Talk:Matriarchal religion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peachyjjk0613.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lorynote thinks aliens brought snake symbolism?

As I have said too many times, this editor doesn't seem to understand at all what a reliable source is. She's just added [1] which is all about what her source considers our alien ancestors, the Anunnaki [2]. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pls don´t put words in my mouth. The source explains what is the meaning of serpents´s symbolism, it doesn´t mean I agree with all the words mentioned there. Lorynote (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source, it doesn't meet the criteria at WP:RS. Why do you think a source talking about aliens is a reliable source for anything about serpent symbolism? That you think it is shows that you do not understand our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I offered high quality sources on Serpent (symbolism): Stone, Newadvent, Erich Neuman, you didn´t accept not a single. I offered my paperback and p.52, you didn´t accept it. I offered a review which you ignored... Lorynote (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For the simple reason that none of them actually backed the statement for which they were supposed to be the source. As for p.52, I asked what it said that might back the claim, and you didn't answer that, which seems telling. And a source discussing our alleged alien ancestors isn't useful for anything about symbolism. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did yes answer you: p. 52 mentions serpents; would you a like a quote? Lorynote (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What about this source: http://www.thehappyheretic.com/11-09.htm? Lorynote (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

At Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/015696158X; many pages available mentioning serpents. There is a search (with or withouct registration); page 201: "The abundant evidence of the sacred nature of serpent"; p. 204: serpents associated with "wisdom and prophecy"; p. 211: serpent and oracles relations; Melampus after serpent lick could read the language of the birds; p. 214: serpents adorned, kept and fed the oracles shrines.... Lorynote (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole section on 'Symbols' needs to be either removed or properly sourced. at the moment this does not deal with the "symbols of matriarchal religions". It has two sentences, one an assertion about snakes being one and the other showing that snakes have been worshipped for many years. pablo 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think p.52 of Stone was mentioned in this article. That discussion belongs at Talk:Serpent_(symbolism)#Sourcing where we need to see both a quote and the statement it is supposed to back. Ditto Newadvent, etc, that's where this belongs. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Newadvent" isn't a source, let alone a "quality" one. Newadvent is a website that hosts the Catholic Encyclopedia. Lorynote, if you are unable to cite your sources properly, represent their content accurately and do so at an article where the point made in the source is actually on topic, you can hardly expect your edits to be left standing. Please either begin to contribute with a minimal regard to quality and accuracy, or else please stop wasting other peoples time and consider writing a blog instead. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes provided form online source

Did you check the above quotes from When God was a Woman? Are OK with them for serpent symbolism and this present article? Lorynote (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

no, please stop using When God was a Woman as a secondary source. It is a valid primary source of second-wave feminism and feminist theology, but Wikipedia article are built on secondary sources. Instead of fixing this article, it would make more sense to merging it into an existing discussion of the topic. The article Goddess worship focusses on contemporary feminist neopaganism. The Goddess movement is to be treated as a new religious movement like any other and cannot be criticized as a hypothesis. The article feminist theology focusses on feminist views on theology published in a scholarly setting. Feminist archaeology about feminist views on prehistorly published in a scholarly setting.

We have an article at Matriarchy and one Witch-cult hypothesis discussing these views as scholarly hypotheses. This is to be distinguished from people who adhere to Dianic Wicca and worship the Goddess, their religion is a fact of North American subculture, and not a hypothesis on the European Neolithic. Hypotheses on the European Neolithic need to stick to academic literature, and preferably not "academic" literature published by 19th century innovators or 1970s idelologists.

Using Merlin Stone in Neolithic religion is exactly the same as using Creation science in timeline of human evolution: we don't do that, see WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I can cite Bachoffen, Evans, Burkert views on serpents and matriarchy. Would like me to ?Lorynote (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bachoffen is very old, Evans was an archaeologist (not a religion scholar), and as for Stone, see my comments at Talk:When God Was a Woman. They've all been influential to some degree on modern Goddess spirituality, but as factual support, respectable among current scholars, for the existence of prehistoric matriarchies / matriarchal religions, they're insufficient in various ways... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the serpent (mythology) article. As long as the sources explicitly link "serpents and matriarchy", they can be cited. Please make sure to cite them verbatim, with page number, avoiding ridiculous summaries that make Burkert a proponent of "matriarchal religion". The fact that authors like Stone will cite and misrepresent authors like Burkert cannot be blamed on authors like Burkert. I happen to have a fair idea of what Burkert does and does not endorse. He is a very pragmatic man. When stuff like matriarchal religion comes up in his lectures, the mood turns to humorous and mildly sarcastic. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Serpent worship

