) and this is especially true when we are talking about our own behaviour, which I fact we know so little about.

You could say being the person I am does give me a glimpse into the blind spots of those that have inherent behaviours I don’t, and had to learn.

I don't think men are instinctively or genetically violent but you only have to look at the way society wants boys to be raised and educated and you can easily see where the aggression comes from. The same situation applies to the way societies want girls to be educated.

Why the hell not? Chimps are violent. Bonobos, can come to blows but tend to regulate their aggression with sex. The two groups don't meet, even though they live on opposite sides of a river. If they did there would probably be a lot of violence.

The problem is this is turning into a point scoring exercise rather than just simply looking at behaviour. Men this, women that and so on.

We have never been top predator even now we are not top predator without technology to give the upper hand, but there have been plenty of environments in our past the demanded more aggression. Arguably we need less of it now, but still our environment is very varied, there is much disparity in the human population. So we do still have things to fight over.

I meant violent and agressiveness just for the sake of being or doing so. There will always be a time where agressiveness may be necessary but it's usually provoked as is violence.