Talk:The First Sex/Archive 1

The Intro

I re-inserted this paragraph at the end of the intro: "Although many of her views are considered unsupported by most anthropologists and archaeologists today, a number of writers have continued to develop the themes that Davis originated (Eisler)."

WARNING: For those of you new to the article, there are a few here who repeatedly delete almost anything you'll add to the article. Typically no reasons are given for the deletions. Even though the above statement is a weaker one than what preceded it, its strength is that it's backed by an outstanding writer, Riane Eisler, whose books continue to be published by an outstanding American publisher.

And yet it was deleted this morning, with no explanation given.

This is in blatant violation of Wiki rules, and yet Wiki seems unable to stop this kind of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athana (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Athana (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's another great example of what's happening at this site:

This morning I added this scholarly, documented statement: "Eisler notes that The First Sex was a "pioneering work focusing on the role of women in history," one written with "no institutions or learned colleagues for support...". It was a landmark in history, putting "women back into the places from which they were erased by androcratic historians." (Eisler p. 149)"

By noon, it was deleted. No explanation was given. Athana (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd stop putting your comments randomly throughout this page (new threads go at the bottom, as do new comments if possible) then they wouldn't be so easily missed. Also, it's hard to distil any sense from your rambling diatribes. Please stick to the point and drop the commentary and useless threats, or you will probably be blocked. If you can give the full reference for Eisler I will add it for you, even though you have been very rude. --Verbal (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The above comment didn't print out totally, so I'm printing it again: Here's another great example of what's happening at this site:

This morning I added this scholarly, documented statement: "Eisler notes that The First Sex was a "pioneering work focusing on the role of women in history," one written with "no institutions or learned colleagues for support...". It was a landmark in history, putting "women back into the places from which they were erased by androcratic historians." (Eisler p. 149)"

By noon, it was deleted. No explanation was given. Athana (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire notion of scholarship is being attacked at this site. I have only so much energy to spare. I have added and readded possibly up to 40 or 50 statements here, only to have them deleted again. I'm calling on everyone who has a simple respect for knowledge, truth, accuracy and scholarship to come and help me keep this site accurate and scholarly. Yes, Davis' notions in The First Sex are hard for many if not most men to bear, but that's no reason to trash truth, accuracy and scholarship. Athana (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE that there's a message above signed --"Verbal" Clicking on "Verbal" shows Verbal is really SesquipedalianVerbiage, the man who has been deleting scores of entries from this article with no explanation. Athana (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've changed my sig to Verbal as I don't like the sobriquet "Ses". Yours, --Verbal (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (still SesquipedalianVerbiage)

NO, it is not a joke.

The way it is written is as sexist, insulting and ill-informed as anything on this site, and I'd say that even if it didn't insult me in its text. Her claims are controversial, but not "utterly ridiculous." As one who is researching a book about The First Sex, I can tell you that more and more research supports the theory of Female Primacy. It is not necessarily the idea that women are superior, but rather that the female comes first. That is a genetic reality obscured by the text as it exists right now.

"It is no secret that, underneath it all, men are basically genetically modified women."
-- geneticist Bryan Sykes, Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men

from one of my blog posts:

From Adam's Curse by Bryan Sykes, 2004:
"a cascade of other genes, as yet unknown, that diverted the embryo from it's natural course of development into a female and instead channelled it onto a different path, the path that leads to maleness."

From Steve Jones, in his book Y:The Descent of Man, published in 2003:
Intro, page xiiii
"switch the embryo from its first and feminine state."

Page 1 :
"...biology proves that man, and not woman, is the second sex. His sole task is to fecundate his spouse, but quite why he does it remains a mystery. To divide is more efficient than to unite, and everyone has a history of a single sexual event when sperm met egg, followed by billions of cell divisions without its benefit. Untold numbers of species manage without even that masculine moment and for most of the time do not seem to mourn its absence"

From The Redundant Male, published in 1983 by Jeremy Cherfas and John Gribbin"

Page 6:
"Females could reproduce on their own if the egg cells could be induced to develop on their own. But males can never do so. Their sex cells, or gametes, have no store of food to use in the first stages of development. Males, from the level of gametes upwards, are utterly dependent on females in order even to enter life's lottery, and at a fundamental level the egg cell can be regarded as a resource for which sperm cells compete. If, for whatever reason, sexual reproduction loses its evolutionary edge and an asexual mutation arises, it must always be the female that provides the basis of the new line and the male that falls by evolution's wayside. This applies to our own species as much as any other. Men are at best parasites on women, and at worst totally redundant in the immediate evolutionary scheme."

Page 51:
"we want to repeat that, in some fundamental sense, women, like all female mammals, come first; the old Adam and Eve story is precisely wrong, even as an allegory.

In the interest of neutrality, the article should be re-written to explain Davis' theory and describe the opposition to it, rather than take a side and ridicule something I'm quite sure no one here has taken the time to actually research. This is an area in which the conventional wisdom is patently wrong, yet most people will never know that. They're given theories and half-truths in school and only the most motivated "radical feminist" is going to do the kind of research necessary to get the whole story.

I don't expect Wikipedia to advocate the theory. I do expect Wikipedia to present the theory without assuming that it is wrong. I'm an educated and careful person, I don't waste my time on theories with no merit. Until one has read my sources, there is no basis to dismiss my conclusions, or Davis'. It's obvious the person who ruined this article hasn't bothered to do anything but the most shallow research into this subject.

Wiki Destroyed by Fundamentalist, Right-Wing Christians ?

Last night, without warning, someone deleted four serious, scholarly bibliographic entries I added to this article. They also deleted the photo I'd spent much time finding and sourcing. Finally, they deleted a paragraph I'd worked hard on and had added to the opening of the article.

And then I just now noticed that the only bib entry added to this article (before I added mine) was one published by a right-wing Christian press, Spence Publishing. I think it's common knowledge by now that the majority of fundamentalist right-wing Christians would love to drown science and serious scholarship in a bucket.

This is not the first Wiki article I've found hounded and destroyed by right-wing fundamentalists, who are admittedly anti-science, anti-rational thinking, and anti everything Wiki stands for.

I call upon Wiki admins to determine who is infecting this article. Please do something to save the whole Wiki concept from being taken down by Anti-Science. Athana (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions and conspiracy theories to yourself, per WP:TALK. Feel free to add the references back, in their proper place, using the ref template (see WP:REF), as I asked you on your talk page. I have made no judgement on the references themselves, but I do not know where they properly belong. A random list of references at the end of the article adds nothing. Please remember to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and be civil (WP:CIVIL). The picture was removed along with a series of non-encyclopaedic edits, feel free to discuss your changes in a new section below to justify them/gain consensus. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory": what a convenient term to hide behind! I'll have to remember that one. So was it you, Ses, who just deleted four of the academic references I added yesterday? References written by highly respected academicians (take Neumann and Briffault for example)?

Might I ask if it was also you who added the reference published by the right-wing fundamentalist Christian publishing company from Texas?

What's to justify about my scant change to the intro of this article? "Davis' views on a Great Goddess predominating in Neolithic Europe and the Near East were supported by a number of mid-20th-century academicians, including Eric Neumann and Robert Briffault." What in the world do you want justified about that? It justifies itself!