• The Worship of the Serpent, John Bathurst Deane
• Ophiolatreia: Serpent Worship, Rites & Mysteries
• The Mysteries: papers from the Eranos yearbook Julius Baum,Joseph Campbell Lorynote (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know that a lot of it probably has more to do with Orphism and related developments than prehistoric matriarchal religions? Is there any ancient literary evidence (as opposed to Cretan statuettes discovered a century ago) for an association between snakes and "matriarchal religion"? AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It seems a little odd that the Wikipedia "Orphism" article has nothing on serpent symbolism... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These books are not related to Prphism at all! Yes, have you read the Bible? Here only goddess/woman related: #Snake goddess

1. The Power of myth, J. Campbell(loads of serpents carefull!) Lorynote (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop spamming the Talk:Matriarchal religion page with random urls concerning serpents you googled? --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Societies that have been claimed to have matriarchal religions

Although I renamed this, I've realised it's unsourced and really shouldn't just be a substitute 'see also'. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don´t know any sourced 'see also'. Lorynote (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So do you accept all provided sources, even WP for the Snake Symbol subtitle. Lorynote (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

you cannot just list a bunch of articles under "have been claimed as". You need to present a coherent account of specific authors. I am sure Stone or Göttner-Abendroth have claimed all sort of things. The real question is, why should Wikipedia refer to any of it outside their biography articles. --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Burkert says Bachoffen is ingnious

• Homo necans, p. 80 in fact Burkert criticizes Bachoffen´s 'ingenious' matriarchal ideals. BUT still Burkert a major researcher on Greece, an author who traced POTNIA THERON from pre hystory to all ancient civilizations! So what is at stake is not a social structure of matriarchy BUT a matriarchal religion. Do you agree with that? You are the only who is putting together feminism (!!!!), religion and matriarchy...putting all these together. I am only mentioning serpents obvious symbolism/goddesses --and come up with matriarchy and feminism! Not me! A matriarchal religion has nothing to ddo with feminism whatsoever! has to do with goddesses worhip/serpents....Not feminism. Lorynote (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course Bachofen was ingenious. This doesn't mean he was right. Burkert is not "still a major researcher on Greece" in spite of being critical of Bachofen, he is the major researcher of Greek religion and as such is well aware of what Bachofen is and is not.

This is an article about feminism. Yes, Matriarchy was not a feminist concept when Bachofen suggested it in 1861. This was 150 years ago. Any discussion of "matriarchy" today is entirely about feminism. Burkert's views on Greek religion obviously are relevant to our articles that actually cover the religion of Ancient Greece. If Burkert also commented on feminism, you are welcome to cite him here. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn´t understand a word! There is no relation between feminism and matriarchy. Matriarchy is a reality from religion to archeology to serpents to goddesses. There is not a single "mars figurines" but there are plenty of venus figurines related to religion and to social structures (and likely to matriarchy) but there isn´t a single clue of a patriarchal system in pre history or pre hellenic civilizations. Your personal view doesn´t qualify you to edit this article but if want to leave it this way ...you are by the way telling me and other editors, the one who also started to write it (in 2008) that we are ignorant. Lorynote (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor Bachoffen

Can you believe Bachoffen reduced to feminist wave or a goddesses movement LOL --things I never heard about! I heard about venus figurines (also deleted from what is left of the article) but I don´t know ANYTHING nothing at all abouy whatever goddesses movement --and I mean it! Poor Bachoffen a feminist surfing the wave. Lorynote (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Plato

Following your rules then Plato would a gay icon? Shouldn´t we include him in gay category or Aristotle in anti-feminists? Lorynote (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lorynote, we are trying to write an encyclopedia. If you want to be taken at all seriously, you will need to start respecting Wikipedia core policy like WP:RS, and perhaps it would also help if you used a spellchecker.

