Rating: 
Summary: ad hoc justification
Review: Writing it down makes it true. I'm an expert because I say I am so you can trust me. People that disagree with me have an agenda and ought not be trusted. If you're fond of any of these statements, or you're looking for validation for your moral subjectivism, then this is the book for you. If however, you prefer to operate with a firm grasp of reality and an adherence to truth and logic, then I suggest you look elsewhere, unless such ramblings amuse you.(. . .)
Rating: 
Summary: It's rare to be challenged this much by a book...
Review: ...and I have a deeper appreciation for a book that can. I honestly did not know what I was getting myself into when I picked this book up. As a male it was a difficult book to get through and I went into in a very open-minded "space" in my life. Thankfully, I made it through. To illustrate, I handed this book to a catholic, insisting that she read it, who ended up not being able to finish it and giving it back to me. What did I expect? The book is honest (brutally honest) in terms of the observations it makes on what the last 5000 years of male-dominated society. To compare, Eisler draws on the anthropology and scholarship of people like Gimburtas and Merlin Stone. To illustrate what a female-lead society could look like. It's not just a different form of domination, it's a paradigm shift. This book changed my viewpoint on many things including my sense of history, my views of relations between the sexes. But the most valuable thing I came away with was hope for tomorrow that wasn't over-shadowed by weapons of mass destruction of looming with visions of a planet that has been polluted and stripped of it's resources.
Rating: 
Summary: Offering an Optimistic Alternative
Review: Books like this, if read by a broad enough audience, could alter the course of history. Her insights are broad, her treatments are fair, and her paradigms apparently offer some degree of validity judging from the last section of her book (before the Epilogue) in which she describes 25 years ago much of the transformation we are witnessing today. The general thesis of her book is essentially this. The"Dominator" model of the world in which men rule not only each other, but especially women, with an iron and violent fist, is in fact an inovation that was introduced to a previously more egalitarian, Goddess-oriented civilization. The original civilizations looked at creation and recognized that the creation of life is essentially a female process, symbolized by the Chalice. It was only later when "civilization" decided that the power to take life superceded the power to give life, and replaced the Goddess with the Hero/War God (symbolized by the blade). Over the course of several centuries, the broad social paradigms shifted, and we find our ancestors of recorded history so steeped in the dominator model (as opposed to the more female "partnership" model...) that we take it for granted as simply the way we are, or worse, the way God made us. Eisler offers for the reader's consideration the possibility that we don't have to accept the violence-laden tendencies of the dominator model anymore. With the rise of feminism in the past century, men and women alike are beginning to question the basic premise of a male-dominated society, and looking for ways to re-weave the social fabric...with some success. Indeed, perhaps enough success that we might be on the cusp of a new social transformation, moving away from the dominator model that has really only been the source of so much suffering, and toward a partnership model which values aliance and relationships more than possession and power. Unfortunately, we will be required to experience a backlash of fundamentalism for a while, as the bastions of the dominator model (monotheistic religion, communism, and capitalism) fight for their very survival. There are disturbing bits of awareness in this book for those readers (such as myself) who have not read much in the way of feminist material. It is shocking to learn of the basic, dogmatic, written tenets of religious and contemporary philosophy (including those of St. Augustine, Marx, and Nietzsche to name a few) who directly state that the subjugation of the female sex is essential for the survival of the human species! As we watch the burka-shrouded forms of Afghani women beg in the streets of Kabul at this time, we are reminded of how real, and how insidious this objective of the dominator model truly is. I only give this book 4 stars because there is a quality about her argument that leaves me slightly undone. Maybe it's because I, too, am a product of the old system that struggles to make the transformation. But I think it has to do with her insistance on an "absolute," i.e. that the way women would run the world is inherintly better than the way men would run the world. Her argument is founded on experience, but is therefore also limited by paradigm. The partnership models she discusses at length in the early part of her book in Neolithic times and in Minoan Crete, were systems based on the cooperation of both men and women. She acknowledges this. Yet there is this nagging sense that she insists that the virtues of such a society are the exclusive realm of the female. I am inclined to think that this is possibly a paradigm-driven bias. Such virtues are now attributed to women more than men BECAUSE of the past 6000 years of the application of the dominator model, but successful transformation is wholly dependent on a mutual transformation of both women and men to a full partnership model that benefits from the inherent strengths of BOTH men and women, not just women. For while it is nearly impossible to disagree that virtually all of the tragic events of history can be pinned to boorish, often childish, frequently violent behavior of men, that behavior is not necessarily programmed by biology so much as by socialization (of course both play a role). So to suggest that "female virtues" are inherently superior to "male qualities" is missing a big part of the picture. Men were responsible for the subjugation of women. But what other developments do we presently benefit from that sprung from the strengths of men? The key lies in her description of a "partnership," rather than on the suggestion that "one is better than the other." Truthfully, I think that this is what she intends (she is not a "man-basher"), but since her emphasis is only on the negative contributions of men, the potential for real partnership is never fully explored in this book. That said, this is a well written, thought provoking book that, as I said at the outset, could indeed facilitate the very transformation she discusses, if people would read it, talk about it, think about it, and reflect on whether or not we as a species really think that the course we've been on is in fact a healthy one.
