[Pants-of-dog]

Most early Celtic European religious leaders were women.

Greeks only used women as oracles

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

That's not bloody true! We have it on good authority that unicorns DID exist, but they were hiding and playing silly games and missed the boat.

It's a damn tragedy and you make a mockery of it with your need to refute their very existence.

Mi malo.

Who is WE? What evidence is that?

That type of talk is my point, talk is cheap you can say anything, it does not make it true. When I take a negative stance on a subject I usually have a bit more up my sleeve than the sound of my voice.

You are correct. Talk is cheap. This is why I ask for evidence about claims of priestesses.

You want some evidence for my counter-claim?

Okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistori ... #Neolithic

There are no extant textual sources from the Neolithic era, the most recent available dating from the Bronze Age, and therefore all statements about any belief systems Neolithic societies may have possessed are glimpsed from archaeology.

The archaeologist Marija Gimbutas put forward a notion of a "woman-centered" society surrounding goddess worship throughout Pre History (Paleolithic and Neolithic Europe) and ancient civilizations, by using the term matristic "exhibiting influence or domination by the mother figure".

However, these views are questioned by the majority of the scientific community. Archaeologist Sarah M. Nelson criticizes Gimbutas suggesting that she used the same techniques used in the past to disparage women but in this case to glorify them, and quotes another archaeologist, Pamela Russell as saying "The archaeological evidence is, in some cases, distorted enough to make a careful prehistorian shudder".

Your turn.

[Rei Murasame]

Rei, I read both links and though I am sure that was clear to you, to me it was less then that. So at this point you would either have to bring me up to date on 140 years of Japanese social structure

Nono, don't misunderstand, I think that everything I've said applies to both sides of the world at this point, so everything that you already know about the West is also applicable here.

We're back to calling what you're after; super-human rights [for women].

Nope, what I'm saying is that what I am after is whatever guarantees are necessary for women to flourish in society. I don't even attempt to make a comparison between who has 'more' or 'less' rights at the end, because that's not how this works. If someone just so happens to require a slightly different number of calories a day than someone else in order to live, then so be it.

You don't see me complaining that men have 'super-human' rights because they require a higher calorie intake than women do. That's because that's just what it actually is, and there is no yardstick associated with that.

Similarly, women need things as well, and we are simply about creating a society that actively caters to that reality.

But again you're expecting a gang of looters to give a shit.

Their error was in expecting the actual looters (the financiers) to give a damn about the country or the soldiers or the British homesteaders in Africa (they didn't!), and that's how the financiers got away with backstabbing everyone, because a lot of people didn't fully understood what had happened until after it had happened.

Only after the whole thing fell to its knees, then suddenly dawned the realisation, "Oh, we all just got totally humiliated by liberal-capitalism, I see now! We should've prevented them from just walking away with all the sacks of money!"

Since it's intriguing to me that you find it ambiguous I'm going to ask you to guess

Well I don't know what your ideology is, so it could be the state or the people, only you can tell me which you think it is.

I do. Do you pretend to be capable of weighing them against other concerns or see a unified causal factor?

I feel swamped by persuasive reasons why gender partisanship is an incredibly bad idea.

Well that's a bit of a strange question, as obviously I can see several intersecting causal factors. In feminist-speak we call this 'intersectionality', where sometimes multiple issues overlap and modulate each others effects, and then we of course have to figure out how they all interact - which is why theory is so important and why it takes a while to get from "women talking" to "woman acting", because it's a painstaking process.

Regarding 'gender partisanship', who is it a bad idea for in your view, and what are the 'persuasive' reasons? Why should feminism not be a political movement?

[Suska]

what I am after is whatever guarantees are necessary for women to flourish in society

Wouldn't that be a sweet deal. What I got was soul-crushing.

only you can tell me which you think it is.

Oh I have unambiguously, which is why I'm asking you think about it.

Regarding 'gender partisanship', who is it a bad idea for in your view, and what are the 'persuasive' reasons? Why should feminism not be a political movement?

If I don't specify who it's a bad idea for don't I mean ummm... It's a bad idea. Give me a chance to marshal my thoughts the wonder twins are at it again.

[Cartertonian]

THREAD SPECIAL MEASURES: I've actually lost count of how many reports this thread has generated. It's like every time I login there's another report from the 'Misogyny' thread...again.

