While it is undeniably true that women have been persecuted throughout history, that women’s knowledge has hidden in the shadows for the most part, that women were targeted by the witch trials, that women have lived in fear for much of history, that knowledge has been lost over time, the particulars of this post are erroneous. What follows is a debunking of not the general sentiment of the post (that being, men have subjugated women in the past and women are right to be wary of them) but instead of the specific assertions made with regards to witch trials– those having been proven wrong by scholars in the 43 years since the publication of the source cited.
I was initially leery of this post (especially the bit provided by radicalveganwitch) because of how unnecessarily inflammatory it was. A little more research and a closer look at the post itself revealed that my suspicions were spot on. Only one source had been cited: Woman Hating by Andrea Dworkin. Further exploration of the information about the source reveals that it was written in 1974, and almost every claim regarding witch hunts that it made has since been quite thoroughly debunked. Additionally, it MUST be noted that this book is *not* a history. It is a radical feminist piece of sociology, the primary intention of which was to vividly illustrate the sexism faced by modern women. This intention is made abundantly clear by the fact that the chapter “Gynocide: Chinese Foot Binding” ends with a diagram of a woman, all splayed out with her parts labeled with the beauty regimen expected of the modern woman. Most illustrative of this is the label by the left foot: “FEET: bound, heeled, pointed” and by the right foot “TOENAILS: painted.” Modern women do not suffer foot-binding and did not in 1974 either. The parallel the author is making between the sufferers of foot binding– a process that literally broke women’t feet– and modern beauty expectations could not be clearer.
On to a balanced critique of Dworkin’s chapter “Gynocide: The Witches.” Of a 32 page chapter, the first 10 pages are spent discussing things unrelated to witches, illustrating only the indisputable fact of the misogyny of the medieval Catholic Church as well as discussing the persecution of heretics and Catholicism’s relationship with Paganism. Dworkin also persists in referring to the Medieval Period as the Dark Ages, a phrase that is sure to get medieval scholars up in arms. In fact, the most generally accepted dates for the Medieval Period are 400 to 1400 or 1450. This means that the majority of the witch hunting occurred in the Renaissance/Early Modern Period, the main characteristic of which was revival of Classical thought (the lack of which Dworkin pointed out as the *main problem* with the “Dark Ages”).
Modern scholarship points out that the end of the so-called “Dark Ages” actually constituted a significant regression in the rights of women, for a general look and further reading see qqueenofhades‘ posts about the treatment of women in Medieval Europe. For a microcosm, see my own post on medieval medical women. It is true that the Medieval Church and medieval society in general were horrifically misogynistic, but to claim them responsible for Early Modern witch hunts is like saying they were responsible for the Thirty Years War– true in a historical sense, in a roundabout manner, but by no means the immediate culprit. In fact, the most immediate culprits for both the Early Modern Witch Hunt *and* the Thirty Years War are the creation of Protestantism and the printing press. Protestantism and the religious strife it created destabilized many areas of Europe as it delegitimized the old reigning power of Catholicism, throwing society on its head and sending it looking for scapegoats. It is no coincidence that the areas most affected by the strife caused by the Reformation were also those most prone to witch hunts. The Malleus maleficarum WAS the definitive guide to witch hunting for both Catholic and Protestant, just as Dworkin asserts. It is also horrifically misogynistic, as Dworkin asserts. After spending 15 pages discussing the demographics of witch trials and various other information relevant to them, Dworkin spends the last 7 pages discussing the relationship of the alleged witches testimony to the rituals of the old pagan religion of the region. We have now officially veered from the topic at hand. In this section, Dworkin asserts that Early Modern Christians had a devout hatred of nature, and that this was what prompted their misogyny. It is plain to see that she is a product of the radical feminism of her time, using witch hunting as convenient historical vehicle to present the Church as the ultimate oppressor of women, a completely vile and misogynistic villain in the history of the world. Her emphasis on sexuality and nature in this last section returns to the thesis of her entire book: that is, women must fight their oppressors to be free. In fact, on the last page of the chapter, she uses an explicit call to action “The Church has not changed its premises; the culture has not refuted those premises. It is left to us, the inheritors of that myth, to destroy it and the institutions based on it.” She is not completely wrong (or was not in 1974, at least. The Church has spent the last 40 years or so working on it), but the way that she goes about doing it is unnecessarily provocative and brings to mind the most obnoxious professor I ever had, whose class “Feminist Christian Doctrine” was an exercise in frustration– especially considering that there is no such thing as Feminist Christian Doctrine. Doctrine is, by definition, the rules and rituals of the church, the information provided *outside* of the Bible. In the historical context, there is nothing feminist about the doctrine of the church post-Augustine, and even a feminist reading of a document like the Malleus is perfectly impossible. The most the church can possibly earn, doctrine-wise, is a “Not as Big of a Jerk as You Could Have Been” star– and even that is stretching it in some places. Now Dworkin is no where near as bad as this professor was (she, at least, acknowledged that pagans were polytheists rather than goddess worshipers), but the shades of that professor were what caused my initial wariness to this post.
As to the bits quoted above, 9 million is no longer considered to be anywhere near an accurate ballpark number for total “witch” deaths (though, in 1974 they were believed to be accurate). Current estimates have it at 40,000 to 50,000 executed, with 25% being men. That is nowhere *near* the 9 million mark (or even the 1 million mark) and a far cry from 99% women. Though the Malleus did specifically call out midwives as doing the devil’s work, it was rare the case that midwives burned as witches. The primary target of witch hunts was an older woman who was unmarried and childless– either a widow or a spinster. She was seen as a burden to the community and was an easy target with no man to protect her interests in court. Not so the midwife, who not even the most misogynistic could call “useless” and who were generally regarded as trustworthy. The village “wise woman” was far more likely to suffer the fate of being burned as a witch than the village midwife. Looking at the descriptions of “witches” in Dworkin’s own treatise, it is plain that her evidence linking midwives to witches is only the fanatical tirade of the Malleus, for when she describes them, she describes an herbalist more than a midwife. It should be noted that Dworkin did not pull the assertion that midwives were a primary target out of the air, however. An influential work was published in 1973 (one year before Dworkin’s treatise) that appears to have been Dworkin’s main source. It is that work that is debunked in the Gendercide Watch article linked below.
Sources: A “Fact or Fiction” article published by Mt. Holyoke University for specific information on midwives accused of witchcraft, and “Case Study:
The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today” published by Gendercide Watch.
As to the Voynich manuscript, it remains a mystery, despite jaqueleebleb’s assertion that it was written by a woman or multiple women. It is absolutely possible that it was– certainly more possible than it being written by aliens– and the biological section probably has to do with women’s health or anatomy in some way. Alternatively, the “biological” section has been misnamed. The writing is untranslatable, and so the section which’s only illustrations are naked women in baths could just as easily be about socialization or hygiene or the power of women. I may have found the blog post mentioned above, and the blogger has a case at least as solid as any of the other theories floating around. But is that evidence enough for a decisive claim to be made? I think not. And why hasn’t the blogger found a reputable journal or educational magazine to publish her theory in? The blog also gives some translations of words which are suspect at best. As to the assertion that the manuscript must have been written by a woman because the women depicted are not pretty (one not made in the blog, I feel I should point out)– I find it laughable. In fact, the women depicted are drawn in the style of medical manuscripts of the time, which is probably why the section has been labelled “biological” rather than any other possible label. A link to the blog as well as a link to the PDF of the manuscript itself. Make up your own mind with regards to this.
2087
tangentwithtanner
kianamaiart
pixelskylines
prguitarman
origamiaround
turnnoffyourmind
janainaart
snowghoul
