women make mistakes? are you trying to commit suicide MM?

I feel like such a mysogynist

i used to give mysoges but i stopped, ooops sorry wrong word -

Well okay, if you want to simply speak in broad terms and make grand sweeping generalizations than I am not going to argue that premise with you. Then you would have to wonder where would we be now if Christianity and Monotheism never took hold of mainstream society? How different would western culture be today? We have no way of knowing because we are where we are now in the present. The only thing we can know for certain is that history is only written by the victors and these Goddess worshiping societies were certainly not the victors, nor were the American Indians.What does a society do with a conquered people? Generally the best approach is an "out of sight, out of mind" final solution to the "problem". Christianity made it possible for the whites to essentially subjugate the entire western world because they were instructed to "go forth and be fruitful and multiply". So thats what we have done in fact. At the expense of the Indians, at the expense of the natural word, at the expense of the animals that share this planet with us, at the expense of everything in fact. The cost of the "American Dream" has been quite high and we are only now beginning to understand that we might not be able to afford it.

I was speaking of the Neolithic in particular because there is evidence that these Goddess worshiping societies extended back that far, certainly predating Christianity by thousands of years. If you at least accept that much, then it certainly puts the bible and its writings into perspective as we would now understand this new religion to be in direct opposition with Paganism and the belief system held within. Women would essentially be squeezed out of the picture as it related to their rights, personal worth and autonomy. They would become nothing more than property first of their fathers and then passed off to a husband. We have reason to believe that it was not always like this.

As for your insistence that these Nomadic peoples were not the attackers and actually the victims (the reversal) I don't really know what evidence you have to support that. Essentially we find that these early civilizations had no fortifications initially, then some attempt at protecting themselves from these nomadic invaders from the North. The Kurgans. And then total collapse. The article describes it as a period of "stagnation" and culture simply stopped evolving. These excavations point to this conclusion through various artifacts. So we cant just rely on what Mirror Mirror wants to believe happened but what the recovered physical evidence seems to support.

Well, yeah I accept that Christianity is less than 2000 years old. Im not sure how that changes anything. and Im not so sure women had it much better before Christianity though. The world was a pretty brutal place 2000 years ago(and before). Im not so sure that anyone set out to oppress women. I dont think there was much of a choice in gender roles in the past. I dont think women had much "autonomy" in any past civilization. It was just too dangerous for them. This "well ordered", (relatively)peaceful,(somewhat) lawful society we live in now is what makes it possible for you and other women to enjoy your "rights" Krimsa. Its sad but true. The invention of the gun made things much safer for women,but before that women were virtually defensless and had to rely on men for protection from other men.


Anyways, basically Im just saying that Im not doubting that there was goddess worship going on in prehistoric times. I was only drawing a distinction between the "earthgods(esses)" Of the hunter/gatherers and the skygod(esses) of the agrarians. I wasnt making a distinction in the genders of the deities. I dont think it matters.

THE LOST CIVILIZATION

Even in the nineteenth century, when archaeology was still in its infancy, scholars found evidence of societies where women were not subordinate to men. But their interpretation of this evidence was that if these societies were not partriarchies, they must have been matriarchies. In other words, if men did not dominate women, then women must have dominated men. However, this conclusion is not borne out by the evidence. Rather, it is a function of what I have called a dominator society worldview. The real alternative to patriarchy is not matriarchy, which is only the other side of the dominator coin. The alternative, now revealed to be the original direction of our cultural evolution, is what I call a partnership society: a way of organizing human relations in which beginning with the most fundamental difference in our species the difference between female and male diversity is not equated with inferiority or superiority.