This board is dependent upon self-policing, since none of the 'staff' have the time or inclination to read through every post on every page of every forum, so I don't want to discourage users from reporting genuine and unequivocal violations of our Forum Rules. But in this thread in particular, I regret to observe that a lot of the reporting has been a bit...shall we say...'trigger-happy'?

The next sanction will be for this thread to be removed from view. Not deleted, but put beyond users view for a period of time. It's unlikely that any mod or admin will feel inclined to go through the thread and clean it up, but I can't rule that out. Either way, the thread would go 'off-line' until everyone has had chance to come down off the ceiling and stop taking a pop at everyone and everything over minutiae.

If you don't want that to happen, dial it back a bit, stick to the facts and don't go looking for something at which to take offence.

[Figlio di Moros]

That's not bloody true! We have it on good authority that unicorns DID exist, but they were hiding and playing silly games and missed the boat.

It's a damn tragedy and you make a mockery of it with your need to refute their very existence.

I'm suprised to hear that from such astute historians. It's particularly shocking, because I thought their specialty was British military history and Irish colonialism- ever review their work on the history of Anglo-naval customs?

[U184]

This is why I ask for evidence about claims of priestesses.

I have responded in this new thread: Celtic Goddess Worship & Influences on Christianity, As to not "hijack" this one. (also you are asking me to back up a supposition made by another poster as if it was my claim) while using neolithic examples of a subject meant to be 1000's of years sooner...

[Pants-of-dog]

I have responded in this new thread: Celtic Goddess Worship & Influences on Christianity, As to not "hijack" this one. (also you are asking me to back up a supposition made by another poster as if it was my claim) while using neolithic examples of a subject meant to be 1000's of years sooner...

I did not ask you to back up someone else's claim. I just asked for evidence in general. I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence of claims.

The evidence you presented supports the existence of women in clerical roles during the last couple millenia. However, that same evidence also shows that men were in charge of most of the roles during that era. Thus, even in places such as Ireland which had a strong female presence in its clergy, we see that the role of religion was mainly the purview of men. Even the druids, which were (and are) very egalitarian, were not a female class. There does not seem to be any historical evidence of female druids.

[U184]

The evidence you presented supports the existence of women in clerical roles......There does not seem to be any historical evidence of female druids

.
Yes and the countless examples I provided must be invisible to you...just saying something does not make it true. My lord, do you argue inane points with no support just for the sake of aggravation? Or do you have a point that leads you to take disingenuous stances?

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes and the countless examples I provided must be invisible to you...just saying something does not make it true. My lord, do you argue inane points with no support just for the sake of aggravation? Or do you have a point that leads you to take disingenuous stances?

You claim that there is large list of Gaulish, Brythonic, Gaelic and Welsh female deities, many of whom had large followings of female priestesses. You give no evidence that these female priestesses ever existed. If I search for some that you mention, like the Kelles, I found no evidence either unless you count baby name books.

The only example of a female druid you gave was Saint Brigid. There is no evidence that she actually was a female druid.

You discuss Bridget of Kildare and St Beoferlic or Saint Beverley of York. Two women bishops in a time when almost every other bishop was a man. Like I said, this was uncommonly egalitarian but still shows that men controlled religion.

You mention Tacitus. This is what Tacitus said:

"armies on the point of collapse have been rallied by their women pleading with their men, thrusting forward their bared breasts, and making them realise the imminent prospect of enslavement."

and "the victorious Romans were confronted by women in black robes who stood at their wagons and slew the fleeing warriors - their husbands, brothers or fathers - and then strangled their own children and cast them beneath the wheels of their wagons before cutting their own throats."

http://womenofhistory.blogspot.com/2007 ... women.html

I have no idea how you interpret that as the Celts having female druids.

I found one priestess with actual power that you mentioned. However, one person is not a whole class of people.

You make vague allusions to Alexander Severus, Diocletian, and Aurelian. Again, you provide no evidence.

You discuss Camma, a priestess of Artemis, an ancient Greek deity. She is not even Celtic.

You mention Cartimandua, who is not a priestess.

You mention Boudicca, who is not a priestess.

You then go on to mention mythological, and not historical, figures.

You then mention female saints and female abbesses, ignoring the fact that the Catholic authorites were almost exclusively men.

And it goes on and on without any historical evidence of a class of priestesses or female druids, unless you count your link to stories of women casting spells on tides as historical evidence.