Do you have degrees in anthropology or archaeology? What are your degrees in? Have you had any training in academic writing, research? I made a statement above, and referenced it with two sources: Briffault and Neumann. What the heck more do you want?

See, this is what I mean by Wiki being destroyed. You are behaving in a totally unreasonable manner. Every time I add anything to the site, you're there like a hawk, deleting it. This is not being rude, it's just a question: is someone paying you to sit and delete anything that comes in to this article that doesn't fit into their premeditated notions of the universe?

The photo: Again: what's to justify? It's a photo of a Great Goddess. Davis' book is in part about the Great Goddess. This is a photo of a Great Goddess from the Neolithic. The goddesses Davis writes about come most often from the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.

I want to ask you something now, Ses. What reason did you have for deleting the photo of this goddess? Did you not see the connection between (a) DAvis' emphasis on goddess, and (b) the fact that this foto was a goddess?

Have you read The First Sex? If not, why are you hovering over this article and deleting items added by people like me? I've both read the book and also have advanced degrees in both anthropology and archaeology. Can you say the same? Can you lay claim to even one of these three qualifications? Please: What are your qualifications for adding or deleting anything here? Athana (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A rant is not a justification. Please read more about wikipedia, you might want to read Wikipedia:5 Pillars and WP:Not as well as the other references I have given you. Wikipedia does not rely on arguments from authority. As you ask, I have a PhD and I am a published scientific author; this is, however, irrelevant, as is my sex or my political leanings. Your combative and aggressive tone is not appreciated and will not get you very far on wikipedia. I am not the only person reverting or revising your edits, and if you would justify them here we might understand them better. I will not respond to further vitriol. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone just deleted the last comment I made here. I'm going to try to remember it and insert it again: Ses just left me a private message saying I might be prevented from working on this article. The reason: He (or someone) has repeatedly deleted TWO SENTENCES and a PHOTO I've added. Both additions are completely reasonable. I have supported both in this section and in the edit summaries I've left. Yet someone keeps deleting them. So I reinsert them.

I have advanced degrees in anthro and archaeology. I have read The First Sex. The deleters have not read The First Sex (or if they have, they refuse to respond to repeated questions about whether they've read it). The deleters do not have degrees in anthro or archaeology.

In sum, if I'm banned from the site and the deleters aren't, I know at least three editors who would love to hear about it (I'm also a published writer -- wasting my time on this website -- which seems obviously hellbent for disaster). Athana (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't left you a private message (they are public). The history of this talk page doesn't seem to show a comment has been deleted, please provide a diff. The history of the article shows who has done what, and your edit summaries do not justify your changes. You have been asked to justify them here and so far you haven't. You are very unlikely to be banned for breaking the 3RR, merely blocked for a short time. Editors can be banned for personal attacks and incivility. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Athana, I'm a previously uninvolved editor who has come here from the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. What would you like to happen at this stage? Is there material you believe to be well sourced that you would like to see reinstated? Please not that we are unlikely to take action against editors just because we think we can identify a particular point of view in their edits, but we can take action if they are pushing a point of view in defiance of the rules. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses, I did indeed justify my edit summaries. Look again.Athana (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, yes, I'd love to reinsert the material I believe to be well sourced. Although I didn't save all of it, I did save some. Thanks for helping with this. Should I just go ahead and reinsert it? Athana (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

judith, someone's deleting my bibliographic references again. They delete only a few at a time. This morning I added 4 back in. Five minutes ago I noticed that someone had inserted a "Citation needed" in the paragraph I'd inserted into the Intro to the article. The reason? The bib ref. had been deleted (to Briffault). So I reinserted Briffault -- for the third or fourth time.

Now I just looked again, and there's a "cn" note for another bib reference of mine that was deleted within the last five minutes.

If I put my stuff up again (for the 15th, maybe 20th time), CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT IT WON'T JUST BE ripped OFF AGAIN IN 5 MIN? Because if you can't, there's no reason for me to continue. I'll just make a record of this whole sorry mess, and submit my article to someone -- about the futility of writing anything for Wiki that Fundamentalists might target, and about how the Fundamentalists are writing many articles on Wiki by default.

If I had time to sit here all day and plug the holes they're continually punching in the dyke, I might consider doing it -- just for the sake of intellectual integrity and honesty. But I don't have that time. I've already used up almost an entire day just trying to undo the damage these people keep re-inflicting on just one section of this article (I gave up on the other sections).

I might be wrong, but I do suspect it's fundamentalists doing this. I've run into them before on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athana (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Athana, you do no good for the article or your own credibility by complaining that them evil fundamentalists are reverting your work. Edits should be criticized on merit, not on ad hominem suspicions. Also, I think perhaps you're unfamiliar with the history link. You can check out who's done what and (hopefully) why on the history page for the article. Lastly, I'm not sure your veiled threats about an article on Wikipedia fundamentalists is having the effect you desire. Phiwum (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All the edits are still there in the history - you can easily see them still. Also, the reference has been properly included in the reference list. It's reference number 1. Look at how the reference was added to see how it should be done, or read the links I gave you. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Phiwum: "Veiled" threats? No, this was a bald statement of fact. Give me your address and I'll send you the article when I'm done. The world needs more speaking up about how unreliable Wiki is.

And "evil" fundamentalists? I didn't call them that. Why are you using that loaded term about this group when you're lecturing me about civility? I've seen right-wing Christians wrecking other Wiki articles. Don't believe me if you don't want to. You might not honor my credibility, but quite a few on the the "outside" do. Athana (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can deny that you consider "right-wing Fundamentalist Christians" a pejorative term. It's a real plausible denial and everything, honest it is, but the fact remains that you're engaging in ad hominem attacks. Even pretending for a moment that all them folks you think are Fundamentalists really are Fundamentalists, that's just plumb beside the point. And there's sure no reason to think you're right.

You should drop these insinuations. Just deal with the article itself and stop trying to make inferences about other editors' motives. Phiwum (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ses: I don't have time to check "history." I added a bib. ref. to Neumann to this article at least three or four times. It's now gone again. And someone's made it look like there never WAS a reference to Neumann.

Instead of lecturing me repeatedly, why don't you two gentlemen spend some time getting to the bottom of who's deleting Neumann repeatedly?Athana (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in the bloody history. It wouldn't take three minutes to find out. Phiwum (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it's one of you deleting Neumann repeatedly (and my other bib refs), might I remind you that Wiki says writers may enter bib entries any way they wish. And others may "clean them up". Wiki does NOT, however, condone the deletion of excellent bib entries that would support info others may not wish to see for personal, political reasons, added to the article. Athana (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The history page not only tells you what was changed, it tells you who changed it. That may not make you any happier, but at least you will know who is making you unhappy.Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To Athana: What makes you think I'm a man? That would be as silly as my assuming you're a woman. Why don't you read the reference list at the end of the article, maybe then you'll calm down and apologise after seeing that the references you claim are being deleted are still there (numbers 1 and 2). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image

Although the image is pretty, it only seem tangentially related to the article. Also, it has no copyright information, and is likely to be deleted soon. Could a justification for its presence please be provided below, and can Athena fix the copyright info (I'll leave a note on your talk too). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

DEAR WIKI ADMINS: this is another fabulous example of the harrassment writers routinely face on this site. The pic has had copyright, authorial and other info attached to it from the beginning (click on the squares below the pic). I've also explained previously how the pic relates almost perfectly to The First Sex. Wiki admins had called for a pic for the article. I went to great trouble to find and provide one. I referenced it. I explained it. Yet I've been harrased about it from the beginning.

