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

Dittany,

What you lack in erudition, you make up for in imagination. Now you dip your toes into the waters of etymology:

"Animal husbandry and husband (of a wife) come from the same root. At some point (gee not that long ago) wives were livestock owned by men and of course they still are in some parts of the world:"

I liked this line too:

"I think when feminists find the MRAs agreeing with them, they should reconsider their arguments."

I think it would be more fitting to say that, when your arguments are shown to fly in the face of reason and fact, you need to reconsider them, regardless of who has corrected your folly.
Ultimately, you might consider the possibility that you are, yourself, a sexist bigot who will try and grind any bit of information to fit your own jaundiced view of the world.

... I know that's in a sense a really obvious point to make, but I think it's important because sometimes it gets lost, the fact that men have oppressed women more than women have ever oppressed men, because it's fashionable to stress instead that there's no obvious difference between men's and women's natures.

On one of the old patriarchy threads, somebody came up with a much more accurate qualifier than 'accidental'. Can't remember what it was,

Ohh, I'd like to read The Myth of the Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future by Cynthia Eller

Enjoy the wine GB.

This may be a distasteful thing to say, but we don't really know if it's in the nature of women to oppress men to the degree that men have oppressed women. As with evolution (which is a hypothesis formed by describing the existing evidence), we can theorize that it's (generalization) in the nature of men to oppress women, but not vice-versa.

I should make clear, I'm an optimist and I don't believe there's anything fundamental about the nature of men that makes them more likely to be oppressors than women. But if you look at it as scientists have looked at evolution, you couldn't jump to the conclusion that in some alternative version of history, women would have formed an oppressive matriarchy, any more than the evidence that provides the theory of evolution would let you argue convincingly for a world made in 7 days.

I'm not saying they didn't mean it! That'll be the "Oh dear, I seem to have unintentionally stuck my penis into a woman" rape defence, eh?

In my eyes, it's the nature of may humans to wrest wealth and power from other humans, particularly those perceived as weaker. I see that, itself, as more or less gender neutral. As discussed, I know mine is not the only pov and that the different perspectives are irreconcilable on some points. It doesn't have to mean one's 'right' and one's 'wrong' though, surely?

Pardon the lazy comparison, but it's a bit like me saying British wine's improving because we're learning better methods, while you say it's all down to climate change. Whichever argument may be stronger, we're agreed that the wine's improved.

Have just seen there's a bunch of new replies. But am going out to buy some (Australian) wine ...

Exactly SAF!

garlic - I see what you're saying, about capital having been taken from women, though not necessarily in a planned, 'we'll do this, then this, then that, and then the women will have nothing' way. But I don't personally find the idea of 'accidental patriarchy' valid. People can choose whether or not they reinforce the patriarchy, and a lot of power-structures are set up in such a way that, whatever their ostensible purpose, they also work to reinforce the patriarchy. I don't think 'accidental' is the right word. Don't know if that makes sense?

Tyr - um, India?

garlic butter, what 'threatened institution' was that? There wasn't really any single organisation responsible. And presumably you are speaking of the judges, not the accusers? They certainly had a powerful and often though not always feminised model in mind.

Sorry for ignoring the "ends of earth" discussion. I've been burning to try & clarify this for a few days! Dunno whether I've succeeded but, hey. I tried.

Quite a bit of these discussions reflect the problem of capitalism in its different lights. Do you believe that capital is, originally, the result of theft (spoils of war, land enclosures, etc) or the result of hard work and foresightedness? I'd say "Both", as I imagine many others would, in the framework of contemporary experience. But one's perspective on this question colours one's entire view of social structure and fairness.

Federici understands capitalism as theft, iirc (am probably simplifying a lot). Furthermore, she believes that such theft has been deliberately inflicted on women. Her thesis is that property, labour and children have been systematically stolen from women, by men, to accumulate capital for the patriarchal male.

The fact that I disagree with this somewhat - I think there's a lot more accident, fudgery and unthinkingness involved - goes a long way to explain why Dittany and I disagree fundamentally on some important issues. While there is no disputing the current outcomes, at least not to a feminist, our different perspectives inform what we feel can be done to improve things (and other stuff). I perceive an 'accidental patriarchy'; others see it as a concerted male effort against women.

That explains our irreconcilable perceptions of the witch trials. To me, they were an obscene exertion of power by a threatened institution. The fact that its victims were predominantly women is an 'accident', in that the institution didn't care much about the gender of its victims. Others, like Federici, see it as specifically targeted against women.

LRD,

As a matter of interest, how would you refer to those parts of the world where child slavery and lynch mob justice still prevail?
No matter what gloss you put on it, Europe has progressed a lot by comparison as have other corners of the globe.

BUT IN SOME AREAS MEN WERE IN THE MAJORITY.

What's confused about that? The majority = more than 50%.

So is it the case that witchhunting was only 'misogyny' in areas where the majority of the accused, or the condemned were women? Because if you are suggesting that male witchhunters moved on to men 'later' in these areas, then that too is wrong. Why don't you read Apps and Gow? Or try Early Modern European Witchcraft: Centres and Peripheries (Clarendon Paperbacks) by Bengt Ankarloo and Gustav Henningsen, 1993? I think you will find the chapters on Scandinavia especially helpful.

No need to apologize to me - I was just picking up on a phrase I thought was a bit of a shame. I don't think there's any difference between what Dittany's saying - that we don't have to go far to find examples of women treated appallingly - and saying it happens in India. After all, we're on the internet: for all you know, someone could be posting or reading this from not so far away from what she described happening. It really brings it home, I think.

LRD,

I was not being racist at all; sorry if you felt that. I condemn ignorance, brutality and superstition from whatever quarter.

Dittany,

By contrast to you, Sieglinde appears more informed than "confused." In the probably unlikely event that you will seek out any of the sources she has cited, you could add "Eclipse of the sun" by Janet McCricklard to the list for some interesting perspective on the wider issues.
Alternatively, you could carry on posting ill informed rants and personal attacks.