3 ms·

Regarding „matriarchal character“, what Marija Gumbutienė wrote and how postmodernist society nowadays is (mis)interpreting her writing is very different. It wa

by mantas 3y ago

Regarding „matriarchal character“, what Marija Gumbutienė wrote and how postmodernist society nowadays is (mis)interpreting her writing is very different. It wasn't „matriarchal“ as in ruled-by-women. Instead, those societies were glorifying maternity (and women) through and through. Which is funny when modern feminists try to glorify Gimbutienė and those societies. While doing exactly opposite to what those societies were doing.

guerrilla 3y ago
Yes, I and Renfew know that but he still disagreed with her as do many other anthropoligists. I just read a book by a feminist, Karin Bojs, who concludes basically* what you just said but I don't think she'd appreciate your overheneralized jab at feminists. * Her thesis is that those societies valued women's work which included pottery and textiles in addition to maternity while the later IE societies were overtly patriarchical. Personally I don't think there's enough evidence for anyone's position on this and I'm fine not knowing for now.
- mantas 3y ago
  My stab was more at people who ain’t anthropologists and just take whatever they can fit into their fantasies. I’m not so sure about not valuing women work though. Home goods and arts (fairytales, singing etc) etc were valued for a loooong time. And virtually all IE cultures looove nice items. Heirloom traditions and alll that jazz. I’d argue only industrial revolution changed that. Although more war-oriented man-first cultures popped up all the time. It looks like ultimately they’d conquer Gimbutienė’s Old Europe. But maternal tradition would survive to big extent. Raiding warriors ain’t raising kids. And they have damn hard time controlling how women back home raise the next generation. It’s on women to form and propagate the culture. Well, till recent era. When women are out there raiding the job market and men spend unbelievable amount of time with their offsprings. On the other hand, women have upper hand in public education system which is #1 by time spent with the next generation.

by mantas 3y ago

guerrilla 3y ago

Yes, I and Renfew know that but he still disagreed with her as do many other anthropoligists. I just read a book by a feminist, Karin Bojs, who concludes basically* what you just said but I don't think she'd appreciate your overheneralized jab at feminists. * Her thesis is that those societies valued women's work which included pottery and textiles in addition to maternity while the later IE societies were overtly patriarchical. Personally I don't think there's enough evidence for anyone's position on this and I'm fine not knowing for now.

mantas 3y ago
My stab was more at people who ain’t anthropologists and just take whatever they can fit into their fantasies. I’m not so sure about not valuing women work though. Home goods and arts (fairytales, singing etc) etc were valued for a loooong time. And virtually all IE cultures looove nice items. Heirloom traditions and alll that jazz. I’d argue only industrial revolution changed that. Although more war-oriented man-first cultures popped up all the time. It looks like ultimately they’d conquer Gimbutienė’s Old Europe. But maternal tradition would survive to big extent. Raiding warriors ain’t raising kids. And they have damn hard time controlling how women back home raise the next generation. It’s on women to form and propagate the culture. Well, till recent era. When women are out there raiding the job market and men spend unbelievable amount of time with their offsprings. On the other hand, women have upper hand in public education system which is #1 by time spent with the next generation.