[Suska]

You discuss Camma, a priestess of Artemis, an ancient Greek deity. She is not even Celtic.

Who do you think the Celts are? Danu, a Greek deity gave her name to the Danes.

[yiwahikanak]

I don't get what this strange conversation is getting at...what was the purpose of it again?

[Suska]

For my part, it's that what you kick in the teeth as rape and hatred, is and always has been adoration.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't get what this strange conversation is getting at...what was the purpose of it again?

People are trying, and failing, to show thatt religion is primarily a women thing by using Celtic pagan religions as an example, despite the fact that there is no verifiable historical evidence that women played a large role in Celtic pagan religions.

[Suska]

You're so small. Look at you down there, I need a magnifying glass to see you Pants.

[U184]

I am doing no such thing. I am showing one instance for one culture, as we were speaking about the Celts...

despite the fact that there is no verifiable historical evidence that women played a large role in Celtic pagan religions.

I will be addressing this bit of misleading fluff shortly.

It seems you twist things to suit your outlook, then babble about this and that, again PROVE your stance by showing refuting evidence, rather than saying it.

[yiwahikanak]

Um...so misogyny is adoration (according to Suska...they just love us so much that they'll love us against our will and with force?), and ... I'm still not sure what KFlint is getting at in relation to the topic?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am doing no such thing. I am showing one instance for one culture, as we were speaking about the Celts...

So, can we then agree that religion in general has not been the purview of women in most cultures, and that any claims that religion is the natural purview of women are not historically supported?

I will be addressing this bit of misleading fluff shortly.

It seems you twist things to suit your outlook, then babble about this and that, again PROVE your stance by showing refuting evidence, rather than saying it.

I think it would be difficult to prove that women did not fill a large percentage of religious roles in ancient Celtic practices. It is possible to prove certain negatives. This one is tricky because I would need to have a reasonable claim that I have analysed the entirety of the existing evidence concerning this subject.

The most reasonable thing would be to point out that even when people look for evidence of such, they are unable to find it. Your work here is commendable, yet you were unable to find such evidence.

Another summary of the evidence:

http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/bandrui.html

Were there Women Druids?

Last updated 3/24/2009
Bookmark and Share

There may well have been women druids; personally, I think there almost certainly were bandrui though they were not in the majority. The evidence we have for their existence consists of references to them in the myths, and in a few Classical texts.

There are references to bandrui in the medieval Irish tales. Conchobor Mac Nessa's mother Nessa was a druid, perhaps one reason he took his name from her, rather than from his father. Finn was raised by a female druid. Scathach is explicitly called both a flaith, "prophetess," and a druid and she prophesies about Cú Chulainn. And of course there are the banflaith (sometimes banfili), the "women poets," most notably Fedelm in the Táin (though one may argue that flaith and fili are entirely separate, it is a distinction that is often difficult to discern in the medieval texts themselves).

I suggest those who are interested check the index in either Piggot's The Druids or Ellis' The Druids; Ellis is perhaps more interested in the question of women as druids than Piggot, but he is less reliable. There are also some pertinent observations in L. Allason-Jones. Women in Roman Britain. London: British Museum Press, 1989. 146-151. Also see H. D. Rankin Celts and the Classical World. London: Croon Helm, 1987. 252-55, and ff. Rankin discusses the anecdotes from Scriptores Histories Augustae (fourth century C. E.) regarding Roman emperors who consulted female druids. Although Rankin provides a reasonably thorough summary of the evidence for women who were druids, he tends to think it less likely than many of his colleagues do. There are other anecdotal Roman bits of evidence, like that of Flavius Vopiscus, who discusses encounters between Diocletian and others with female druids. Last but not least, Tacitus' discussion of Veleda in Hist. IV; the name Veleda is cognate with Irish flaith.

So, if we take this analysis as an impartial look at the subject, we see that the question as to their existence is debatable, and that if there were female druids, they were certainly not enough to count as a majority.

[Suska]

All of it is based on adoration yes. In some cases badly betrayed adoration, or mistaken expressions of it, nevertheless, where it comes to sex, all the fires of hell stand ready. But it needn't be like that.

[yiwahikanak]

...and what is it you think women need to do so men don't adore them so brutally?

[Suska]

Traditionally fidelity and monogamy; everyone should have a chance if they want it. Or nature will use the leftovers for something altogether unpleasant.