Rating:
Summary: A refreshing worldview
Review: Eisler leaves some historical and scientific gaps in this work, which would be better if it had more evidence and less wishful/fanciful thinking. That said, this is an absolutely wonderful book for anyone who is fed up with living in a world that echoes with the screams of all people who are beaten into the ground by the oligarchy of world government and economics. It's a breath of fresh air that brings with it a worldview of equality and justice--and peace--for all. It's especially good if you feel as though you've been raised to believe that women are bad or inferior (and that mainstream feminism only serves to emphasize those statements by trying to scream louder). This book makes more sense than any other book I've read.
Rating:
Summary: A Myth for Our Times
Review: Riane Eisler postulates two alternatives for human society in The Chalice and the Blade. The first, and most familiar, is what she terms the "dominator model." In the dominator model, diversity requires ranking and hierarchy, giving some power over others. The more unfamiliar model, the "partnership model," does not equate diversity with either superiority or inferiority, but rather with community. "There are two critical ways of structuring the relations between the female and male halves of humanity that profoundly affect the totality of a social system." (p. 105) . She coins two terms to represent these models: 1) "Gylany," drawn from the Greek words for woman and man, she uses to describe partnership modes, and 2) "Androcracy," literally "rule by men," she frequently uses as a substitute for "patriarchy." Her title derives from symbols for these two paradigms: the chalice, symbolizing life begetting, community and sharing; and the blade, symbolizing the power to take rather than give life'this is the ultimate power to establish and enforce domination. She points out that for millennia the blade has been a masculine symbol, this is not the problem. "The root of the problem lies in a social system in which the power of the Blade is idealized'in which both men and women are taught to equate true masculinity with violence and dominance and to see men who do not conform to this ideal as 'too soft' or 'effeminate.'" (p. xviii) She further points out that the directions of partnership cultures and dominator cultures will be quite different. Partnership cultures emphasize technologies to sustain and enhance life while dominator cultures develop technology to destroy and dominate. Consider our own culture, where schools resort to nearly every fund-raising dodge imaginable, even relying on the proceeds of gambling, while the military/industrial complex consumes the lion's share of our resources. The average teacher in California makes less than a wet-behind-the-ears college graduate who goes to work programming computers for a defense contractor! What would it be like if schools got all the money they needed and the Army had to hold bake sales to buy new hardware? This book is an origin myth. It attempts to explain where we came from, how we evolved from an age of partnership to an age of domination. It also explores how we might begin to reverse the process. Numerous scholars have challenged Eisler's ideas and her use of archaeological evidence. I have noticed her sifting through Hebrew history and using only those aspects which support her theories, while ignoring important writings and events which tend to support a partnership paradigm while she is exposing the dominator model. Regardless of how well the evidence fits the history she lays out, this is a masterful piece of social deconstruction. Whether a golden partnership age existed or not, we do not live in one now, and we never will unless we learn to live differently together. Eisler starts her chronicle with old Europe. She spends three chapters exploring the stone age, neolithic art, Goddess worship, and the equalitarian nature of partnership culture evinced through archaeological exploration Crete and the work of Marija Gimbutas. Then she begins to describe the Indo/Aryan/Kurgan invasions of Europe. She examines the role of metallurgy and male supremacy. She notes growing evidence of warfare, human sacrifice, and slavery. She decries the truncation of civilization as partnership gives way to male domination of societies. She shows how memories of the partnership age lingered on in myths and religious practices for thousands of years until myths morphed, giving solar/warrior Gods supremacy over fertility/mother Goddesses. Women and sexuality were marginalized, securing the male domination of culture. She traces the effects of patriarchy through classic culture and the Christian mythos into the very heart of our modern civilization. Although she does a masterful job of tracing the history of the problem, she offers little in this book for solving the problem. She spends 180 pages telling us how and where we went wrong, only to offer a paltry 18 pages generalizing about what we need to do now. I found this disappointing, but there's only so much that can be crammed into the pages of a single book. Her book, The Partnership Way, acts as a guide through this book for a group wishing to work within the partnership paradigm. The Chalice and the Blade presents a powerful deconstruction of our society. It offers an "origins myth" to us and gives us a prophetic challenge to live differently. Although her use of scholarship has been attacked, this book is still worth reading. You don't have to run out and buy an Apple ' Computer to "think different," you can read this book! A solid five stars. (If you'd like to discuss this book or review in more depth, click on the "about me" link above and drop me an email. Thanks!)