I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THE PHOTO'S SIGNIFICANCE ONE MORE TIME (this'll make another beautiful example for the article I'm going to write about male harrassment of women on Wiki): Elizabeth Gould Davis, in The First Sex, writes often about the ancient Great Goddess. Her Chapter 3, "The Golden Age and the Blessed Lady," is about the Great Goddess. Her chapter 15 is "Mary and the Great Goddess." Chapter 4 begins with the section "The Great Goddess." Ch. 13 ends with the Great Goddess: "Lugh and the Great Goddess." Gould Davis writes about the Great Goddess on the following pages (Penguin, 1971); 47 ff, 59-62, 63-72, 73-75, 105-09, 143, 145, 179, 222-25, and 243 ff.

The photo I've selected -- which came from Wikimedia -- is a photo of one representing a series of ancient predynastic Egyptian goddesses called "the bird goddess." In place of arms, she hsa the wings of a bird. In place of a human head, she has a bird's head. The ancient predynastic Egyptians made several copies of her.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing how many Wiki articles have had photos tagged because someone thought the photos didn't relate to a sufficient degree to the content of the article.

Here's the note left on my talk page:

" tag has been placed on Image:304px-PredynasticFemaleFigurine BrooklynMuseum.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image with an unknown source or an unknown copyright status which has been tagged as such for more than 7 days, and it still lacks the necessary information.

"If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding (removed) to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"I removed the tag as some information appears in the file history. If you could fill in the table on the page with the required information, that would be great and ensure it doesn't get deleted. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Athana""

It seems very likely to me that ses and the others who keep deleting any and everything I add to this article are deeply and emotionally disturbed over Gould Davis' book. I'd guess it takes a strong man to handle a book the cover of which baldly states that is it "The book that proves that woman's contribution to civilization has been greater than man's."

But as ses and the others have been so fond of telling me, Wiki isn't about feelings and emotions. It's about reporting the facts. I may or may not agree with anything in The First Sex. I am, however, as a scholar, deeply committed to keeping intellectual dishonesty out of scholarship. Athana (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image has now been deleted and I've replaced it with a link to the commons, but I still don't think it's entirely relevant to the subject of the article (a picture of the book might be better). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)

Athana, please stop the ad hominem insinuations. There is no reason to think that SesquipedalianVerbiage's edits are motivated by male insecurity and it would be irrelevant even if it were true. Please stick to the issues at hand. Phiwum (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Off topic

per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is in trouble. The group that does 90% of the work on it has (1) not read The First Sex, and (2) has admitted they have little or no knowledge of the areas the article pertains to (archaeology, anthropology, history, women's studies). If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia currently consists of thousands of articles. I would respectfully suggest that this small group consider moving on to lend their considerable expertise to one or more of these many other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.93.73 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC) So far as I can see from your contributions, you have only contributed to an article on Trust Busting. How does that make you qualified to ask people to stop editing this article? Doug Weller (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC) I'm collapsing this as it is not relevant to the article, per WP:TALK. Verbal chat 16:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

This page could use a re-write. I've tried to make some minor changes, but the presentation is pretty poor as it is. Repeatedly, we hear that Gould Davis "shows" some controversial claim rather than "argues" for it. This presents an apparent POV problem which is not alleviated by the very short presentation of criticisms.

The critics claim (in part) that Gould Davis's theory of a matriarchy is unsupported by archealogical evidence. Doesn't this deserve more than a sentence? Also, the criticisms section mention that men aren't really "mutants". Did Gould Davis claim that men are mutants? If so, shouldn't this rather surprising and significant claim appear in the discussion of her text?

Finally, the writing is a bit breathless at places. Could we please break up long sentences like the final one (regarding Eller's rebuttal) to short, digestible sentences?

Sorry I won't volunteer to make these changes myself, but I'm not familiar with the material. Phiwum 09:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I recently reverted some very POV arguments from this page. I am therefore asking that other people review this page for other POV problems that I may have missed. Thank you. Shimaspawn 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is becoming steadily worse, I'm afraid. The original problems with presentation have not been improved. Nor have any criticisms been properly introduced. Instead, a recent anonymous editor has added uncited claims that Davis's evidence is "dubious" or non-existent. That's not the way to create an NPOV article!

If someone knows of existing literature critical of this thesis and wants to take the time to add references, that would be helpful. As well, anyone with the time and inclination to fix the existing text would be appreciated. Phiwum 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added references at least half a dozen times, and someone keeps deleting them. I wish someone with more time than I have would determine who's doing this, and put a stop to it, if possible. I've also tried to use shorter sentences, and someone rewrote my work into a 7-line sentence that was grammatically incorrect. In response to admin's request for a photo, I spent hours researching and adding a photo -- only to have it deleted several times. Unfortunately, this behavior seems to UNDERSCORE ELIZABETH GOULD DAVIS' MAJOR THESIS: that women are superior to men (I strongly suspect -- but of course can't prove -- that's it's one or more men working to wreck this article. They do a great discredit to men everywhere, since it makes it only that much more obvious that men seem prone to exceedingly transparent attempts at destroying vs. building the world and the things in it). Sorry, men, but this is an article about your shortcomings, so let's look at the issue square on, shall we? Athana (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict comments to the article itself, rather than the inferiority of the second sex. You seem to be the only editor adding overtly sexist comments like this and they are thoroughly inappropriate. Phiwum (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Miss-attribution of source

I want to go on record here stating that although I've contributed much to this article, it was not I who added the statement "some scholars today support the hypothesis that institutionalized warfare arose only after the rise of the state (ca. 4000 BC)."

Educated people reading this will shake their heads and wonder what kind of an entity Wiki is that it could allow such a totally false statement to pass as fact. Although the original statement I made was accurate, it was repeatedly changed into this laughably erroneous statement. I would guess that I tried to change this one, small statement back to its accurate form at least a dozen times before giving up. Actually, even replacing the "some" in this sentence with "most" is probably inaccurate. I really don't know anyone who knows anything about history who would say that institutionalized warfare existed anywhere on the planet before 4000 BC. Also, let it be known that the same group that keeps changing this one, small fact into falsehood, are doing the same thing over the entire article. 72.227.93.73 (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell us what your preferred wording is/was, and which reference supports it, and where the mistaken reference correctly belongs. Also, if you've edited this article before, could you log in using that account please. Many thanks. Verbal chat 16:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Recently I reverted unverifiable criticisms found in this article. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable to include criticisms but they must not be a product of original research. Consequently, such criticisms require a citation that verifies that so-and-so made this criticism. Else, the result violates both OR and POV policies.

Jokerst44 has recently undone my reverts without any argument that the criticisms do not violate this policy.

