Cynthia Eller

In the early 1970s I read a lot of feminist books. Working for a while in macho Puerto Rico in my first job out of college, and subsequently doing graduate work in a traditionally masculine field (geology), I needed all the help and encouragement I could find. But after a while, employed and getting on with life, I set the subject aside. The Myth of the Matriarchy – the central topic of this book – wasn’t important to me, although I must have encountered it at some point in my reading. show more So I came to Eller’s book with an open mind, and some curiosity as to what feminist theorizers had been up to in the intervening thirty years.

What at least some of them had been doing was making myths. Not myths in the everyday sense of “false stories,” although ironically that meaning may apply as well, but myths in the more academic sense of “shared beliefs about how things came about.” This is a reasonable thing to do in a religious context, but less helpful if the results are presented as scientific evidence, and particularly if this “evidence” forms the potentially unsound and readily falsifiable foundation of a political movement. It is therefore in a spirit of critical – but not hostile – inquiry that Eller sets out her thesis, distasteful as it may be to the feminist establishment – and judging by some of the reviews this book has garnered, it has been very distasteful indeed.

In a series of well-ordered chapters, Eller details the history and evolution of the Myth and its proponents, especially Marija Gimbutas; the contributions of cultural anthropologists; and the ambiguous nature of the available evidence. Then in two core chapters (The Case Against Prehistoric Matriarchies I: Other Societies, Early Societies and The Case Against Prehistoric Matriarchies II: Prehistoric Art and Architecture) she examines in some detail specific societies and artifacts which have been proposed as evidence by the supporters of the Myth and deconstructs their interpretations. Finally, after a discussion of the evidence for and against a patriarchal invasion of the supposedly matriarchal Eastern Mediterranean and Europe, as provided by proto-Indo-European linguistics and genetics, she considers the usefulness of origin myths in general, and of the Matriarchal Myth in particular. Her conclusion that

[P]erhaps the solution … is to embrace the myth of matriarchal prehistory as myth. If feminist matriarchalists abandon their ambitions to historical veracity, the accusations of sloppy or wishful thinking will not tarnish their myth (or the feminist movement more generally), and perhaps it could perform the functions for which it was intended.

is one with which I can agree. show less

As part of the generation that was inspired by Merlin Stone's _When God was a Woman_ and other books that tried to discover or reclaim a matriarchal past I find this an important study. Eller traces the history of such ideas, examines the evidence for their truth and finds it wanting. She also finds problematic any claims based on"nature" since they have so often been used to support rather than to overthrow the status quo. I too believe that we can strive to improve and consolidate the show more position of women without recourse to a myth of matriarchal past. show less

Not much of a book on gender theory. Here's what "Am I a Woman?" is about: the author doesn't live up to the stereotypes of female behavior, which makes her feel somewhat uncomfortable. She then spends about 140 pages discussing the subject, going into topics such as the difference between sex and gender, nature vs. nurture, etc.

Of course, any woman will fail to live up to the stereotypes of female behavior. That's because they're stereotypes. Therefore, most of this book falls into the show more category of discussing sexism. It does very little to discuss the actual concept of gender, and how the gender binary is in fact its own type of prejudicial system that leaves behind many folks who are uncomfortable not with living up to stereotypes of femininity, but living to up stereotypes of "woman" and "man."

I guess this book is a product of the times; 15 years ago seems like ages when it comes to the (albeit insufficient and rather meagre) strides made by the trans community in the meantime. This book does almost nothing to subvert the gender binary or to explore the issues faced by trans folks, who LITERALLY do not fit into the categories of male/female, rather it only brings up a couple of trans folks as examples of how nature/nurture might lead into the whole sexism thing. I realize that cis people still pretty much run conversations about everything, and 15 years ago it was even more so, but cis people really need to STOP leading these conversations. So what if I don't like to buy shoes? Nobody is trying to murder me because of that fact. There is literally nothing new to add to this conversation that hasn't been covered since the 1990s.

What bothered me most about this book was the author's use of the R-word, and what bothered me second most about this book was the author's conclusion. When summing up what exactly it is that makes a woman female, she states that it is purely in the eyes of others. In her own words: "For me, identifying femaleness with the judgement of others -- you're a woman if others say you are -- meets all these criteria." (The criteria: "doesn't make women feel inadequate about their femininity, builds bridges between feminism and other liberation movements, is easy to understand, and that accords with our commonsense notions of which people are women and which men.")

Tell that definition to trans folks who are discriminated against, can't use the restroom, and are outright murdered because other people play gender police. The judgement of others has never been a fair, just or progressive idea. How about this: you're a woman if YOU say you are. Full stop. show less

A clear and rigorous criticism of unfounded belief in a prehistoric "golden age" when women wielded power and authority, Eller approaches the issue thoroughly. She begins with the modern (19th century and onward) mentalities that led to the popularity of such an idea, points out the fallacies and hypocrisies embraced by some matriarchalist feminists, and proceeds to the archeological and anthropological findings that have supposedly purported a time when females were ascendant.

While I found show more this book to be occasionally depressing (it becomes clear after sifting through the evidence that men have always dominated women and women wriggling out from under their thumbs is something very, very new), I appreciated the honesty and clarity with which Eller approached the question, as well as her conclusions. show less