THE FIRST SEX

Yikes.  The deadline to submit a post to the next Carnival of Feminists is today, and the host, Sour Duck, is looking for posts on 1970s feminism. I've had a particular topic in mind for a while but procrastinator that I am, have only just gotten around to it:

During the 70s, one of my mother's favorite books was The First Sex by Elizabeth Gould Davis (published in 1971).  I read it myself in middle school and found it entrancing.  My grandmother (the minister's wife) read it and burst into tears because it convinced her that she had been duped all her life by a patriarchal agenda. 

Presented as an historical work, The First Sex posited a prehistoric matriarchal society in Europe in which women - agriculturists, inventors, artists, queens, and civilizers - were the original leaders of the human race.  According to Davis's theory, a patriarchal revolution then occurred in which nomads from the east invaded the settled queendoms and attempted to destroy all traces of female dominance.  The Old Testament, Davis argued, was a patriarchal rewriting of history that cast old matriarchal deities as villains defeated by the new patriarchal God.  (I seem to remember that the serpent in Genesis was supposed to represent the old matriarchal religion, which was quite serpent-friendly.)  For the remainder of western history, women were conned into believing they were the inferior sex. 

According to Wikipedia, Davis was a librarian, not a professional historian.  When I took a college course on "Feminist Theologies," I learned that Davis's book was not taken seriously by the mainstream academic community.  Some of her theories are indeed laughable -- that women had (on average) physical strength equal to men's until men deliberately started choosing to mate with weaker women, or that the XY chromosomal combination is some sort of abnormal, genetic mutation.  And Davis's conclusions are overly sweeping given that she based them primarily on her reading of mythology and archaelogical evidence that could have multiple possible explanations.  Davis's primary influence today is therefore felt not in the realm of historical scholarship but in the realm of feminist theology and goddess worship.

But, boy oh boy, could Davis write.  Fabulous images of strong, powerful women-- decisive leaders with long flowing hair.  An alternate  reality in which women were not the historically despised and subjugated half of the species.  Davis gave women the tools to imagine that there really could be a society in which the sexes were equal. And, as the saying goes, what can be imagined can be achieved.

Of course, I believe that feminism has to be grounded in reality.  I am not going to subscribe to a belief in a widespread, ancient matriarchy if it was not so.  To insist that a wistful daydream is reality would deprive feminism of its credibility.  As a feminist, I am not afraid of the facts whatever they may be.  While I may secretly enjoy the notion of a long lost matriarchal paradise, my feminism is strong enough to withstand unpleasant truths.  So what if patriarchy was the norm in virtually every society until now?  So what if men have always been the dominant sex?  What can be imagined CAN be achieved, and I fully believe in the capacity of human beings and human societies to change and grow and evolve towards better and more just ways of doing things. 

I still have a dog eared copy The First Sex lying around somewhere, and I wouldn't be above re-reading it, enjoying the enchantment, and sighing a little regretful sigh. What does it stand for in my mind?  It stands for hope and also for my faith in women and my love for women.  But, more importantly, my experience of reading it (and my subsequent disillusionment) stands for the importance of a clear-eyed willingness to seek truth wherever it may take us and to work from there. 

(UPDATE:  I should clarify that I certainly would not think wistfully of a female dominated society for its own sake.  A female dominated society is not the  goal of feminism.  But, during the '70s, the notion of a  female dominated society in the past made the possibility of an equal society in the future seem like a more realistic possibility.)

(SECOND UPDATE:  Based on Morgaine's comments, I would also note that I am not discounting Davis's overarching theory.  The main point is that feminism is the way to go even if Davis turns out to be wrong.)

Comments

[Alice]

You know, that's one I haven't read. I'm eager to pick up a copy. I'm trying to remember the title of a similar book, which was about the discovery (by two men) of an all-woman utopia, written in the 19th century... I think it was "Her town" or something... ugh, I'm drawing a blank. I'll try to remember it later.

I find 70s feminism so fascinating, perhaps because it was before my time, but moreso because it was just so radical-- we could use that now.

[Morgaine Swann]

How disappointing to find someone who has read the book and yet bought into the negative press. Davis' work was one of the first of its kind, and I don't think her theories are incorrect at all, particularly the part about the XY being a later mutation, and inherently flawed. Most of the genetic work I see being done lately only confirms that, though they bend over backwards to try and keep men the winners of the genetic lottery. Check out books by male scientists like The Redundant Male and Adam's Curse, and read between the lines. Did you know they've already passed a law in Wisconsin to prohibit parthenogenesis? They're terrified of the day women learn that we can reproduce without men - a fact announced back in 1979 that no one wants to talk about. I'm just waiting for some eager lesbian researcher to announce that the first little girl with two mommies is about to be born. It's entirely possible right now.

