Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

A really good book. Before I purchased this book I read through a lot of the 1-2 star reviews and this caused me hesitation, but I'm so glad that I decided to go for it. After reading the book I went back to read through those same reviews and I really think that they all missed the point.The biggest two reasons that the book was given lower ratings seemed to be that 1) the historical accuracy of Eisler's claims are contested and 2) it was perceived as an intentionally dichotomous (men vs. women or good vs. bad) and/or polarizing analysis. Firstly, the historical narrative that Eisler posits is not to be interpreted as absolute truth and a big part of Eisler's message is that history is always written with intentions. For the past several thousand years, history has been written and rewritten by men in power so that said men in power can remain in power and/or the power structures that support them can continue to exist. The reason that Eisler's claims are so inflammatory is because instead of using sources of information that prioritize men's histories (which is pretty much all of the sources), she attempts to use sources of information that are prioritizing women's histories. These sources are so few and far between that it makes Eisler's scholarship appear hollow or foundation-less; "She uses such few sources to make such a bold claim!" OBVIOUSLY. Male-centric historical research refuses to recognize or document women's histories, and then whenever someone makes an attempt, they are labeled as shoddy empiricists. The whole system of historical research is rigged against women's studies in such a way that it discredits those who try to shed light on the purposefully forgotten bits of our pasts. Even if Eisler's scholarship is "bad," that does not detract from her message in the slightest. Just as men have twisted history to maintain patriarchal power systems, why can't a woman twist history in order to help us break free from them? To accept all of the history we have been fed in school that indoctrinates us with man's superiority without a grain of salt and then to be critical of this work is entirely hypocritical. Secondly, this book is not about men vs. women. It is not about men being "bad" and women being "good." You didn't even try to read the book if that's what you got out of it. There are certain aspects of humanity that are valued in different ways. Because men are in control and men have gained control through violence and oppression, it ends up that masculine values are might, strength, independence, stoicism, etc. Because women are not in control, they are assigned the aspects of humanity that are opposites: love, emotional expression, affiliation, care, etc. Eisler does not once say that these qualities are inherent to either men or women, they are assigned to men or women based on the dominant cultural ideology. All that Eisler is saying is that these aspects of humanity that have been relegated to women: love, emotion, child-care, vulnerability, etc., should be more highly valued by all humans, and that other aspects, like violence and hierarchy, should be left behind. Who doesn't agree with that?? besides people who greatly benefit from the patriarchal systems that use violence and oppression to exploit other people. My only qualm with this book is that is does not mention non-gender conforming history at all. I would imagine that the history of people who would be considered trans, intersex, non-binary, etc. would be even more deeply buried than that of women's history, but it isn't discussed. A shame and hopefully people are working on digging up these narratives as well.