Adriana wrote
> The unmarried Sarmatian women were warriors, fighting next to
their men; at early adulthood, they would even burn out their right
breast to become better archers. What a painful sacrifice for the
sake
of victory! Those heroic genes must have come from some- where.
This story of the "burning out of the right breast" is a Greek
Etymological Myth, trying to give an explanation of the word "Amazon"
from "A-Mazoi?" meaning without a breast. In actual fact the
probable
origin of the word Amazon comes from the Greek word for Girdle...
The
Greek myth of Heracles and Hippolyta's Girdle (Hippolyta was Queen of
the Amazons) is a case in point.
The Greek myth of the War with the Amazons has been variously
interpreted. One is that amongst the Lukka women warriors were not
unknown. In the time Xerxes invaded Greece Queen Artemesia handled
her fleet so well (by comparison to the Phoenicians) at the Batle of
Salamis that the king is supposed to have said "My men are all turned
to women and the women have become men! Another explanation is that
the archaic Greeks of the Dark Age, who had never seen men on
horseback before interpreted the Thracian Cavalry as Centaurs, and
the
war between the Centaurs and Amazons then would have been a war
between an advance party of Sarmatians and Thracians. This
explanation I find problematic as Sarmatians also fought as mounted
archers.
> However, I wonder if that fact changed the view on women as a
whole in the Sarmatian society.
> For example, tzaritza Olga (890-969) enjoyed her rulership of
Russia, having shown ruthlessness, determination and strength as any
other successful ruler. Before the invasion of Mongolo-Tartars for
300
years, the Russian women were quite equal to men in their rights. But
after,... their were locked up in terems(houses) to become only the
heir-producers, were supposed to ware more coverings, and lost all
their rights. Too many rapes were witnessed, to much humiliation, too
much cruelty and disrespect filtrated into society from the invadors.
Perhaps equality was reestablished this century because we were
needed
so many times during the wars for survival.
> Maybe it always worked like that.
> Patriarchy or matriarchy will always produce disbalance and
revolt.
It is interesting that the first four Women Prime Ministers of modern
times all fought wars. Madame Bandranaike in Sri Langka (a Civil
War), Golda Meir (Israel and the Arabs), Indira Gandhi (Pakistan over
Bangladesh), Maggie Thatcher (the Falklands). Is this because rival
states expect "women" to be "less militaristic and aggressive than
men" and so try to "push" them more, or because women rules have to
prove their "toughness" in systems of power still largely patriarchal
in nature?
Regards
John