Who Are The Amazons?
Translated from Norwegian by Thomas Gramstad
Published in Amazons International no. 63
Problems of definition frequently pop up in Amazons International. Usually raised by men, or so it seems to me.
When my interest for Amazons started to grow in the early 1980es, the Amazons as a society fascinated me the most. Particularly the question whether such a society had ever existed, and whether it is possible to determine the time and place that such a society existed.
To my eyes, the accumulated evidence is now so strongly in favor of the existence of one, or rather several such societies, with varying degrees of female political, military and religious domination, that I, without hesitation, will answer the question whether I “believe in the Amazons” with a decided YES.
I also believe that the basis of the Amazon society was religion. Worship of one, or rather several goddesses, which when added up may be referred to as The Goddess. The existence of female warriors may therefore be rooted in the society’s choice of religion, and the defense of this religion.
In my opinion, the definition of an Amazon must be a woman who was a member of a certain society, in which the warrior caste consisted of women. But it would be wrong to define only the warriors as Amazons. We may call them Amazon warriors if we like, but they were no more Amazons than the priestesses of the society, or women of any other class.
In our individualized and internationalized age, in which it for all practical purposes is the MOVEMENT (if we want to call it that) which replaces the old Amazon society, my claim is that being an Amazon is determined by CHOICE, not by muscles, not by orientation, not by accidental elements like, e.g., being genetically condemned or blessed with having a bigger or smaller body than the average of one’s social group or family group. Since the Amazons were a horse-riding people (it is claimed that they invented the stirrup), one might, on the basis of a single isolated criterion (for those who are so inclined), start looking for Amazons exclusively among girls who are interested in horses!
My claim then, is that a modern Amazon is a woman who exists in a context which may be called “Amazonian”, and of course her beliefs and attitudes are more important than her appearance! Also, it includes or may include any woman who is a part of that which we, generalizing a little, may refer to as THE MOVEMENT.
We may very well say that strength is a criterion too, but the concept of strength is so complex and elusive that defining it as, e.g., the ability to lift weights, is ridiculous.
The experience from different revolutions and from WWII has demonstrated that women, and especially during revolutions like the one in Spain in 1936, stand on the barricades at the first opportunity. Heras or Amazons or both?
The way the definitions in AI seem to be headed will, I believe, lead to something bizarre. One will probably end up defining those as Amazons who would have great difficulties adjusting to the old Amazon society… if the HERAS don’t qualify as Amazons, then I think the definitions have reached a dead end.
We men ought to know even better than women that muscular strength in itself doesn’t necessarily imply anything else than perhaps being able to get a job in a furniture removal company. Unless the muscles get so much in the way that one breaks the furniture instead of moving it.
Humankind has become (for a little good and much bad) the ruler of the world not because of muscular strength, but because of brainpower and the ability to teamwork. If we men, of all people, begin to press female ideals towards muscular strength only, then we might easily be suspected of wanting toiling, easy-to-control manual workers, controlled by us computer-literate small men. Women who can fight for us, lift pianos (if and when we wish something like that), play with us in bed, etc. etc., while we can devote ourselves to deeper or higher spiritual and political activities like analyzing the purpose and meaning of the Amazons…
Within the Catholic church they once discussed gravely and ardently how many angels could stand or sit on the point of a needle. Any discussion of definitions that aims for some kind of purism, will unavoidably end up counting angels.
This many inches of bicep and you are in, a tenth of an inch too little and you’re out.
It’s much more interesting to discuss whether we men have anything to do in an Amazon movement at all. The answer must be yes. Again rooted in the basis of “Amazonism” as something social, a cultural or societal phenomenon. An Amazon society without men is actually quite difficult to imagine, even though we can imagine parts or branches of this society to be devoid of men, like the Lesbian Amazon Association etc.
Can men be Amazons?
At first glance, the question appears ludicrous. But we know that many societies have existed in which gender identity has been chosen by the individual. At the same time I fear that this tolerant point of view was the very thing that undermined the old Amazon society. The pressure from male-dominated neighbor cultures may have lead men in the Amazon society to choose more and more of the typical female roles in their society: warriors, priestesses, political positions
– even though the prize such a “modern” man had to pay sometimes may have seemed high – he had to become a woman! That is, he had to allow himself to be castrated.
Then at some point there were more men than women in the professions of power in the Amazon society, and in practice that meant the extinction of this society.
There is an interesting parallel to this process today: women in male professions. Some of the women in the front of this process, who have achieved high positions, have been accused of “becoming masculine” or “making themselves into men”. If this process is seen as a historical parallel to the Amazon society, this claim is utterly wrong. It’s not about becoming men, it is about TAKING BACK positions, using some of the very same means that men once used against women!
Now, I’m actually in favor of the completely egalitarian society, in which every individual herself/himself choose their place. But if men are to choose a place in the Amazon movement, it must be with a full recognition of the fact that Amazonism is feminism, and not just another meat market (or should I have said muscle market?) for men with particular cravings or adult small boys who miss mommy’s spanking hands.
An Amazon is a woman who chooses to see herself as an Amazon, completely independent of whatever edicts or definitions the authorities of the central committee of any Amazon political party might come up with.
No more bullshit. An Amazon is an Amazon is an Amazon.