Rating: 
Summary: When we become over-zealous...
Review: I, having just returned from a visit to the famed Catal Hoyuk here in Turkey, was bursting at the seams to get back to dive into Eisler's purported treatise on the theories into the lives of the obscured neolithic and its implication in terms of modern society as a whole. As I got deeper into the book, my fears of its turning from an objective, scientific work to a personal plight to attack what the author seems to feel are the ills of society and her highly subjective inferences as to their causes were unfortunately confirmed. This was very dissapointing. Eisler's constant contradictions and alarmingly naive stabs at all that whereby she seemingly feels scorned leave a bitter taste of the uninformed pseudo-scientific in the mouth. I do not mean to undermine all that Eisler has to say in this book, but rather to point out that those points which are valid may have retained some of their validity had Eisler not chosen to use this book as a soapbox to lash out at men, 'western' culture, and Christianity, or had she unbiasedly used the data whereby she swears in its objective entirety. As much as I want to, I just cannot seem to let go the ludicrous manner in which Eisler turns a blind eye to any possible female contribution in the creation and maintenance of the 'dominator' structure of society, as if women are incapable of inhumane and violent behaviour. I think history, in its entire non-Eisler-ized version offers plenty of examples of that. I would recommend that one read this book under the premise of being a femminist's ideas on the demise of a female-dominated utopia gone to pot at the hands of the ever hating, killing, blundering men of history, and not, as Eisler so shamelessly claims, as a serious data-backed theory into the evolution of human society from the neolithic till now.
Rating:
Summary: Intriguing but flawed
Review: Eisler presents a fresh answer to questions posed by many feminist writers in history and
sociology. What has been the role of women in history and culture. How influential have
women been in creating cultural norms? What role have women played in spiritual
development, language capability, establishment of community and government? Eisler
contends that a partnership of genders, formed in Neolithic times and carried through
nascent Mediterranean civilizations, was usurped by male dominant invaders. To Eisler, The
Chalice represents women's values of sharing and nurturing. The Blade, of course, is the
symbol of war and male dominance through conquest, both of civilizations and of women.
She concludes that while male domination has a long history, efforts are being made to
overcome The Blade mythology and that The Chalice ideal can be restored and gender
"partnership" can be reasserted. It's a captivating thesis, deserving further attention. Eisler sees Neolithic society functioning in a spiritual environment governed by The Goddess.
Using this term as a universal, much in the way European historians use "God" in referring to
any unnamed deity, she contends this spirit guided all early Mediterranean and European
peoples. Feminine values held equal stature with [undefined] male values. It isn't clear
whether men worshipped The Goddess or their own pantheon. She stresses that worship of
The Goddess need not result in matriarchy. Eisler turns to Minoan Crete as the finest
example of the "partnership" ideal. As archeologists uncovered the Minoan civilization, their
astonishment at its grandeur grew. The discovery of unexpectedly high levels of technology
without associated expansionist tendencies Eisler views as typifying what she later terms a
"gylanic" society. Cooperation in the domestic environment obviated development of
imperialist ambitions. The real culprits in this scenario are two invading peoples, the Kurgans and the Hebrews.