As long as this article is called "Matriarchal religion", it is about whatever is called "Matriarchal religion" in literature. This happens to be a term coined in 1970s femninism, and it is therefore encountered in feminist literature, and as such the article is a topic of feminism. The earliest attestation of the term I can find dates to 1970.[3] Yes, it is true that this literature is inspired by Bachofen's idiosyncratic theories of 1861. This doesn't change the fact that this is a debate within feminism. Not even Bachofen postulated a "matriarchal religion". He postulated a maternal-chthonic religion (mütterlich-chthonische Religion). This was abbreviated to "matriarchal religion" in 1970. Nobody ever accepted Bachofen's theories at face value, not in 1861, not in 1900, not in 1930, not until 1970 when they came in handy for the feminist agenda.

I am sorry if this happens to be your agenda, you are welcome to your ideology, but then please refrain from editing Wikipedia articles. See WP:TIGERS.

I don't know if Plato is a gay icon, but I can assure you that he has sufficient notability for a Plato article even without this aspect. If he is a gay icon, I doubt this would be very relevant for the Plato article, but perhaps it could be mentioned in some article about gay icons. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thealogy

So I think you should include the above term within all these feminist categories and Bachoffen deleted from all those misleading categories where he is now and as for the "M. Stone stuff" who is not a respected historian should also be included within the feminist ones. Lorynote (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Thealogy" is a rather unfortunate term, whose use should not be greatly expanded on Wikipedia. I suggested long ago that it should be named back to "Feminist spirituality"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes sure. Oh by the way any news on the etymology of Venice (goddess Venus) Africa (goddess Ifri)? Do you know the mantra OM believe me, is because of the letter" M " associated/originated with Women an Mary the Mother of Jesus..perhaps related to Matriarchy and the aMazons and Mothers. Do you think this mantra should be included within the feminist theology? Lorynote (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean 'Aum', which wasn't even originally written in our alphabet? "Aum (also Auṃ, written in Devanagari as ॐ and as औम्, in Sanskrit known as praṇava प्रणव [lit. "to sound out loudly"] or auṃkāra (also asAumkāra) ओंकार (lit. "auṃ syllable") is a mystical or sacred syllable in the Indian religions, i.e.Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism." Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes as you can see there is always a AMU. But I´ll let you google that. Hum, another feminist theology stuff is the I Ching, the kua (hexagrams) are because and only becausue of the goddess Kuan Yin . There is a book called the I Ching of the Goddess. A feminist theology/fringe category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorynote (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Doug, the letter M makes you close your lips and that means touching what is above and below (sky and earth together); the Mother and the Daughter (D and M have the same vibration) which was later called father and son. Lorynote (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Blavatsky As above so below. A is opened U is "midopen" and M is closed. Lorynote (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point I seriously cannot tell whether Lorynote is being serious or not. But I guess either case is bad news. I have spent considerable effort making available accurate information at the Aum article, yet it seems it is absolutely impossible to prevent people from ignoring information and preferring to repeat random drivel they read in some self help book, or in murky 19th century occultism, or on an internet forum, or failing that just make things up as they go along.

AnonMoos, yes, Thealogy is a merge candidate, as is Matriarchal religion. We aren't a dictionary for the terminology of the Goddess movement. It is more than enough to carry Goddess movement for the spiritual aspect and feminist theology for the "scholarly" one. --dab (𒁳) 06:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Lorynote -- I have no desire to join in a mob to beat up on you, but some things which would make such discussions more fruitful would be: 1) If you have no personal expertise in ancient languages, and you are dependent for your knowledge of ancient etymologies on third-hand works which are not primarily linguistic, philological, or lexicographical in nature, and are not within the mainstream of linguistic/philological/lexicographical scholarship on such languages, then it would nice if you could show less overconfident dogmatic assertiveness about these etymologies. 2) Can't we discuss the problem of matriarchal religion on its own merits without dragging in Blavatsky?? Theosophy has exerted influence on a number of 20th-century "new age" or esoteric current of thought, but its specific influence on feminist spirituality is extremely minor, as far as I know. If you think that Blavatsky is relevant to modern feminist spirituality, then it's really up to you to specifically demonstrate such reelvance. AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Merlin Stone and Richard Hooker

