Talk:When God Was a Woman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
Contents |
[edit] Neutrality
Your analysis of this book displays in my opinion a good deal of subjectivity and makes assertions that you have not backed up with citations. Moreover some of your assertions are simply not true, for instance "The book charges that the Israelites attempted to murder all Canannites and created a new religion, Judaism, solely to demonize goddess worship."
Takign the first part of this statement, the bible records God's demand of Israel that that they kill all living things in the land of Canaan. Stone merely documents this statements and also points up some inconsistencies that occur when Israel decides this does not apply to nubile virgins, whoa re allowed to live and become the Hebrew wifes (will they, nill they)
In the second part, this is not remotely Stone's thesis. she proposes that the demonization, as you name it, of Goddess worship, came about as a mechanism to enforce a patricarchial society with inheritance through the male line, and with women bound in marriage to a single man, in order that men may have assurance of the patrimony of the resultant offspring.
Your approach to this entry contrasts decidedly with Stone's treatment in the book itself which, whether you agee with her argument or not, makes comprehensive use of citations to her sources.
Would you be prepared to edit your text in this article to make it a more objective standpoint?Tashkop 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I naively added the above comment thinking that this article was a unenhanced stub. I now see that there has been an underground edit war going on with no reference to the discussion pages. It would be nice if we could get this article to an objective state that does not merely assert the biased view of one sect or another. In my opinion the editors to date have focused, wrongly, on the examples of exposition used by Stone, and have missed the main point of her book, which was the disempowerment of women through the gradual adoption of patriarchial based religions. In that context her example of Christianity and Judiasm is merely a well documented source for her to use, it is not actually her main point. I also do not think that people are giving her credit for the degree of scholarship that is exhibited in her work. She cites an extensive bibliography and the book is replete with citations and quotes to source. Whatever her prefoessional qualifications if we put aside for a moment the argumentam ad homimnem and look at the output on her merits, it cannot be claimed that it is not well researched (once again - whether or not one agrees with her conclusions)Tashkop 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted Farmbroughs changes
I have reverted the changes by Farmbrough for reasons of bias and because he or she has made no attempt to address that bias. In my opinion the previous text was fair commentary. Tashkop 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
