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

I genuinely don't know. I'm not a historian or an archaologist. I asked what the evidence was.

It has a lot of different case studies. The section on witch hunts looks at both the ones in the past and ones now. It is gendercide.org.

I've not heard of it before, but am going to look at some of the other areas they have written about.

swallowed, I think this film is dishonest and offensive, I'm sorry that's blunt but it is the way I feel. They did not advance any evidence that women goddesses were linked to some kind of woman-power tradition handed down to modern witches. They just didn't. As to the feminine being recognized in the Christian God - read Julian of Norwich. Look at the iconography of Christ as the Pelican. Just google anything to do with Mother Christ.

None of this is obscure, an it's been discussed in this section before. It's not a 'pretence' at all. Just more evidence that the presentation of the divine as feminine does not prove that women were respected as figures of power.

Is there evidence - good solid historical evidence - that 'we' (by this I am assuming you mean western European cultures) worshipped goddesses, though? I am genuinely asking this. I like a nice goddess-myth as much as anyone, and I am very fond of that Crossbones graveyard which I walk past every Thursday* but I do feel the discomfort LRD and others have outlined above, about constructing a 'past' that may or may not have happened.

*on my way to sing Patriarchal Chamber Music

'it is not a good idea for this film to imply that the existence of statues of women goddesses proves their point that women in pre-Christian times were actually powerful.'

But that is not what the film is about. It is about women being tortured to death for carrying out spiritual healing. It does make exaggerations and says numbers are difficult to know exactly, but the high figure quoted is 9 million and I went away with the impression that 9 million witches were killed. Looking it up afterwards, it is a lot less. It also makes some basic errors about dates and Trier etc., but it is not a BBC production up for an Oscar. They should re-edit it and remove these mistakes, but it was an interesting programme that throws light on how women healers were persecuted.

Exactly my worry, GB.

talk about the men who raped women as part of their persecution of women. That's the rape that's important.

As compared to some unimportant rape?

I've been reading the account of the witch trials on the Gendercide website. Has anybody got experience of reading about other events on the website?

There is no way in hell that is a 'mistake'. It's a misrepresentation; a lie.

As to not talking about what the men do ... you have just told me to stop talking about rape. You. Not men. You. You'd rather have a bitch at me than hear me talk about rape. Which one is more important, dittany, women getting raped or you having a bitch on the internet?

Poor scholarship in a documentary that purports to be historical plays into the hands of people who think that women aren't capable of rigorous thinking/study/analysis, though. A point that LDR and others have been making consistently on this thread.

Hahaha, LDR the parrot.

Good points as always dittany.

I also just noticed you managed to write 'That's the rape that's important'.

Please just stop and look at what you are saying.

dittany, I am saying that they, in falsifying women's history in order to make a feminist point, play into the hands of misogynists who think women lie about rape in order to make a feminist point. This is a serious issue. It's not something you can make go away because you find it unpalatable. I don't imagine those film makers intended to do that, but it is what tehy did. That's why they should have thought before deciding to speed away the facts and put their version in place.

Erm, as long as rape is treated the way it is in our culture, I think I'll 'bring it in' wherever I damn well like! How dare you try to shut me up when I mention it?

dittany, read my last posts. I have already explained that it is not a good idea for this film to imply that the existence of statues of women goddesses proves their point that women in pre-Christian times were actually powerful.

This film argued that witches, 'strong women' preserved ancient, pre-Christian traditions of their power. Images of female goddesses, though interested, do not prove this at all. Since the image of the woman goddess was the only piece of evidence they advanced for pre-Christian non-Roman attitudes towards women, I think this is extremely shoddy.

Come on ... I'm not saying something difficult to grasp am I? Really?

If you want to say it's a beautiful inspiring image of a woman goddess and you'd like to imagine her being a reminder of woman power, go right ahead. But don't pretend it's history.