I hope that this clarifies why I found the criticisms I removed unacceptable for a WP article. Once again, by all means we should include references to criticisms made by others (at least notable criticisms or by notable others). But WP cannot include original criticisms and still fulfill the role that it has. Phiwum 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the note in the intro that indicates a citation is needed to support the citations given that support the thesis presented. A thesis was presented. Citations were given in support. No reasonable person expects a citation be given to support citations given. This is another signal that emotions are clouding the accuracy of this article. Athana (talk) 01:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea which note you're referring to and a quick check of the history didn't help. Could you be more specific? Also, claiming that emotions are clouding the accuracy is once again an ad hominem. Please cut it out. (As well, it would be swell if you put your comments in appropriate places. Here, it appears as if you're replying to a year-old message that was about a very different article.) Phiwum (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I've found the note (I think). You were perhaps referring to the following fact tag?

Although many of her views are considered unsupported by most anthropologists and archaeologists today, a number of writers, including Merlin Stone, Riane Eisler, and UCLA archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, have continued to develop the themes that Davis originated.

The issue here is that this passage asserts the above writers "have continued to develop the themes that Davis originated." I think the editor who added this tag felt that this assertion needs a citation. Who says that these authors are developing Davis's themes? The authors themselves? If so, a citation to the authors' works suffices. Someone else? A citation to that effect suffices.

At least that's what I think the fact tag is for. SesquipedalianVerbiage added the tag and so can clarify. Phiwum (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

The article should make clear that her claims are utterly ridiculous, not just small mistakes. Misodoctakleidist 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the article should clearly state the published criticisms of her theory. Wikipedia reports evaluations. We do not evaluate claims ourselves. (That doesn't mean I disagree with your assessment, only that we must carefully adhere to NPOV.) Phiwum 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have phrased it wrong. What I meant is that the article doesn't quite convey the strength of scientific disagreement. It contains a false sense of balance that makes the claims of the book appear more mainstream than they really are.

By all means, add citations to published criticism. I agree that the article could use more, but I don't know the subject well and don't personally care to research it. Phiwum 03:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I just edited the article, and I think I managed to give a balanced view of both positions, with citations on both sides. That's the best you're probably going to be able to do. I'll be checking this page frequently. The feminist scholars working in this area aren't going to take efforts to make Davi's work look ridiculous lightly. Too many people who haven't done the research want to include their prejudices in this article. Misogyny masquerading as outrage doesn't relect well on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgaine Swann (talk • contribs) 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have simply failed to give it a balanced view. Each criticism is downplayed. Indeed, one would hardly know that there is any factual controversy at all: it's just a bunch of patriarchy-funded fuddleduds refusing to give the book an objective reading. I particularly dislike the closing, which is partly prophetic ("The controversy will continue"), partly ad hominem ("Scientists and academicians who rely on funding from the institutions of patriarchy may never accept Davis' theory.") and partly self-promotional.

I think that this article has to get across a basic fact: the First Sex has not been accepted by anthropologists and has not influenced their work at all (please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm no expert on either Gould Davis or anthropology). It has been accepted by feminists, perhaps, but they are not the experts in this field (were I to engage in ad hominem, I might point out that the theory is naturally attractive to some feminists). The geneticists are not, as far as I can tell, supporting the real assertions of the first sex in the least. They are speaking about biological, not social, relations.

I appreciate the work you've done and I appreciate the note asking that I check out the article. I'm sure that you've put in the effort in order to improve the article and remove POV concerns, but I'm not sure it's been totally successful. Phiwum (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you might think that, and for the most part, I don't mind most of the changes you made. I only mentioned my own work because it was already cited in the article in a very negative light. No argument that it would be better to wait until it's published. However, I clearly stated throughout that most - but not all - academics disagreed. It is no more accurate or non-POV to state that all academics oppose the theory than to say what I said. Matters of funding and patriarchal indoctrination DO factor into this argument and that should be stated.

It is inaccurate to say that none of the feminist scholars working in this area have credentials equal to those who oppose Davis's theory. There are quite a few PhD.s on the side of Herstory and the number is growing rapidly, especially in academic circles in America and Germany. The SOCIETIES OF PEACE: Past, Present and Future, The Second World Congress on Matriarchal Studies which was held September 29 – October 2, 2005 in San Marcos, Texas drew thousands of participants from all over the world. Evidence of many surviving matriachies like the Mosuo of China and the Haudenosaunee of the Iroquois Nation was presented by both academicians and members of those societies. Davis' theory is not without support by archeological findings.

It seems very inappropriate to me to have deleted sources that support Davis theory, described here by saying men are "mutants," that males are a genetic derivative of the female. That's a biological fact. It shouldn't matter that the citations weren't replying directly to Davis - she's been dead for almost 40 years - but that her premise was correct. Many of her ideas had previously been published by Sir Ashley Montagu, a respected scientist, in book called The Natural Superiority of Women. He didn't agree with the "ancient matriarchy theory" because he was writing in the 50's before most of that work was done, but a lot of her work was based on his research. In it, Montagu states clearly:

“...the evidence drawn from many different sources indicates that early societies were in most cases egalitarian, that this is also true of most indigenous societies that exist today, that the subjugation of women has not always been the rule, but constitute a late social phenomenon, and that it was roughshod invaders who conquered the egalitarian socieities and imposed upon them government and rule by males together with the subjugation of women.“

Note that the matriarchies we are discussing were egalitarian - women didn't dominate men, but culture was seen to proceed from them and from the Great Goddess. It's not "patriarchy in a skirt" with the women violently subjugating men.

If you won't allow any of the sources that suport Davis' position, then you shouldn't allow the inclusion of Cynthia Eller's vindictive diatribe, especially the statement that it wouldn't matter to women if it were true. That is an opinion wholly unsupported by fact. It would matter a great deal to a great many women, I assure you.

I'll be happy to accept an article that doesn't take sides. This one still does. If you want more documentation, just let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgaine Swann (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just added a few paragraphs to the "Influences" section of this article, updating it with more recent data. I also added several references to the reference section. Athana (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes made to this section include the following: 1. Added a list of writers currently defending the ideas of Gould Davis. 2. Direct quote from Eisler on the historical importance of The First Sex. 3. Names of preeminent and influential scholars who now support certain of Gould Davis' notions Athana (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ses... deleted everything I added above, with no explanation except to say he didn't think the list of writers defending Gould Davis "belonged there." I am reinserting everything I added, because all of it is excellent. And, I have more excellent material for my article on the way in which certain people hover around this article and do nothing but vandalize. Once again, ses -- bravo! You've provided us with a gorgeous example of slash-and-burn! Thank you! Gould Davis' would be ecstatic knowing that a live version of the focus of her book is here to illustrate her work!Athana (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A Funny Note

I just notice that Max Dashu was referred to as a "he." This is exactly what I thought initially, and when I looked up further information, I found out that said "Max" was female (obviously a feminist). I've made the necessary corrections, but it was worth a laugh at the irony. If anyone could tag this article with some "help" notices, that would be great, because it is in need of a rewrite, and while I strongly support bashing of misandry disguised as feminism, I realize that a factual and unbiased message is the most important thing. Most of the criticisms are great, by the way; maybe someone more familiar with Wikipedia can format and edit them.Robinson0120 11:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree this article could use some help. I wish I remembered how to attract attention to it. Phiwum 16:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping into an existing conversation, but it seems to me that this article is an excellent example of the larger problems of actually implementing a "neutral" (as opposed to "nonexistent") POV, and resolving those issues here would be valuable to improving the article.