The fact that there was an ancient matriarchy has been and is still being deliberately obscured. And yes, I think it is fact - the patriarchy's scientists have to twist themselves into pretzels to ignore the influence of the Goddess in the ancient world. See Athana for more about this.

I consider The First Sex required reading for every feminist, and I challenge everyone who does read it to open their minds and consider the possibilities. That knee jerk reaction you've been indoctrinated to is your best sign that there's more going on there. I'm currently working on a sequel to Davis' book where I incorporate new information and show that she might have been correct, after all. It isn't that hard to do.

[Zan]

Morgaine,

How sad. You would trust modern unscientific theories above hard science and real history. Just because some societies worshiped female gods it doesn't mean they were real. I think the whole 70s feminism thing is very laughable.If the author of that book didn't hate men than what was her intention? I have never even heard of that book but it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. A little bit of whooey and a whole lot of bunk makes the foolish public buy a lot of Junk. You let me know when two women can go into a closet and, without medical manipulation of sperm or cloning, come out with a baby on their own. GET REAL!

HF, I don't mean all of this post to you. You seem pretty balanced about the book and use your brain. I just think it is amazing that a women would throw out recorded history for a new theory that someone dug up. It is the same with the Divinci Code book. People who believe that the Church has changed the Bible and left out books from it on purpose. These people are so excited that someone has disproved the Bible through a work of fiction that they forget to look to real history that has been recorded by scholars and historians since the dawn of Christianity. Even the secular History Channel had a special on the faulty history in the book and came to the conclusion that history cannot support the "facts" in the book. It is just a story.

-Zan

[Alice]

Morgaine- That bit about XY vs XX has always bothered me; everyone starts life as a female, yet we are described as merely the "default" sex, as though we're what happens if the zygote doesn't "succeed" in becoming male. Yet one could just as easily say that because female is the first sex, it's standard, and becoming male is a mutation.

One more point: I live in Wisconsin and I'm not sure I know what law you're talking about. It doesn't sound familiar.

Zan-- I don't mean to be rude, but about your criticism of Morgaine, that she is "trust[ing] modern unscientific theories above hard science and real history?" Um.... Zan, you're a Creationist; you trust a book above hard science and real history. Pot, meet kettle.

[The Happy Feminist]

Hi Morgaine-- I actually found your blog as I was writing this post, but I couldn't read it because I kept getting an error message stating "stack overflow at line 54." I hope to figure out what that's all about so I can read your blog!

I think perhaps I should have been more clear in my post that I don't necessarily regard Davis's theories regarding ancient matriarchies as disproven, just that they are as yet unproven. I am certainly keeping an open mind and I look forward to reading your sequel. As I said, I certainly find Davis's vision very appealing, but I want to make sure that I (and the feminist community as well) retain our objectivity in assessing her theories.

[The Happy Feminist]

Hi Zan --

I don't know that Davis was necessarily throwing out all of recorded history, so much as re-interpreting it. She was also trying to figure out what societies were like during pre-recorded times. I am no expert, but I don't think historians really know for sure whether ancient European societies (not Greece and Rome, but the ancient Celtic societies for example) were matriarchal or patriarchal. One thing Davis was really good at was showing how archaeologists and historians tended to just assume that societies was male-dominated. That's a bias, pure and simple. Davis opened people's minds to other possibilities-- whether she is right about those possibilities is another question.

[Dr.Sue]

Alice, the book was Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

[Mahina]

Alice, the book you are referring to is "Herland" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and it is part of a genre of feminist utopian fiction published in the 70's and 80's (and not one of the best). Of course, the genre usually isn't about utopia at all, since the women's cultures tend to be created from after some kind of ecodevestation or violent splitting off from a patriarchal culture, (I don't remember if that is the case in "Herland"). I did an independent study in college (about 20 years ago!) comparing Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia to feminist ideas. Very interesting reading and much is out there if you look for it. Happy Reading!

I too, despite the flaws in some of the my early feminist thinking, relish the books I read and the ideas I considered. It was a time of finding and learning to love myself as a woman, and learning to challenge patriarchal norms, and I wouldn't trade that experience for any other in my life.

[Rasyte]

Hi, I want to know the significant of the pig, and the mushroom associated with the goddess or some of the goddesses

[Rasyte]

Oh, I to relish the books I read and there is no stopping me now, the more I learn the more I need to learn. Books I've read: THE GREAT COSMIC MOTHER(Sjoo & Mor); WHEN GOD WAS A WOMAN(Merlin Stone); MYSTERIES OF THE DARK MOON(Demetra George)and many more.