you asked for it...
i wrote this almost 10 years ago, so bear with the rather simplistic writing style.
11/21/94
THE HISTORICAL EFFECTS OF WARFARE UPON THE GODDESS AND FEMALE SEXUALITY
The oldest known religion in the world is that of the Mother Earth Goddess. She reigned supreme for at least 25,000 years throughout the world. The earth, and everything that came from it, was considered sacred, because these earliest peoples knew that they relied solely upon the fruits of the earth for their survival. Small Goddess figures and images have been found on every continent on this planet. Archeological evidence points to gender equanimity in these societies. Sexuality was most likely considered normal, healthy, and sacred, because it begot life. Women were honored for their life-giving powers, and, for the most part, peace reigned.
But about 10,000 years ago, things began to change. Women's bodies began to be considered "dirty" and “sinful,” sex, "unclean," and men began to gain control of almost all aspects of life and culture which had formerly been equally shared by both men and women. What brought this about? Why did it happen? What brought about women's massive loss of power over their lives and bodies?
Archeological considerations
The oldest Paleolithic female figurine ever found is dated circa 30,000 BCE. She is the "Venus" of Galgenberg. She is large and voluptuous, with protruding breasts and a well defined vulva. She has grace and movement, very different from her later "sisters" found, who are often portrayed as somewhat "static and symmetrical" (Lubell, p. 57). Before her discovery in 1988, it was thought that the most ancient known art were rocks found in the Dordogne region of France which had vulva shapes carved upon them. They are dated circa 29, 000 BCE, and represent the vulva as a sacred, life giving force. Oddly, they bear a striking resemblance to large stones found in the Cordilleras of Bolivia, which are also engraved with vulva shapes. These Bolivian stones have not been dated, but this illustrates that the concept of the vulva as sacred was not limited to Europe.
Another "Venus" was found carved into a rock wall, again in the Dordogne region of France. She is full-breasted and wide-hipped, and is shown looking towards a crescent moon she holds in her hand. The moon has thirteen marks incised in it, which is very significant. Thirteen is the number of lunar months in a full year, and the lunar month is closely related to women's menstrual cycles and to their fertility. This carving can be seen to signify that women's cycles were greatly honored in that society.
A Neolithic settlement discovered in Lepenski Vir, Serbia, has been shown by carbon dating to have been settled for almost a thousand years, from about 5410 to 4610 BCE. Fifty four sculptures were found embedded in the floor of the settlement, next to "hearth-altars" (Lubell, p. 73) found. Most of these sculptures are around two to three feet high, and are the "oldest stone monumental sculptures yet discovered" (Lubell, p. 75). Some were carved as faces, some as whole bodies. One is an exact image of a vulva. But the most unique sculpture found is that of a "Fish Goddess." She dates circa 4680 BCE. Her face is that of a fish, her mouth drooping, her eyes staring. She has two small breasts, compressed in the boulder shape, and her hands hold open her vulva. Anthropologists who have studied this area have come to the conclusion that the Fish Goddess was worshipped there as "Mistress of Life and
Death, a generative womb" (Lubell, p. 76).
These are only a few of the thousands of mother goddess figurines ever discovered. They date from 30,000 BCE to 4,000 BCE, though the concept of goddesses has never completely disappeared. However, the above time period is when the Goddess seemed to be a primary deity. While male figures and images have been found from this time period, they are a rarity. This is significant in that it shows that the Goddess, in whatever form, was the main spiritual focus of these early human societies. If one looks at the correlation today between the widely worshipped male god(s) (Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, etc) and the status of men versus women, one wonders what the effects of the widespread worship of a female deity must have been.
The most obvious reason for the worship of a Goddess in the first place seems obvious. Women give birth, and therefore are seen as the creators of life. While the maternity of a child was always obvious, paternity was hard to monitor. This, incidentally, changed around 4000 BCE, when severe sexual restrictions began to be placed on women so that men could ensure the paternity of their children. However, before this, women were the head of the family unit, because they were the only "definite" parent. Land, power, property: these were all passed through the generations by women, from mother to daughters. Hoever, these matrilineal societies were not necessarily matriarchal. "While no cultures have been found where women dominate, there is ample evidence of societies where the sexes are either 'integrated and equal' or 'separate and equal'" (Anderson & Zinsser, p. 13). Many times the brother of a woman who played an important role shared it with her; their relationship was confirmed, because they had the same mother. There is no evidence that men were oppressed or disempowered, it simply seemed more logical to pass down inheritances through the definite parent, the mother.
In these mother-kinship societies, it appears that women enjoyed equality and freedom. They were allowed to choose their sexual and marriage partners, sex outside of marriage was generally accepted and in some societies, polyandry was the norm. Women were very active in the spiritual life of their clans, acting as priestesses, holy women, and healers. They were warriors, they were involved in business (in agricultural societies). In short, there were many less restrictions placed upon women of that time period than the ones that were to become the dominant paradigm throughout the world.
This was a time period when women were greatly respected. They may have been regarded with a kind of awe, even fear, because of their regenerative powers. Menstruation may have been seen as an almost threatening power. Certainly it inspired a type of envy ("womb envy", perhaps?). This is can be interpreted from the fact that men's rituals that marked their passage from boyhood to manhood "often involve symbolic equivalents to menstruation or childbearing: bloodletting, scarification, the courageous bearing of pain." (Anderson & Zinsser, p. 12) Woman's role of mother gave them a definite value and function. This may have been threatening to men. Many psychologists argue that "men have a greater fear of - and thus, need to dominate and control- women then women have of men." (Anderson & Zinsser, p. 12)
Why did it happen?