First of all, it's hard to find any reference book that does not have some POV, and usually it isn't neutral: compare the 11th edition Britannica to the current one, for example, starting by simply counting the number of lines given in each to subjects in the sciences, arts, literature and so on. This clearly shows POV right at the start. To refute this example by simply asserting that science is more important today than it was 100 years ago itself demonstrates a POV. (The point could be expanded and more examples given but I'm sure it's so obvious as not to need belaboring.)

Second, the range of entries on this very page--from a suggestion that seemingly argues that the author of the questioned article's bias is too evident, to one that seems to suggest that s/he doesn't refute Gould Davis with sufficient strength--indicate two other real-world problems with "neutrality": definition and quantification. It's rather like the FCC's old "Fairness Doctrine"--what should be the standard of "Fairness"? How many minutes of what kind of speech offsets 15 minutes of Rush Limbaugh? And who will watch the watchers? "Neutrality" is a slippery bit of Jello to nail to a tree.

And last, exactly what purpose is served by neutrality? The great strength of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is its democracy, and I am afraid that democracy flourishes better in Hyde Park than (for example) the groves of Academe where peer review ensures that only ideas accepted by the gatekeepers of the mainstream ever get discussed. User Phiwum makes what I think is the best point of all in his/her last post--"I wish I remembered how to attract attention to [this article]." While I fully understand that Wikipedia's gatekeeper's have committed themselves to NPOV and that since it's their ball we all have to play by their rules, I also feel that if we users get so caught up in our own underwear trying to massage each article until it's sufficiently neutral we could accomplish by self-censorship what no dictator could do: suck the blood out of Wikipedia so no one pays attention to it. By all means, follow the rules and ensure that Gould Davis's ideas and their detractors are exposed and edit out prejudicial terms in order to eliminate inferential deceit. That's decent writing, not NPOV, and anyone--even one not versed in a particular subject but with a love of language--can do it here or elsewhere in Wikipedia. If a resulting article equally upsets both its subject's supporters and detractors it probably is NPOV. As long as the great community monitors its members to maintain standards of integrity and civility, the goal of universal knowledge will be met better than through PC policing.

I throw this out to the people who have written these posts because you seem to be an informed and alert group of thinkers and writers, not to pick a fight but engage in a conversation specifically relevant to this article. If anyone wants to continue it in broader terms, I'd be delighted. Sincerely, Clay2

Here's another funny note. When ses just trashed everything I wrote this morning, he replaced it with "Some writers have defended the ideas of Gould Davis."5 The funny part is, footnote 5 leads to Cynthia Eller as the backup source. Eller, of course, was vehemently opposed to Davis' ideas!!!!!!!

I think ses, with all his slashing and burning is having slash-and-burners' burnout. He didn't even have the energy to defend his slashing of what I wrote! And he still's making fairly grave errors in what he's doing here. Might it be time for him to take a slash-and-burn vacation? Athana (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up a bit

Parts of this article are pretty bad, and I'm going to do a bit of copy-editing with the aim of getting it closer to Wikepedia standards. I have started by editing the Introduction. For the most part I tried to improve the flow while leaving the meaning intact. I did however remove the sentence that read, 'It could be described as the first "Herstory" book, inventing a specific type of Feminist scholarship in the areas of history, anthropology and archeology', not because it is objectionable, but because it needs a reference in order to be usable.Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now rewritten the content summary and the Influence and Criticism section. For the content summary, I mainly just tried to make it flow better. (Also removed a few interpolated comments that don't belong in a section that should focus on describing what the book says in a neutral way.) For the Influence and Criticism section, I felt like I had to do a massive rewrite. It was full of problems, including major pov issues, incomprehensible sentences, unsubstantiated assertions, irrelevancies, and blatant self-promotion.Looie496 (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better, good work. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You did no such thing. "I felt like I had to do a massive rewrite. It was full of problems, including major pov issues, incomprehensible sentences, unsubstantiated assertions, irrelevancies, and blatant self-promotion" is simply not true at all. I kept a copy of the article as I edited it. I know what I wrote. The only reason I mentioned my work at all is because it was already mentioned in a negative light. If you want to omit it entirely, that's fine, but you won't insult me, link to my site, and pretend that's being neutral. My writing is perfectly comprehensible, you just don't like what I said.

What you did do is remove all the references to Herstory, Matriarchal theory and the citations from male geneticists that supports Davis' argument about the genetic origins of maleness. From what I can tell, I'm the only one editing this article that has actually read the book. I appear to be the only one who has taken the time to study any aspect of this issue. IF you haven't read my sources, you aren't qualified to be making judgements about the accuracy of the theory. It's appropriate to talk about the controversy, which is real, but it is not appropriate to take a side in the controversey unless Wiki wants to admit that it is supporting a patriarchal POV without bothering to read conflicting opinions.

I can list a dozen works that support Davis' work other than the three mentioned. You cite Cynthia Eller, which leads me to believe you intend to take a very specific POV in this article and that is against it, and the entire field of scholoarship that has grown from it. You even included her opinion that it wouldn't matter to women if matriarchal theory were true or not. There's nothing neutral about that. I assure you, it would mean a great deal to women and to men, or you wouldn't be so anxious to dismiss the idea. It is blatantly inaccurate to say that there is no academic or archeological support for this theory. There's plenty of it. Why does the article assume that none of the Goddess scholars have credentials? There are PhDs working in related fields writing books on this subject. Have you read any of them? --Morgaine Swann (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Morgaine. First, I apologize for assuming that you had inserted the references to your own work. The references were clearly inappropriate, and it would have been better for you to remove them than to insert counterarguments. I can see why insulting references to your own writings would offend you, but generally speaking, editing done while angry is almost always bad editing. Second, references to Herstory and matriarchal theory are appropriate, but no sources were given, so they were not verifiable. Third, I have not, in fact, read the book, and am editing on the basis of form rather than content. I have not added any information to the article, only reorganized it and removed some things that violate Wikepedia policies. In particular, I did not add the material about Cynthia Eller, it was already there. Fourth, I have not attempted to make any judgement about the accuracy of the theory, and the article must not make any such judgement either. Wikipedia policy is that the article should describe the theory, and the arguments pro and con, in a neutral way---this means that the arguments must be attributed to the people who made them, not asserted by the article itself. Fifth, we should remember that this article is about the book, not about feminism in general or even about Davis's ideas in general. The quotes that you inserted from geneticists are only appropriate if they were intended as responses to the book. That wasn't established, and I am very doubtful that it is true. Finally, if you keep in mind that the aim of the article is to inform readers, not to convince them, then this will all be a lot easier.Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Athana's edits

I've reworked Athana's material a bit, partly to integrate it better, partly to put the references in proper format, but there are a couple of things that need explaining. First, I completely removed everything about genetics, both pro and con, because no sources were given for any of it. As a biologist myself, I can tell you that the idea that females came before males is bogus (it's impossible to have one without the other), but in any case, it doesn't belong in the article unless it is properly sourced. Second, I toned down several "most"s into "some"s, because no evidence was cited to support the "most"s, and I seriously doubt that any can be found. Third, I removed the paragraph that read as follows, and would like to explain why.

