Femina Sapiens

[A.N. Other]

The book, called...well, Femina Sapiens: A Study of Women Through Imagery: The First Truly Thinking Human Beings, was written by Dr. Francesco Aristide Ancona. It more a series of essays then an actual book, but he talks about how women are what inspired humans, and actually presents the argument of a creator Goddess. I just this book up, so right now he talks about how it was the female that started thought in Homo sapiens, so I haven't gotten to too much about the Goddess, but I skipped around a bit and found everything interesting so far. Might be worth picking up if you're into that sort of thing.

And just in case I don't provide enough info, here's the blurb from the book:

Were women the first truly thinking human beings? Were women responsible for the development of human intelligence? Femina Sapiens explores the are and artifacts of prehistoric and primitive imagery to discover the truth, that Homo sapiens is a misnomer. "Thinking man" is simply incorrect. The first "thinking" human beings were thinking women, Femina sapiens.

Succinctly, Part One argues for the feminine origin of human thought and creativity. Beginning with an analysis of a veritable "sphinx," the "Venus of Laussel," Femina Sapiens reveals an enigmatic message just starting to unfold. Is this "Venus" the herald of "Truth"? Does it prove that women were the first human beings capable of analogical thought and what has been deemed "time-factored" thinking? And was its creator female? As importantly, does prehistoric are provide further examples of humanity's origin from the external feminine?

Part II of Femina Sapiens takes us into the Goddess narrative, where we journey towards our spiritual epiphany, towards our atonement with the one true deity from Whom we come and to Whom we return.

It sounds a bit pagan there at the end, but he does take things from all different cultures.

[Cain]

Sounds like a pissing contest buried under unverifiable information.

[hooplala]

Why did women contribute so little to ancient art and literature if they started everything?

[Cain]

Why did women contribute so little to ancient art and literature if they started everything?

tEh pAtRiAcHy!

Honestly, I don't want to act snarky, but this sort of stuff is just bullshit.  Its gender essentialism, ie the sort of thinking that led to sexism in the first place. 

[Payne]

Why did women contribute so little to ancient art and literature if they started everything?

tEh pAtRiAcHy!

\

[A.N. Other]

Sounds like a pissing contest buried under unverifiable information.

History to begin with his hard to verify, but you do have a point. The things he writes about is mostly speculative, but he does provide an interesting point of view, plus if you ever just feel like argueing with people about who started what, and the gender of the creator, it gives you extra ammo to use, should you need it.

[hooplala]

Dworkin was hilarious.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The idea that one sex somehow evolved rational thinking independently of the other is assfuckingly retarded.

[Voodoo]

the idea that either sex developed rational thinking is a bit absurd

[Payne]

The idea that I posted a pic of Andrea Dworkin without even her sitting on Cram is just bizarre.

[Bruno]

James Brown already did that. http://www.lyricstime.com/joss-stone-it-s-a-man-s-man-s-world-lyrics.html
            \

[Cain]

Why must Joss Stone destroy everything?

[Bruno]

Let the healing begin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcGknYx4sxQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_qI4s15cGc

[Payne]

Why must Joss Stone destroy everything?

Some research indicates she is the fifth horseperson of the apocalypse. She can't help it, it's in her nature.