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

I laugh at your Norman Conquest and raise you the Whitby Synod...

Well I disagree with that.

The devil is very often in the detail.

Otherwise, anybody can rewrite history to suit themselves. That way lies propaganda and dogmatism.

So, who can tell me the date of the Norman Conquest?

'But then given that you're pretty ignorant about feminism LRD so you proabably won't understand that'

There seems to be so many different varieties of feminism though Dittany, I missed the Second wave altogether, and the Third wave seems to be what I was fighting against in the First wave.

The White Goddess is a fascinting book about this subject. I suspect Graves is a hideous mysoginist and the book was written by his girlfriend....but still a wonderful book. He hated it later but who cares.

From the BBC website:
"It was the Norman Conquest that really cemented the power of the church in England. William the Conqueror implemented a colossal building project at both monastic and parish level. In Winchester, for example, the old Saxon Minster made way for a new Norman building. These new stone churches continued to play a central role in community life: they acted as schools, market places and entertainment venues."

I guess they are refering to this, when the church became established and accepted by most people.

So, Dittany, what you are saying is that bad history is better than no history?

I think many of you are projecting your own desire to portray women as the perennial victims of oppression onto an era of history. Many undoubtedly were victims of male bigotry but you have allowed that aspect to colour your view of a much more widespread phenomena. The results are rather cartoonish, to say the least. Some of the posts on this thread are informed more by blatant misandry ("daddy's girl?") than rational perspective
In some countries, Iceland in particular, the overwhelming majority of "witches" burned were male (up to 90% according to some authorities)
The most noted persecutions were of organised heretics; Templar Knights, Cathars, Bulgars; predominately male- in the case of the Templars, exclusively so.
Oh, and women make and enjoy pornography too.

Dittany, the point is, it's ignorant not to understand why that dating is important. Though, it's been explained enough times and in simple enough language, I'd have thought you'd have got it by now.

What you're saying about this documentary is a bit like saying 'Darn, it's a shame there aren't more books about child abuse, but at least we have Lolita'.

(Actually - because I should be fair - it's true I'm not a historian but I do know a shedload of history. Nevertheless, it's pretty funny to suggest you need advanced training in history to know this stuff.)

dittany, I'm not a historian either. I don't need to be a historian. People have explained that their small children know some of this stuff. This is not - despite your attempts to paint it that way - us Nasty Misogynist Academics victimizing Poor Little Dittany with our arcane knowledge.

You may be ignorant about this stuff; fine. But the film makers, do you see, should not be. It's dishonest that they pretend to be making a documentary and take no responsibility for getting the facts even vaguely close to right. Apologizing for them by saying they're 'making mistakes' is ludicrous.

How can it be correct overall when it kicks off with a completely incorrect vision of some never-existed-ever matriarchal utopia pre-Christianity? I agree that the witchcrazes (or hunts, whatever) were insane, rampant misogyny but what good is pretending those earlier societies were not also oppressively patriarchal - albeit to a less bloodthirsty extent?

If you make a film about an historical event, it is usual for the people who find out the information that is going to be used in the film to be different to the people interviewed. If that isn't the case then it is made clear that it is a film about the view of some particular historian, religious person or other figure.

The whole film is about paganism. Much of it is not about witch trials at all, but about supernatural practices in Roman Britain, Brazil, Peru and so on.

Starhawk is a consultant on the film. She has asked the pope to apologise to modern day pagans, and specifically said both men and women, for the witch trials. She has not asked for an apology to be made to all women as a group.

Sorry, HH, cross posted.

The date I objected to was 1132, which the film says is when Christianity is 'new' in Trier. I think Trier was Christianized in the second century AD. I totally agree Christianity took a long time to spread over Europe and someone pointed out further up the threat that Iceland, for example, wasn't Christianized until the High Middle Ages. (It's interesting, given the film equates pre-Christian culture with a positive attitude towards women witches, that Iceland is also according to SGM a country where witch trials focused exclusively on men.)

I think it was also about scapegoating.
The persecutions happened at a time where superstition, religious faith and beliefs and good and evil were seen as constantly present and real threats.
The use of prayer as a cure, the use of religious bits and bobs to turn away evil and sickness and famine. So when things went wrong, it was easy to look around for a weaker, powerless and available target to attack and blame.
Women without power, or under the protection of someone powerful were a very easy target. In hard times, the persecutions increased and people turned on their neighbours. They wanted to blame 'the other'
Look at when the persecutions began to die out, around the age where rational and logical answers were being sought after by proto-scientists.

Dittany, it is clear on this thread that you are ignorant about a lot of history. You had to ask me what was inaccurate about the film in the first place, and you still seem to think it would be possible for a group of people intelligent enough to hold down jobs, to make a 'mistake' of the magnitude of this dating error.

I know no-one can be well informed about everything, but why you think ignorance is something to be proud of, I don't understand. You're acting as if any insistence on basic accuracy is an affront.