Men's need to control women has obviously prevailed for thousands of years. But the question is, why? When, and why, did the switch from matrilineal to patrilineal occur? What situation came about which enabled men to take over?
A recurring theory seems to be that it had to do with the birth of warrior cultures. As the human population grew, different groups of people began to infringe on each others' territories, competing for the same resources, especially in the area of hunting. Warring against neighboring groups of people became the means for a group's survival. As these conditions grew, so did the tendency to subordinate women. "Female subordination appeared only where there was such ecological and social stress." (Anderson & Zinsser, p.13) As these formerly mostly peaceful cultures transformed into warrior cultures, the weapons used were hunting weapons. weapons. Men became the primary warriors, since in most hunting-gathering societies, men were the primary hunters, and the ones most trained in the use of hunting weapons, most likely because men possessed (on average) greater physical strength than women, and women stayed closer to home to care for their children. "Male monopoly of these weapons and the skills to use them can easily lead to male dominance of women, either through action or the threat of force." (Anderson & Zinsser, p. 14).
Destruction became valued over fertility. War over sexuality.
In cultures where war is the primary means of survival, men, as warriors, have a value and a function, as women have always had because of their childbearing capacities. This is an “incentive” for men to perpetuate the warrior mentality. Though all warrior cultures were not patriarchal (the Amazons being a notable exception), that seemed to have been be the general trend.
Once there is an established tendency towards male warfare, women need male protection from other male warriors, especially if a woman is pregnant or nursing. Although this protection often results in her own subordination, she must do it for her own survival and that of her group and her offspring.
At this point, the sacred value of women's bodies, their menstruation, their sexuality, begins to become devalued. The appearance of menstrual taboos to protect men from "contamination" is one of the first examples of this. Today's attitudes towards menstruation still reflect these taboos, though clearly they exist more prevalently in some cultures than others.
Following this came the penalties for women who had pre- or extra-marital sex. This was most likely instituted for the purpose of controlling paternity. For, as men gained control over women, it was no longer consistent for women to have control over their own property, land, children and lives. So penalties were instituted; death by stoning being a prime example.
It is interesting to note that some of the dramatic changes which occurred concerning women's status in these areas happened over a period of only a few hundred years.
For example, in Sumer, at about 2000 BC, rapists were put to death. However, in the laws of Assyria, between 1450 and 1250 BC, if a man raped a woman, the husband or father of that woman should then rape the rapist's wife or daughter and/or marry his own daughter to the rapist. Hebrew law dictated that the raped woman should marry her rapist, unless she was engaged or married already, in which case she should be put to death. This law clearly illustrates the concern over paternity, for there is no other clear reason that a rape victim should be killed, except that she may be carrying a child with an ambiguous father. The law about raping the rapist's wife or daughter shows the attitude of women as property. If you raped a woman, it was her male owner you were offending, not her, by defiling his property. Interesting, that women so quickly went from controlling property to becoming it.
There are so many other examples of this change. The Adam and Eve story is a good one. Eve was tempted by a serpent. The serpent has historically been a symbol of the Goddess in many regions throughout the world. This story is, among other things, an attempt (successful, as it turns out) to discredit the Goddess and put a male God firmly into place. And then there is the whole concept of Adam creating Eve. This is blatantly counterintuitive to biological truths. It is obviously women who create – give birth to - men, not the other way around. Goddess societies honored women for their ability to create life. This story strips that honor away from women and uses it to make men appear all powerful. It upsets the balance in a number of ways and creates gender disparities which factor into the disempowerment of women.
The conquering of the Goddess and all she represented had extreme repercussions on human history (herstory?). And although we will probably never know for sure what brought it about, the dominant theory seems to be that of increasing human population, a greater value placed upon competition and male warfare, and therefore, an increasing desire to control paternity and male control of property. The patrilineal control which resulted and which still exists in our social structures today is a curious phenomenon. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is interesting to contemplate why this happened. Was it natural selection? Were aggressive, dominating men and submissive, acquiescing women selected for? Were these traits necessary for human survival because of the increasing population?
There is also the possibility that these traits were introduced into our cultures simply because of male desire for power. They may actually have nothing to do with survival at all. It is a very human trait to dominate that which is easily dominated, and, with the birth of the warrior cultures, it became easier and easier for men to physically dominate women. And eventually, this domination led to almost complete male control, for thousands of years.
Now, things are changing again. Women, at least in most "civilized" countries, are no longer killed with the consent of the prevailing legal authorities if they are raped or if they have pre or extra-marital sex. They are allowed to own property, and control their own lives to a large extent. They are not property. But, of course, there is still a long way to go. Two-thirds of the women who are killed in the United States are killed by their lovers or husbands. One out of four women will be raped in their lifetime. And the list goes on. But women's status today is an improvement from what it was according to, for example, the ancient Hebrew laws. And it will continue to improve.
For me, it is helpful to know the sources of my oppression so that I can more effectively battle them. But it is fascinating from anyone's viewpoint to examine one of the most radical changes in human history, a change in which social, economic, political, sexual, and spiritual values dramatically shifted. The change from matriarchy to patriarchy, from Goddess to God, from peace to war. This change could be considered the most significant episode to affect our collective fate as humans.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Bonnie S. and Zinsser, Judith P.
A History of Their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present, Volume 1. 1st Edition. New York: Harpercollins, 1988.
Lubell, Winifred Milius.
The Metamorphosis of Baubo: Myths of Woman's Sexual Energy. 1st Edition. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1994.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
another interesting article on this topic
here