Neither of these are reliable sources for history. Stone was an art historian, quite a different thing from the sort of source we need for comments on historians, and Richard Hooker at the time was teaching a course in general education and is in marketing and advertising [4]. We can use Merlin Stone as a source for her opinions, but that's all. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources for "history", but they are indispensible primary sources for "Matriarchal religion". Matriarchal religion is for better or worse a concept of 1970s feminist ideology. If we are going to keep an article about it, we will have to treat it as such. \ While admitting predecessors like Bachofen or Graves, Stone is basically the person who invented the concept, so of course she should be given due consideration in the article.--dab (𒁳) 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

More nonsense and misuse of sources

Lorynote has added "Merlin Stone presents matriarchal religions as involving a "cult of serpents" as a major symbol of spiritual wisdom , ferility, life, strength.When God Was a Woman p. 201, 204 210 211." Let's see what Merlin Stone actually says: p.199 "Let's begin with the serpent. It seems that in some lands all existence began with a serpent. Despite the insistent, perhaps hopeful, assumption that the serpent must have been regarded as a phallic symbol, it appears to have been primarily revered as a female in the Near and Middle East and generally linked to wisdom and prophetic counsel rather than fertility and growth as is so often suggested." So, not fertility. Maybe Lorynote hasn't read Stone? But why would she misrepresent Stone. Also, wisdom, but not 'spiritual wisdom', a phrase that Stone doesn't appear to use. Can't find the life claim either. Nor the 'strength' claim. (I'm searching on Amazon.com). So, I'm removing the whole paragraph. We really need to double-check anything added by this editor. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about Jackiestud (talk · contribs). Of course this brand of nonsense should have seemed familiar. We are all too eager to "assume good faith". It's not wrong to assume good faith, but it often makes you look like a sucker, not to mention wasting several hours of time that could be spent improving articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Between the editors dealing with this sock puppets edits, we've spent far too many hours, although I did find a claim about a 70,000 year old python ritual based on some news reports that had been debunked by the archaeologists who had worked on the site, so that was worthwhile. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

the 70kya python thing is just a shaky hypothesis about the Middle Paleolithic. Not even Bachofen would connect that to his matriarchy, which is explicitly a theory about the Neolithic (you know, a mere 60,000 years and continents away from anything connected to his theory). Only on the internet... --dab (𒁳) 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote Tsodilo to correct the python nonsense. But that had nothing to do with this. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Matriarchal religion was previously tagged for merging with Goddess movement but apparently generated no discussion. I've restored (or added? I didn't double check the history) a tag on Goddess movement so it can be discussed. since upon review of the pages it seems either very similar or the same thing? I may be wrong, but figured it should be discussed before the tag was removed. --DarkCrow^Caw 15:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Should not be merged -- "Matriarchal religion" was originally a 19th-century idea (with influence on later periods), while "Goddess movement" is a 20th-century phenomenon which is not confined to matriarchy proponents... AnonMoos (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merge, per anonmoos Pass a Method talk 17:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - A matriarchal religion is not the same as the Goddess movement of the 20th century.
—Sowlos (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can't find mention of certain terms in the cited source

The portion of the article that reads, "and especially feminist branches of Neopaganism that also arose during the 1970s (see Dianic Wicca), so that Matriarchal Religion is also a contemporary new religious movement within the larger field of neopaganism, generally known as the Goddess movement" seems informative, but terms such as Dianic Wicca, matriarchal religion, and neopaganism are not found in the source cited. Seems to be a case of WP:OR. Thoughts on keeping or removing the content? Ongepotchket (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very controversial to me. AnonMoos (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Camile Paglia...so ignorant

Camile Paglia forgot that many cultures were matriarchal: Elamite civilization, Minoan, Crete, Yangshao, Mosuo, Çatalhöyük, Amazons ... and many other Venus figurines worship is SUCH an exampe of not only the first human religion was the worhsip of a female figure but also of matriachal societies. Matriarachy is natural; patriarchy is a tremendous effort, insane and the only reason why the world is a mess. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.225.251 (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been many societies throughout history that had matrilineal kinship descent and/or worshipped goddesses, but it's highly questionable whether there's solid evidence that any society has ever been throughly matriarchal, in the sense of women monopolizing positions of power and authority, and excluding men from the public sphere... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pangilinanh (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Seguragabriel937.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleksandrajaku (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)