I love this. It's very insightful, and timely as some male "experts" have recently pushed the theory that these figurines were "pornography."

There are a few flaws in the essay I've spotted so far:

But this became complicated for reasons other than what the academic old guard was saying. Many Indigenous women objected to the goddess nomenclature. Some prefer to speak of spirits, who could be primordial beings or nature spirits or ancestors. The Navajo refer to “the holy people,” rather than to “gods and goddesses". And often these beings are named in kinship terms, like Our Mother, or Old Woman Who Never Dies, among the Mandan. The Shawnee revered Our Grandmother the Creator, Kokomthena, who is clearly a deity.

Ancient Pagans in the Eastern hemisphere, not just Christians, did view their gods and goddesses as having maternal and paternal roles. Not all of them, and frequently not in the mythology where gods and goddesses frequently behaved like Seinfeld characters. However, through religious worship, the gods functioned in the same way, as spirits, caretakers akin to supernatural parents, etc. It would be a mistake to confuse their mythology with their worship.

There are a range of cultural approaches among the many ethnicities. In the Pueblo traditions, Spider Grandmother acts as a creator (see the writings of Leslie Marmon Silko and Paula Gunn Allen). Barbara Mann has laid out stories of co-creation by multiple beings (and this is not only true of Iroquoian traditions). She views the coalescence by the 20th century of “Creator" discourse as the product of christianizing influence. I’ve read and heard North American traditions that speak of Creator in masculine terms, but in recent decades have noticed a shift, as prayers that used to be directed to Grandfather changing to Grandfather, Grandmother, or reversed. Which is how i’ve seen it in Mapuche prayers to the Grandmothers and Grandfathers of the East, South, West, and North.

Some Native Americans bristle at the "Christian influence" theory, since that assumes that they couldn't/didn't independently come up with an idea on their own. It's just as colonial to assume that a similarity is therefore certainly the product of influence. While there are many Native American dualist/sacred couple creator gods, or even goddesses, there are some that are male creator gods. One example is Itzamna. He is the Mayan creator god.

There's a pretty good theory that the arc of religious belief centers around one creator god, expands into polytheism with varying focus on a major deity, before a resurgence of monotheism. So if most cultures start out with some sort of creator deity, they're going to look similar by virtue of that alone. It might not be due to influence. If polytheistic cultures still have one chief creator deity, they're going to look similar. There's no reason to assume that differences exist because of a lack of influence but similarities are DEFINITELY the result of influence for current beliefs. Of course some beliefs will be influenced but not all, and maybe not even most.

While Venus was definitely redefined and portrayed to suit the male gaze, when used against African women, it was sarcasm, denigration, and contempt. Men still viewed Venus as something to be worshipped, even if lusted after. If you're torturing a woman, which is not something you would ever do to a goddess, you don't view her as symbolic of divinity.

Furthermore, ALL the figurines from all over the world, are called "Venus figures." To men, Venus was still equated with beauty, and was applied to any women that met their sexual ideals. I don't think examples of racist uses of the label Venus means it was completely racialized. Just the fact that "Venus" figurines are all called Venus no matter where they come from points to more Male Gaze. (The most famous "Venus figurines" are from Germany, it should be noted). Remember, men think that sexually desiring a woman is the same as complimenting her.

That African women were experimented on by 19th century scientists shows that their attitudes were decidedly anti divine. These women were not even human, let alone symbolic of a goddess. The brutality is not rooted in worship or reverence (however tangled in lechery). It's actually sacrilege, desecration.

I am not too familiar with this subject, but I remember reading (maybe here) of an interpretation of some of these figurines as coming from the perspective of a woman looking down at her body--a subjective, rather than objective gaze.

The author's interrogation of the word "Venus" for these figures was illuminating for me, especially the example of Sara Baartram, her daughter, as well as Nomtetha Nkwekwe and the other African women horrifically experimented upon in the name of "science." It makes me sick to imagine their suffering.

Edit: Thank you m0RT_1 for sharing. This is an interesting website.

So cool, nice to see historians trying to correct the misconceptions about these figurines. It never felt right seeing them called dolls or Venus whatevers in a museum. They were clearly much more special and purposeful than that. This is awesome!