What we have until now been taught as history is only the history of dominator species-the record of the male dominant, authoritarian, and highly violent civilizations that began about 5,000 years ago. For example, the conventional view is that the beginning of European civilization is marked by the emergence in ancient Greece of the Indo-Europeans. But the new archaeological evidence demonstrates that the arrival of the Indo-Europeans actually marks the truncation of European civilization. That is, as Marija Gimbutas extensively documents, there was in Greece and the Balkans an earlier civilization, which she calls the civilization of Old Europe. The first Indo-European invasions (by pastoralists from the steppes of the northeast) foreshadow the end of a matrifocal, matrilineal, peaceful agrarian era. Like fingerprints in the archaeological record, we see evidence of how wave after wave of barbarian invaders from the barren fringes of the globe leave in their wake destruction and what archaeologists call cultural impoverishment. And what characterizes these invaders is that they bring with them male dominance along with their angry gods of thunder and war.

The archaeological record shows a dramatic shift after these invasions. We see the disappearance of millennial traditions of art and pottery, a sharp decrease in the size of settlements, the appearance of 11 suttee" chieftain tombs (so called because with the male skeleton are sacrificed women, children, and animals to serve him even after death). Warfare now becomes endemic, along with "strongman" rule, since these invaders, as Gimbutas writes, "worshipped the power of the lethal blade."

One of the most striking manifestations of this change is found in the art. Now begins something dramatically absent before: the idealization of male violence and male dominance in an art that glorifies killing (scenes of "heroic" battles) and rapes (as in Zeus's fabled rapes of both mortal women and goddesses). And equally striking is the transformation of myth. Here, too, "strongman" rule is idealized and even presented as divinely ordained, as the bards, scribes, and priests of the ruling men systematically distort and gradually expunge the myths and images of the civilization of Old Europe from their sacred and secular tales. But although these, too, become distorted, memories of an earlier and better time still linger in folk stories and legends.

In the nineteenth century, the archaeological excavations of Sophia and Heinrich Schliemann established that the Homeric story of the Greek sacking of Troy was historically based. Similarly, the probable historical basis for the legend of Atlantis is now being revealed by twentieth century archaeological excavations. The fabled civilization of Atlantis was said to have ended when large land masses sank into the sea. What geologists and archaeologists now reveal is that approximatelY 3,500 years ago massive earthquakes and tidal waves in the Mediterranean caused large land masses to sink into the sea. For example, as in the legend of Atlantis, most of the island of Thera, or Santorini, was swallowed by the sea.

These cataclysmic events seem to have marked the end of what scholars call Minoan civilization, a highly technologically developed Bronze Age civilization centered in the Mediterranean island of Crete. Minoan Crete had the first paved roads in Europe, and even indoor plumbing. In sharp contrast to other "high civilizations" of antiquity (such as Sumer and dynastic Egypt), Crete had a generally high standard of living, with houses built for both beauty and comfort. Its art, too, is very different from that of Sumer and Egypt: it is so natural, so free, so full of the celebration of life in all its forms, that sober scholars have described it as unique in the annals of civilization for its grace and exuberant joy.

But what really makes Minoan Crete unique is that it was neither a male-dominant nor warlike culture. Archaeologist Nicolas Platon, the former head of the Acropolis Museum and director of antiquities in Crete, notes that this was a "remarkable peaceful society." He also notes that here descent was still traced through the mother and that "the influence of women is visible in every sphere. 114 For example, the only Minoan fresco of tribute is not the conventional picture of an aggrandized king with a sword in his hand and kneeling figures at his feet characteristic of male-dominant ancient civilizations. It is rather the picture of a woman. And instead of sitting on an elevated throne, she is standing with her arms raised in a gesture of benediction as men approach with offerings of fruits, wine, and grains.

In other words, in this highly creative and peaceful society, masculinity was not equated with domination and conquest. Accordingly, women and the "soft" or "feminine" values of caring, compassion, and nonviolence did not have to be devalued. Power was seen as actualizing power -as the capacity to create and nurture life. It was power to, rather than power over: the power to illuminate and transform human consciousness (and with it reality) that is still in our time symbolized by the "feminine vessel," the chalice or Holy Grail..