Invading the Mediterranean from northeast and south, they overran many cultures,
transforming them utterly and imparting a new social order. Male dominated and driven by
a passion for conquest, they imposed The Blade as a new social norm. War became the
highest accomplishment, with male domination an enduring social result. A whole new
mythology was established with part of the story being the subjugation of women, domestic
or conquered. We are operating under that mythology today, she insists. As Eisler progresses from ancient to modern times, her tone becomes more strident, moving
from research to propaganda. She admits early in the book that she's utilizing a method
known as "active research" which re-examines historical and archeological data to fit her
scenario. This, of course, is fraught with pitfalls, and she stumbles into several. The
universality of her Goddess throughout the Neolithic world has no basis in evidence. She
scorns the Willendorf "Venus" figurines, but avoids altogether the various cave painting sites
predating them. Nearly all the human figures in those paintings are hunters; none appear to
be female. While Minoan civilization did surprise many, there's not a shred of evidence to
indicate male-female "partnership" as its basis. The weren't expansionist, but it's just as likely
that it was deemed unnecessary or too costly. It is far more likely Minoan civilization arose
from people fleeing other invaders and finding Crete a sanctuary. Perhaps her gravest
misinterpretation arises as she tries to come to grips with the rise of Christianity. She sees the
Madonna as a continuation of The Goddess ideal. Claiming the Roman Saturnalia, adopted
by Christians as the Messiah's birthday, succeeded because that holiday was special to The
Goddess. Saturn was a god of agriculture and patron of clan elders who imparted the
wisdom of experience over winter fires. Any goddesses who were revered during the Solstice simply
gained attention from the universality of the holiday. Eisler's errors result from zealousness and a narrow view. Two major factors erode her
credibility. One is her focus on the Mediterranean scene. She fails utterly to take into account
other peoples around the world, where male domination is common, if not prevalent. This
widespread circumstance suggests a deeper root for human social structure. However, like so
many feminist writers, Eisler shares their abhorrence of biological foundations for gender
differences. E. O. Wilson, a favourite target of feminist writers since his 1975 publication of
Sociobiology, garners no mention in the text. He rates but a lengthy and disparaging footnote
at the back of the book. Yet even when Eisler was composing this book, zoology and
molecular genetics were already forcing grudging recognition of sociobiology's value in
human studies. More recent research is confirming Wilson's early ideas. Eisler's book has worth in seeking to break the militaristic and male domination mythology
we live under. That her evidence is suspect doesn't devalue her desire to replace that social
framework with greater emphasis on nurturing and sharing. If these values were given more
emphasis in education, she contends, it would go far to reducing our injurious attitude
toward the environment. She portrays advocates of The Goddess as recognizing the cyclic
pattern of nature in contrast to the linear and destructive force of "progress." It's an admirable
cause, written with clarity.
Rating:
Summary: No rating is high enough for this book...
Review: ... but I'm limited to five stars! ;) What can I say that hasn't already been said? This book is a.) an extraordinary work of revisionist scholarship and b.) I hate to tell this to some of the people who have been reviewing this book, but based on scholarship every bit as good as (and generally better than)that which has underlain the prehistory we've all been taught in school. I guess the incoherent, rambling, misspelled nature of the bad reviews of this book tell the tale of these reviewers better than anything I could say!
There are few books that enlarge our hearts and souls. This is one. I will always be a better person for having found it.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Story
Review: This is one of the most enjoyable books that I have ever read. The author helps you to challenge the dominant paradigm and to better understand that our world may not have always functioned under the patriarchal model that currently predominates. She gives several examples and paints a wonderful picture of how things might have been in the past and how we can improve our society currently. The only reason that this book doesn't get "Five Stars" is because it is so highly based on speculation. Anyone who thinks that the author's assumptions are definitely true doesn't understand how little we really know about our distant ancestors. If the reader can keep in mind that this book is primarily speculative, it is a book that should be on anyone's reading list.
Rating:
Summary: So muddleheaded; so downright stupid
Review: Long suffering Ms Eisler is so far out that it is difficult to believe that many people actually take her seriously. Yes, her so-called work is a "hit" so to speak. It is frightening that such preposterous claims such as the following on page xxiii; "the story of how the original partnership direction of Western culture veered off into a bloody five-thousand-year dominator detour." It just veered off, eh? Yup, it just "veered off." Yabut, it is veering back again. Marija Gimbutas calls this science. It is worse than wrong.
|