Regarding "female monotheism of the type advocated by Gould Davis," archaeology has yet to prove such monotheism did not exist. Cynthia Eller, not a scientist but a theologian, did not prove the absence of female monotheism in the Neolithic/Bronze Age societies of Europe and/or the Near East. Nor has any scientist proven its absence. Furthermore, as Studebaker recently noted, the overwhelming preponderance of female imagery in Neolithic societies around the world is striking. Much of this imagery is not mundane but suggestive of the supra-normal -- females part animal and part human; female figurines with no facial features; female figurines with two heads and/or multiple limbs; etc. At some sites these figurines are so numerous they need to be carried off by the cart load.

The problem with the first part of this is that it violates the rule that arguments need to be attributed. If these arguments could be derived from some reputable source, they might be acceptable. In their current form, they constitute Original Research. (The fact that Cynthia Eller is a theologian is, however, no more relevant than the fact that Davis was a librarian.) The problem with the second part is that I think it creates a balance issue. Isn't it true that male (phallic) figurines are just as common as female figurines?Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reworked looie's work.

1. The fact of asexual reproduction in evolution is so widely known that it needs no sourcing, so I've reinserted my paragraphs on genetics.

2. I changed the "somes" back to "mosts." Looie may "seriously doubt any sources could be cited on this" -- his very phrase a blatant lack of any civility whatsoever on his part -- but Looie has no credentials in the area, and I do.

It's certainly a disservice to knowledge and ultimately to humanity that Wiki articles the second sex are comfortable with need almost no sourcing, but an article such as this needs every sentence sourced. Please, if you doubt my word on this, just go check around Wikipedia. It might explain why Morgaine and I -- and many others -- are not only angry, but furious at men like Looie. ESPECIALLY men who go through Wiki wrecking articles about books he admits he hasn't even read. The hubris of this man is beyond the pale. I suspect in his next life he'll return as a female who'll be treated exactly the way he's treating the women writing this article.

Actually, someone should write a book on the way male Wiki writers with outsized egos treat female writers. It would be an eye-opener. Really, the most irritating thing is the way men think all they have to do is plop a string of words down on paper and everyone is supposed to "take their word for it." Women, though, have to source every single sentence. The bias is incredibly blatant. The hubris is horrific. Really, you do need to wonder about the intellectual capacity of people with that much hubris.

4. No, Looie, as someone with advanced degrees in both anthropology and archaeology, I can assure you it is definitely not true that that male (phallic) figurines are as common as female figurines. Female figurines in prehistory have to be hauled off by the cartload at some sites, whereas male figurines are -- sorry -- virutally unknown. So I'm reinserting what I wrote in that area as well.

5. Also, Looie, you tend to write sentences that are too long. So please don't go off like a bull in a china shop looking for articles whose political content you dislike, and then destroying the good scholarship and writing that others took much time to accomplish. You took my good writing and turned it into bad. Here's an example of a sentence that is not only too long to read easily, but is also grammatically incorrect:

"Jeri Studebaker responded to the criticisms from Eller that prehistory is irrelevant to today's situation, by arguing that female deity is not about women alone, but rather about both men and women, that replacing male-monotheism with female deity would alleviate world environmental problems, world overpopulation, institutionalized warfare and violence, and a whole host of other global problems[8]."

I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm tired of being treated like a moron by men with enough hot air and hubris to carry us all off to the moon. Looie, I'm sure my writing could be improved. I just don't think you're the person to do it. Athana (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Athana, thanks for letting me know how you feel. I'm not going to respond to everything you wrote because it would tend toward making this page expand exponentially. Anyway, first, I apologize for botching the edit re Jeri Studebaker. Long sentences are not necessarily hard to understand if they are well written, but I botched it. But the really important thing is about providing sources. The single most important Wikipedia policy is that all assertions have to be verifiable using reputable published sources. That applies to things that men write as well as things that women write. It's often violated, yes, of course, but all that really means is that lots of Wikipedia articles need work. As I said, there are some things in the material you added that I don't think are correct. But if you can justify them on the basis of reputable sources, it doesn't matter what I think. I'm actually kind of surprised, given your advanced degrees in anthropology and archaeology, that you are offended at being asked to justify your assertions. Do people in the social sciences just automatically believe everything somebody says, without asking for evidence?Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looie, I think you're right. Davis' book is not only far ahead of its time, it also deals with a controversial topic. So the need to source everything pertaining to it is probably greater than it would be with many other Wiki articles. It also seems to be the case, however, that any Wiki article written about women's issues have swarms of men hovering over them demanding sourcing. These same men, however, fail to swarm over articles written by and about men's issues. It's an old, old phenomenon: the rules are written for women to follow, but men can go off and do their own thing any which way they want.Athana (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please give some evidence for your claims about these swarms of men not asking articles written by men (how in the world do you know which editors are men when most don't use their names, by the way). I certainly ask a lot more men than women for sources. Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And please do it on your talk page or the village pump, and just drop a link to the discussion here. Many thanks. Verbal chat 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

List

I don't think the following list warrants inclusion in the article:

Many modern writers have defended the ideas of Gould Davis. A short list of these would include Renate Bridenthal, Gerda Lerner, Dorothy Dinnerstein, Elearnor Leacock, JoAnn McNamara, Donna Haraway, Nancy Cott, Elizabeth Pleck, Caroll Smith-Rosenberg, Susanne Wemple, Joan Kelly, Claudia Koonz, Caroline Merchant, Marilyn French, Francoise d'Eaubonne, Susan Brownmiller, Annette Ehrlich, Jane Jaquette, Lordes Arizpe, Itsue Takamure, Rayna Rapp, Kathleen Newland, Gloria Orenstein, Bettina Aptheker, Carol Jacklin, La Frances Rodgers-Rose, Carl Degler, P. Steven Sangren, Lester Kiorkendall, Randolph Trumbach (list from Eisler).

