The Burning Times: fascinating docu on women's power before Christianity

Milly, I'm interested in that distinction - though I had to read your sentence several times

If Group A attacks Group B, say by invading their town, and goes on a murder spree, history suggest they will rape the women (and, perhaps, boys) before killing them.

Whereas, if Group A undergoes a redistribution of power, will they rape their own women? Dunno, but it's less of a given.

Is that the sort of thing you meant?

SAF, I think there is a distinction between explicitly targetting a subgroup within society ( say by class or ethnicity) and attacking all people in that group, but attacking the women in that group in ways that are gender specific, and attacking women as a group including women who belong to the same group (other than gender) of the attackers.

You've only partially swallowed it, that's why. Have another bucket of wine; that should drown it.

People didn't know what menstruation was for ages. They found the fact that women bleed - as much as from a bad wound - very freakish, and almost supernatural. Ignorance accounts for most bigoted and/or superstitious fears; in this case, I have to say, it does seem fairly supernatural! Or it would, if my periods didn't make me anaemic.

... which could lead to another thread diversion, on pragmatic reasons behind the belief that women are weak. Anaemia is very common in women.

Brian, I liked your contraception post, thanks.

LRD - I took Tyr's 'sting a bit' remark to be about your friends changing their names on marriage. It wasn't particularly nice, but I felt you made a link that hadn't been intended.

God that's awful SAF. I had a fling with a right-on Marxist once, he was ever so knowledgeable and enthusiastic about feminist theory but he would lecture me for hours on end and shot down everything I said in flames. I felt much more oppressed and resentful than I ever have with less enlightened boyfriends

I want to come back to Dittany's point from 22.59. To rephrase it a bit, because I want to include the present as well as the past -why do some men collectively feel the need to torture and murder women, and why does it then get enshrined in their institututions.

I am assuming that it is uncontroversial to say that life will be worse for women in a certain culture at a certain time. So while I am not denying that there was discrimination against women in the UK in say, 1930, it is not as bad as being tortured and murdered for being a witch by a powerful instituion at an earlier point in History.

I am assuming that it is also uncontroversial to say that at some times, institutions will focus on other groups, and subject them to more abuse and hatred than the abuse they subject women as a group to, although of course the subgroup being persecuted often contains men, women and children.

So what happens in the build up to a system of extreme persecution coming into existence? How do we move from mild to extreme forms of discrimination/hatred/othering. And why is it sometimes women who are explicitly attacked in an extreme fashion, and why is it sometimes other groups who are attacked in an extreme fashion?

From the internet: would be interesting to read more about this. I am still working up the courage to empty my mooncup onto my flowerbeds...

From Red Flower: Rethinking Menstruation by Dena Taylor

The Greeks thought that menstruating women had some power over the earth's fertility and that specific rites evolved for that purpose. Women retire to re-birth themselves, and were in tune with the earth's cycles and fertility. One of the ways that menstruating women were able to increase the productivity of the earth was by fertilizing the soil and seeds with their menstrual blood.

SAF-you made a lucky escape. Sweatlodges nasty. I did one once, completely creeped me out. I had to escape under the canvas and run away, naked through the heather.

All this spiritual woo makes me itchy to be honest. Give up on rationality and there is too much room for demagogury (sp?)

SAF - thanks, will check that out.

Tyr - my theory is it'd be interesting. That's why I said it'd be interesting. You know what? That was because I thought it'd be interesting.

Grasping how this thing called language works now?

I'm off to bed - night all.

Weren't there various Native American ceremonies that recognised girls' first menstruation as a way of welcoming them into adulthood? I don't think all the traditional cultural connotations are negative.

LRD,

As a matter of interest, exactly what would your theory about the caves, the menstrual blood and those "red bits" be were it true?

Ooh, I just remembered, I meant to post ages ago but forgot - SAF, re. menstruation and early culture, I heard that some scientists wanted to test the pigment in the walls of some of the Lescaux caves because they had an idea that it might have contained menstrual blood (you know, the caves that have vulvas and red bits that some people think might be wombs on). Interesting, if so - but I don't think they were allowed to do it/got results from it, sadly.

Ah, yes. Women all menstruate together so men can conveniently have much sex with many women at once. That is why the poor things have needs, you know?

I was thinking more, if it's menstrual blood in the paint, it'd suggest menstruation wasn't always considered dirty and disgusting ... but as you say, interpreting any of this stuff is footprints of the gods territory. I just like the idea.