Very interesting Krimsa. But it sounds like the author is making a LOT of conjectures. Thats a LOT of information about a society 8500 years ago. Im a little suspicious about the veracity of the information the author is presenting. But that being said, its fascinating.Yes, there have always been women priestesses, yes there have always been women rulers and leaders, yes there have been women who did important things. And yes there were female deities (or rather deities represented in female form). The author of this information seems to present women as "nurturing" and "creative" and men as "elite" and "brutal". (Not in the society in Catal Huyuk).That just makes me curious as to the motivations of the author of the information.I just feel that characterization of past societies being deliberately oppressive to women as being mostly inaccurate. No man set out to makeit that way. Its just the way it was (because there wasnt any choice for men or women). No one really had a choice in gender roles until a couple hundred years ago. There was too much danger as Ive explained already in my previous post.

The safer a society is from outside invaders and crime, the more "rights" women have. Thats all this really tells me. I know an island can be invaded. Im just pointing out that an island allows for some measure of protection from wandering dangers and sudden invasion. And yes, I know that women had low status in (mainstream) Greek society. I just read the Illiad and the Odyssey again a couple weeks ago. The Greeks also believed that true love was only between men.

I actually replaced it. I only left it up for a second. You get the point however. Like I say, all this is simply another possible way to look at some of this historical evidence. Its nothing to argue about. Like we were asking you last night, if you have your own information to present to discredit this or prove it erroneous in some respect, please do. Then you just got all mad at us.

I dont think I ever said they weren't invaded. That is what we have been discussing for the past 6 hours mirror!

I didnt say you said they werent invaded. I was refering to the "rights" of women in Minoan society and why they had them. It was on an island. A bit safer in ancient times. I just threw that comment in there in case you or Tribo jump all over it

Well it certainly didnt stop them from falling. Not to mention these other Neolithic civilizations were also invaded by the Indo Europeans. I think the point that is being made here is there was a distinct difference in the cultures and one came into conflict with the other. Im not so sure you can say, well they were safe so the women had more rights. Then what would have stopped their own men from taking over, designing weapons, building up arsenals like these invaders form the north?

I wasnt mad at you two. I think frustrated would be a better description. I didnt understand that was what you and Tribo was asking for. I was just assuming that I was being "attacked". That happens alot in these threads.

No one attacked you. You posted something and I guess we couldn't tell if it was your own summation and opinion or documented by someone else. There is kind of a difference to be fair. It doesn't make this information any more valid because you can still say I dont want to believe it or it doesn't matter. However, generally people like to know where information is coming from. I usually only care if Im going to act on it or I want to pursue it in some respect like look it up or get the book or what have you.

Why are you assuming men want to "take over" and "build weapons"? Im sure women would make weapons too if they had a chance Krimsa. But that doesnt sound like a realistic goal for a society unless they are out to conquer others. But why would they do that unless they needed resources that someone else had? Maybe the Minoans had access to all the resources they needed and therefore did not need to invade other societies.

Your right Krimsa, no one "attacked" me and I realize that now.

knowledge=want and on it goes.

I am not assuming that ALL men want to take over or dominate. That is what you are saying and that women need to be protected from other men and that is the only reason that these particular cultures enjoyed more freedoms and prosperity. I am saying that based on the archeological evidence and what they were able to find, the men in these societies had no reason to waste a lot of time and energy making and designing weapons like the Nomadic tribes did. That wasn't nearly as important to them so in effect they were able to prosper, build stationary societies, indulge in arts and entertainments. Make pots, clothing and rugs. Build elaborate homes. The Minoan culture had indoor plumbing even.

You see when you aren't wasting a lot of energy and time building fortification and protecting yourself from invasion, you tend to have more expendable leisure time in order to enjoy yourself and take on these various other endeavors, therefore, improving the overall quality of the society that you exist in.

I agree.