--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do. It defends a statement that someone asked to be defended. Where's your reasononing for taking it out? Athana (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list should stay in: it's the sort of information that a Wikipedia reader might very well like to know. I did some checking of the people who are listed. Nine of them (Lerner, Dinnerstein, Haraway, Koonz, French, d'Eaubonne, Brownmiller, Aptheker, Degler) have Wikipedia pages. I looked up about half of the others on Google Scholar before I got bored, and of the ones I looked up, all had written books or articles that would be considered reputable sources for Wikipedia. So the list is useful, neutrally stated, and verifiably sourced. In some ideal world it would be nice to have pointers to the specific writings that are involved, but that would definitely be overkill here.Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit too listy. Encyclopaedias aren't written like that. How about it's put in a footnote? --Verbal (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's confusing. Which ideas? Are they actually qualified to comment on the specific ideas or are they commenting on something outside of their field? Do they actually mention Gould Davis (this seems key, otherwise you might include writers who disagree with most of the ideas but agree with one, for instance)? Do they disagree with any of her ideas? Doug Weller (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also not impressive. It seems to either imply that this is it, or "wow look who supports this", nether sentiment is very useful. If we could pull out the interesting ones and add some prose it might be useful. As it is it leaves me feeling that this book is endorsed by only a handful of people, while trying to give a misleading impression. --Verbal (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the most important functions of Wikipedia is to "connect the universe" by providing pointers to other related information, and this list does that very effectively and pretty efficiently. It is a little long, and I could see some justification for reducing it to the names that have Wikipedia articles, but if it were up to me, I would leave it as is. In any case, it's important to guard against a hypercritical attitude here. It takes a lot of effort to resist being pushed around by somebody like Athana, and when her impetus suddenly disappears, it's easy to fly off balance -- as though you're in a tug-of-war with somebody who suddenly lets go of the rope.Looie496 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address any of my concerns however. Doug Weller (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, only the notable ones should be mentioned, and in prose in the body detailing where and how. Remember this is about the book and not Davis' views in general. Having a list is very poor and uninformative. Verbal chat 18:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

From a stylistic perspective, the above list should be removed ASAP; it's beyond ugly. There are several, much better ways in which the same concept (that well-known authors support Gould Davis' views) could be communicated. The easiest would be to pick two of the best known people from that list and say, "Many modern writers, such as [name 1] and [name 2], have defended the ideas of Gould Davis", then attach a couple of references. Better yet, we could say, "Many modern writers have defended the ideas of Gould Davis", and then follow that with some specific quotes and/or assertions from some of the authors in the list. But as it is, including a list of thirty names simply to communicate to the reader that her ideas are supported by well-known people is simply ridiculous. Lists of similar authors that readers can use as a jumping off point belong in a "see also" section, or in a category link at the bottom of the page. -- Hux (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the current version of the article? I don't understand why having it in a note is worse than having it in a "see also" section. Anyway, I think it is something that properly belongs in the article, but I don't have a strong opinion about where it should go.Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Having now read some reviews and books about The First Sex, I've deleted the list, the claim that Cynthia Eller supports her, and the argument which wasn't actually a discussion of the book. This is an article about the book, not about goddesses, early warfare, etc. Citing authors who agree with some of EGD's ideas but who don't mention her is irrelevant to this article. This is a book by a librarian who treats myth as history and who "uses myth to posit the existence of an original, female-dominated civilization, possibly extraterrestrial, possibly on Atlantis, which spawned later, goddess-worshiping cultures, all eventually destroyed by male barbarians". If the article is going to claim support for her ideas we need specific quotations whcih mention this book. Doug Weller (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

In the following paragraph I'm not sure who's claiming what. It could do with some clarification:

Jeri Studebaker responded to the criticisms from Eller that prehistory is irrelevant to today's situation, by arguing that female deity is not about women alone, but rather about both men and women; replacing male-monotheism with female deity would, Studebaker claims, alleviate world environmental problems, world overpopulation, institutionalized warfare and violence, and a whole host of other global problems.[12]

--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see your confusion. It appears to me that this paragraph reports Studebaker's views. Let me see if I can re-write it to your satisfaction. I hope I don't change any of the meaning, since I don't know the original sources.

Jeri Studebaker has responded to Eller's claims that a matriarchical prehistory is irrelevant today. Studebaker argues rather that replacing male monotheism with a female deity would be a great benefit to society as a whole (and to both genders), alleviating world environmental problems, world overpopulation, institutionalized warfare and violence, and a whole host of other global problems.Citation goes here.

Is that any less ambiguous? Phiwum (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the "Studebaker claims" part, but I don't have the source so I couldn't check. Apologies. What I meant to ask is, is that actually what Studebaker is claiming, or was it a response or OR. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not sure what Studebaker claims, but given the title of her book, I sure wouldn't be surprised if those benefits of Goddess worship are included. Phiwum (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive & Image

Could someone less involved than I please archive a lot of the discussion here that is unrelated to improving the article? Many thanks. --Verbal (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I am a "virulent male" so apparently I am already involved :D hahaha, just kidding, I'll do it... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I archived all of the ones that seemed to be >50% composed of misandry (wow, I thought I'd never use that word seriously... heh) Are there any I missed that you think I should archive? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't too bothered about them, I just thought it might improve the atmosphere. And I've learnt a new word. :) --Verbal (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the word "misandry" is almost exclusively used by those wishing to undermine and discredit legitimate feminism and/or to devalue accusations of misogyny by way of a (usually) inapt analogy. It's a bit like heterophobia or reverse discrimination in that sense, i.e. the phenomena do exist here and there, but usually the people using those words are the actual bigots. So I was hesitant to use it, but I think in this case it's fairly apt...

*(off topic) You virulent male! --Verbal (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed the image of the bird goddess is still there. I didn't read the entire section on that... it seems pretty irrelevant to me, though..? Was there not consensus to remove? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the picture, I just don't think it's relevant to the article. The length of the comments was part of the recent problem. The only person who supported its presence was Athena. --Verbal (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okie-dokie, I removed it. I could conceivably see it being re-added if the article discussed Goddess worship in ancient Egypt, but that's not even remotely touched upon, at least not that I can see. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Say what you will about Athana, we mustn't forget that she knows this book very well. I tend to think that she is a better judge of what sort of image is representative of the message than somebody who hasn't even read it -- such as me; what about you?. On principle I agree with the suggestion that a picture of the cover would be the best thing, but unless somebody has such a picture, I'm inclined to think it would be best to stick with Athana's image. It is, I think, an image that will make a lot of people uncomfortable, but, well, that makes it sort of representative of the book.Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The image is only loosely related to the article as it is now, so for that reason alone I'm against inclusion. However, I think it is a photo of a really cool piece. I don't understand why it would be uncomfortable for some. However, if we just used pictures to prettify articles, we might soon be overrun by the lolcats brigade (pictures of cats on vacuum pumps in the STM article!) :) --Verbal (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eisler & References

Does anyone have the full source for this? Is it the same Eisler referenced later (but also not sourced)? Thanks. --Verbal (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The title of Eisler's book is given in the article. Would be nice to have a proper biblio ref, yes.Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the ref, but I don't know if it supports the statements. The same goes for most of the references I've updated over the last two days. This article might need a verification tag. --Verbal (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's p. 149 of Eisler's book, but you can't read the page on Amazon. What I can see when I search for Davis is:"This insight [no idea what insight] is also featured in pioneering works focusing on the role of women in history: Elizabeth Gould's The First Sex. Like books by other women trying to reclaim their past with no institutions or learned" and it stops there. The list is also on p. 149 starting "These are the works of women such as ...[the list].

Book cites should be supported by page numbers, the cites to Eisler (and others) are not, and I suspect this is a bit of OR/synthesis that isn't actually backed by real statements in Eisler. I see the article says "critical to the development of such books" mentioning Eisler, but Davis only appears in the index on one page, and in 3 footnotes not indexed (don't get confused with mentions of Stephen Jay Gould). That suggests 'critical' is some editor's judgement and doesn't belong in the article. It would be great oif someone can get hold of Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, one cent plus postage on Amazon! But meanwhile, I think that there is good reason to doubt the statement referenced by the list, and in any case it is clearly too general to be taken as 'some scholars support EGD'. Doug Weller (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the references like this need a {{verification}} tag adding, and I think many will fail. This is a problem with the long list discussed above. If the users that added these references could provide more information here that would be great. Verbal chat 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Athana seems to be the editor who put it in, I have explained to her that book references need a page number and asked for the full quotation. Looking back at the first handful of edits for this article, I would say that anything unreferenced then is unlikely to get a reference now. It was created when a lot more OR was going on and standards were a lot lower. Doug Weller (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Some material that might be used from Ginette Castro

American feminism: a contemporary history By Ginette Castro New York University Press (31 Dec 1990)ISBN 978-0814714485
p33:
Spenglerian theory of history. Whereas Spengler blamed periods of decline on degeneration resulting from effeminacy. Davis, on the contrary, credits the great periods of ascent on feminizing influences, in particular, the ancient civilization of Anatolia, the cradle of humankind's first settled habitations, which she sees as the land of matriarchy.

For this obscure librarian from Florida, myth is historically true. The feminist motivation on which such an assertion rests is apparent from the first chapter, where the author reminds us of the theme of human develop­ment common to all the world's mythologies, from the creation of the universe by a great mot her-goddess giving birth to a son by pure partheno­genesis, to the takeover of power by this son who becomes, successively, lover, consort, and finally a god. It is clear that for the author, the story told in myth is the true factual history of humanity, not a symbolic interpre­tation of evolution. For her, the word matriarchy does not represent merely a psychological fact expressed by the cult of the mother-goddess, as in the theory of Neumann in The Great Mother, but a true historical past, refer­ring to the actual existence originally of a matriarchal society. Thus the author affirms a basis in historical fact for two myths: that of the mother-goddess, whose latest avatar is said to be the Virgin Mary, and that of the great gynocracics.

The historical reconstruction proposed by The First Sex is divided into five major periods. The first was the golden age. or the era of the lost civilization. It is supposed to have come to an end because of a great natural cataclysm, and to have been followed by a second phase, a period of chaos and savagery, at the end of which the women revolted about 5.000 B.C., probably under the leadership of the warrior queen Basilea, who, according
p34:

to the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, was the first ruler of Atlantis. Amazonism brought humanity into the third phase of its history, that of a primitive matriarchy, in which the basic unit of society was the group formed by a woman and her children, both boys and girls, while men lived a life of marauders. The fourth phase saw the blossoming of the great civilizations of Sumer, Fgypt, and Crete, emanating from the original settled civilization in Anatolia. Unfortunately, in the last phase, beginning in the third millennium B.C., matriarchal agricultural communities were

were joined regularly by some of the sons. It could be that women, by practicing sexual selection and preferring carnivorous males who were more highly scxed than their vegetarian companions, were the instrument of their own downfall.

Elizabeth Gould Davis's historical reconstruction depends a great deal on drawing morals from the tale, and is filled with numerous, glaring extrapolations. However, the argument is so skillfully and ingeniously woven that the woman reader cannot help but be swayed. Patiently revealing the common archeological foundation and using myth as a historical link with Anatolia, Davis weaves the matriarchal tapestry and imposes an entire feminine landscape on the Near Hast and Europe: Sumer, with the royal tombs of its queens; Egypt, with its female Sphinx, its breast-shaped pyramids, and the symbol of the vulva on the Pillars of Sesostris; Southern Italv. where the Temple of Hera was decorated with the same sexual symbols as those of Catal Huyuk. a famous Anatolian neolithic site in Turkey; and finally, the British Isles and the labia on the stones of Stone-he nge.

With Catal Huyuk and the exploitation of recent archeological discover­ies of a site whose foundations could go back to the ninth millenium B.C., we come to the keystone of the author's argument. Extrapolating from the conclusions of Atkins and Mellaert on the historical truth of the mother-goddess cult, Elizabeth Gould Davis asserts the historical truth of the matriarchal society as a political fact and sees the religious cult phenome non as a sort of self-veneration by women. The great matriarchs are rein­stated in their dignity: Potnia, Anat, Eve, Metis, Athena, and especially Tiamat; the book of Genesis is said to be a plagiarism of the myth of the venerated matriarch Tiamat. masculinized into the god Jehovah. The taboos of incest and of menstrual blood are themselves reinterpreted as matriarchal

p35:
taboos, invented by the first matriarchs to protect themselves from the bestial sexuality of their sons.

The beneficent atmosphere of matriarchal society is the other point evoked by the book. At first sight, it appears as a vegetarian Arcadia where people were nourished by the fruits of the earth, honey, and goat's milk. This world is presented as a classless society, seeming to belong to the egalitarian tradition of Utopias. However, several shadows appear over this idyllic picture as contradictions in the text. To begin with, there is the very term matriarchy, understood not in its etymological sense of the oligarchic power ot mothers, but taken to mean the domination of one class over another, since the author uses it interchangeably with gynttcracy. It is a question of the power of the biological and social class of women — the first sex—over men. in a society where the patriarchal relationship of "other­ness" has simply been reversed. In their diplomatic missions, men are said to have been turned into transvestites, rigged out with false breasts and women's clothing. In daily life in matriarchal society, they are objects of scorn, as shown by the names they are given—Thief, Stench, Filth—and their corpses are thrown into common trenches at Catal lluvuk, while women have the honor of a tomb. The dirty work is left to men. as witness the example that has come down to us in Greek mythology of Hercules cleaning the Aegean stables. The complacency that Davis feels in this brutally contemptuous repainting of a virile myth betrays the author's vindictive feminism and destroys the initial impression of pastoral serenity.

Hather than a model plan for society, the structure elaborated by Elizabeth Gould Davis appears to be a feminist counterattack stigmatizing the patriarchal present and seeking compensation in the past. Letting herself give in to a revenge-seeking form of feminism, the author builds her case on the humiliation of men. In this way, the feminist philosophy, in its broadest definition, is doubly betrayed: first, in the absolute priority that Davis gives to sexual gender in determining individual human existence, thereby re­peating the sexist error; second, in the assertion of a specifically feminine nature, said to be morally superior. This twofold treason seems doomed to be inevitable as long as organizational frameworks for society are conceived in terms of matriarchy and patriarchy, that is. of sexual power.

Although it is difficult to grant the book any immediate practical value, it must be recognized that it has a cultural interest, that of exposing the Sexual substrata of our culture. Davis reduces patriarchal interpretations to p36
the lucubrations of male chauvinism, but she proposes ingenious counter-lucubrations that arc rooted in the purest female chauvinism. The work definitely takes part in the great adventurous sport of shooting down patriar­chal writings on history and myth, demonstrating that truth is relative.

Although it is to soon to pass judgment on the question of the historical veracity of matriarchy, The first Sex has undeniably played a heuristic role by fascinating women into doing research into their past, if not their lost "golden age" of civilization.
forgot to sign, sorry. Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The First Sex/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

;Quality C-Class - The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues.Assessed by Joshua Issac (talk) at 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)